Earlier, I blogged about statements from Rand Paul, where he implied that he was okay with using a lethal drone strike in the case of a criminal investigation, where a suspect posed a threat.

In a statement, Rand walked balk that statement:

“My comments last night left the mistaken impression that my position on drones had changed.

“Let me be clear: it has not. Armed drones should not be used in normal crime situations. They only may only be considered in extraordinary, lethal situations where there is an ongoing, imminent threat. I described that scenario previously during my Senate filibuster.

“Additionally, surveillance drones should only be used with warrants and specific targets.

“Fighting terrorism and capturing terrorists must be done while preserving our constitutional protections. This was demonstrated last week in Boston. As we all seek to prevent future tragedies, we must continue to bear this in mind.”

So a lethal drone strike could not be used to take out a guy running out of a 7-11 carrying a stack of bills and a Glock?

H/T Ilya Shapiro