Rand Paul Highlights Obama and John McCain’s Horrible Civil Liberties Records

Townhall.com ^ | March 9, 2013 | Julie Borowsky

[9YearLurker]

There’s also a former governor from Alaska with a strong libertarian streak in her.

[thirst4truth]

I loved how Paul put it interpreting the letter he received from the Attorney General before he filibustered.

"We have not done it yet, we have no intention of doing it, but we might."

[thirst4truth]

Drones are just more Big Government.

Should they even be allowed on or over US soil? They are a military aircraft to monitor foreign lands where there is a war. Who is flying the plane and launching the missiles? Military right? Military drones should never be used to fly over American soil, including the police.

Am I being paranoid here? I have big property filled with natural resources, it bothers me so much to have to worry about a drone manned by anybody from the government checking my property out, isn't that a 4th amendment violation?

I heard a story recently that 30,000 drones are going to be bought by counties and cities for police usage in the next ten years, are you kidding me? We have to stop this, at least with a helicopter or a vehicle you know the man is checking you out, but a silent military aircraft with deadly weaponry is just too much. Where is the outrage?

[tanknetter]

Senator McCain took it a step further to mock young people that were inspired by Senator Paul’s efforts, saying that “if Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids."

The last shred of respect I had for McCain based on his service and captivity during Vietnam just evaporated.

They're no longer relevant.

[Tublecane]

You are not paranoid. Cops are already using them to tiptoe around the 4th amendment, if that amendment in fact still has the force of law. They may be flying over your property, but you don’t own the sky, do you?

Some argue drones aren’t any different than other technology allowing for warrantless searches, like drug sniffing dogs or x-rays at the airport. But I’ve always hated those, too, especially the dogs. First of all we have no idea whether they’re any good. It’s not as if judges do a blind test if their abilities after the fact. We just have to take the cops’ word for it. Secondly, we don’t necessarily know they’re indicating drugs, even if drugs end up being present. Again, we’re taking the cops’ word for it.

Most importantly, whoever said cops can bypass the need for a warrant merely because some machine (dogs being genetically engineered drug smelling machines) tells them crime is present. Readily apparent evidence of wrongdoing ought to be just that: readily apparent. That is, apparent to the human senses, not to a dog’s nose or an infrared camera attached to a robot hovering far above the earth.