|Theoretical hot chicks in Senator Paul's hot tub by theoretical drone surveillance|
Then I see a quote from the Jr. Senator from Kentucky today:
"If there is a killer on the loose in a neighborhood, I’m not against drones being used to search them"That was from Salon which some might consider a liberal rag sheet, so I went to The Hill and confirmed. Good Grief! His whole point in the filibuster was fight against using drones on US soil against US citizens - the surviving Boston Marathon Massacre bomber suspect being just that. He went on further to explain himself:
“Here’s the distinction — I have never argued against any technology being used against having an imminent threat an act of crime going on," Paul said. "If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him, but it’s different if they want to come fly over your hot tub, or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone, and they want to watch your activities."What the Fruity Pebbles is he talking about?? That's no Libertarian talk - Tea Party, maybe. But why the concern about a fly-over to see his possibly naked rear and peepee parts being more important than taking out suspected crooks with a drone? Or even a policeman's gun? The Fourth Amendment generally protects your private parts, but the Fifth with its due process protects your life! (Which is sort of necessary for all other rights like liberty, pursuit of happiness in hot tubs, etc.)
One of the problem with drones is the collateral damage of complete innocents, like children, not just the innocents-until-proven-guilty who still present Constitutional problems. The other problem is the implication of declaring the US Mainland a war-zone which is another thing I thought Libertarians were generally against.
I tried really, really hard. But Senator Paul - you, sir, are a Looney Tune.