Kentucky Senator Rand Paul expressed strong disapproval of Vice President JD Vance's recent comments on a U.S. military strike. Vance had praised the attack on a small Venezuelan boat suspected of drug trafficking, calling it the "highest and best use of our military." This commendation did not sit well with Paul, who responded vehemently on social media.

In his post on X, Paul condemned Vance’s remarks: "What a despicable and thoughtless sentiment it is to glorify killing someone without a trial." The senator's reaction underscored his longstanding critique of unchecked U.S. military actions and raised questions about the legality and morality of such operations.

Speaking to reporters, Paul elaborated on his concerns, highlighting the lack of evidence and due process in such military decisions. "Maybe [the boat] was coming here. Maybe it wasn't. But nobody's even asking whether we need to prove that. We just blow them up," he remarked. He pointed out that this approach to interdiction was not typical for the Coast Guard, which seldom resorts to destruction of vessels.

Paul's frustration peaked when discussing Vance’s apparent indifference towards legal and ethical standards. "But I think what really ticked me off and got me going," he said, "was for someone to glorify the idea of killing people without any due process and saying he just didn't give a shit what anybody who was going criticize him was going to say. That to me was a disdain for human life and a disdain for processes."

Despite the uproar, Paul mentioned he had not received any communication from Vance or the White House regarding his comments. He also expressed ambivalence about the efficacy of conducting a Senate hearing on the matter through the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which he chairs. "Hearings aren't always the answer to everything," he noted, still pondering the necessity of presenting clear evidence before taking lethal action.

Additionally, Paul addressed criticisms suggesting that his stance might imply support for drug traffickers. He clarified his position, stating, "It doesn't mean I'm pro-fentanyl because I think we should figure out if someone actually is a drug dealer before we kill them. No, that just means that I'm pro having some kind of process before you kill people.”

As the debate continues, the implications of Vance's comments and Paul's criticisms highlight deep divisions within U.S. politics over military policy and the respect for human rights and legal processes.

*Mia McCarthy contributed to this report.*