*It's not about Rand Paul!*
It's about the limits of executive power in our constitutional democracy. Everyone who has concerns about this had them before Rand Paul's stunt. And while it's nice to have somebody press the administration on this, I really wish it hadn't been Rand Paul. He's like a gift of shovels for those who want to bury the issue behind the shed. Now it seems we're doomed to relive the empty and shrill Ron Paul Witch Hunts of the campaign... 
= new reply since forum marked as read
Rand Paul doesn't need drones because he would have already sent the big one in and blown up Iran if he would have the opportunity
Along with go back to the 1850s and take away every consittutional right from anyone who was not the exact same as when Jefferson wrote "All men are created equal"
that look like and act like Thomas Jefferson).
no miniorities no women included according to Thomas Jefferson
Thanks but not thanks.
Rand Paul never even read the constitution.
and Rand Paul like his father before him, would love to elect Jeb Bush, and will do all he can to see if he can divide the democratic party to allow Jeb to sneak in, much like the other 3rd party losers did in the past.
Then what do we do as far as getting terrorists in remote lawless regions? 
Any alternative proposals? Paul's filibuster was him grandstanding for the cameras and attacking President Obama over a policy that he, in fact, supports. Nobody's talking about randomly targeting John and Jane Doe with drones here- or elsewhere.
Response to ljm2002 (Reply #26)
That is your entire argument. It is based on nothing other than politics.
You will not find a lot of Rand Paul supporters around here, but you will find many who are glad he brought this issue up for debate.
As for the "illogical dust in the air", again: I am borrowing your own reasoning here. YOU agree with John Bolton and Dick "Heart of Darkness" Cheney as to the President's power to use drones to assassinate American citizens. That makes you a supporter of them, by the same token that you tell us we are supporting (or excuse me, "validating"
Rand Paul if we agree at all with his use of the filibuster to bring up debate on this issue.
And as usual you completely ignore the question I posed: does Amy Goodman also enjoy your enmity, since she has expressed support for Rand Paul's filibuster and mentions Glenn Greenwald's article? Do you claim that she must be a Rand Paul supporter, since she agreed with his use of the filibuster for this issue? Or do you only apply that reasoning to some of us and not others? If so, how do you decide who is able to reason out issues on their own, vs. those who need your guidance in order to arrive at the correct conclusion?
...that people are "validating Rand Paul by supporting his drone bill".
Therefore your position cannot be a principled one, since his bill (as quoted by you) states pretty much the same rules as are claimed by the Obama administration: namely, that the President can order the assassination of a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil if he decides that citizen is "engaged in combat".
Or maybe you can clarify the difference between the position claimed in Holder's memo (the one where you say "No means No", while ignoring the carefully crafted qualifying clause "not engaged in combat" , and the "key language" that you quoted in Rand Paul's bill.
Or maybe you can clarify the difference between the position claimed in Holder's memo (the one where you say "No means No", while ignoring the carefully crafted qualifying clause "not engaged in combat"
, and the "key language" that you quoted in Rand Paul's bill....Paul's bill isn't "much the same rules as are claimed by the Obama administration." Still, you're accusing someone of not having a "principled" position by arguing that Paul's bill is the same as Obama's, but it's OK to validate such a bill because there's no difference between the two?
OK, so what the hell would be the critics' point? I'm not accusing the Obama administration of hypocrisy. Holder answered Paul's bullshit hypothetical, and the answer is "no."
I am accusing Paul of demagoguery and hypocrisy. Paul's bill opens Pandora's Box, and now he has people buying into that.
By Adam Serwer
Not wanting to take Attorney General Eric Holder's word for it that the US government won't be sending deadly flying robots to kill its own citizens on American soil, Senators Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) have introduced a bill that would "prohibit drone killings of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil if they do not represent an imminent threat."
The bill all but disarms the US government, leaving it with few options for lethal force against citizens other than guns, tanks, helicopters, snipers, paramilitary squads, bombs, tasers and blunt force.
Unless you're not in the United States, or you're an "imminent threat." In that case, the government can drone away.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/03/gop-senators-introduce-bill-banning-domestic-drone-assassinations
Use of drones to kill Americans not OK "if they do not represent an imminent threat."
Killing Americans who don't pose an "imminent threat" OK if the weapons of choice are "guns, tanks, helicopters, snipers, paramilitary squads, bombs, tasers and blunt force."
Use of drones to kill anyone outside the United States OK.
Unfortunately, people are now focused on Paul and his proposal. After all the hype they will believe it's the solution.
Should the Senate pass the Cruz, Paul drone bill?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022480661
Glenn Greenwald defend Rand Paul against "Democratic myths"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022485711
"Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?"
differ from this question
"Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American on American soil?"
...absolutely. I am "avoiding the question." Why don't you figure it out yourself.
Here's a clue: No, to the first, and is the American in the second "engaged in combat"?
Now, if you can't figure it out, ask again, and I'll agree, again, that I'm "avoiding the question."
I mean, I'm not going to say it's a stupid question, but I'm thinking it.
...acknowledges that the answer to the second is "Yes", or "Maybe".
That being the case, the question of whether the President can unilaterally order the execution of an American citizen on American soil comes down to what the President -- this President, or any following President -- deems is meant by "engaged in combat".
You may trust an individual with that much power. I do not.
"...acknowledges that the answer to the second is 'Yes', or 'Maybe'".
...now you're making up hypothetical answers and attributing them to me?
From his Wikipedia page
Describing his political views, Frank Zappa categorized himself as a "practical conservative."[193] He favored limited government and low taxes; he also stated that he approved of national defense, social security and other federal programs, but only if recipients of such programs are willing and able to pay for them.[193] He favored capitalism, entrepreneurship and independent business, stating that musicians could make more from owning their own businesses than from collecting royalties.[194] He opposed communism, stating "A system that doesn't allow ownership [...] has–to put it mildly–a fatal design flaw."[193] Zappa expressed opinions on censorship when he appeared on CNN's Crossfire TV series and debated issues with Washington Times commentator John Lofton in 1986.[195] He had always encouraged his fans to register to vote on album covers, and throughout 1988 he had registration booths at his concerts.[196] He even considered running for President of the United States.[197]
Zappa did not use illegal drugs. He tried cannabis ten times, but without any pleasure, and "never used LSD, never used cocaine, never used heroin or any of that other stuff."[198] Zappa stated, "Drugs do not become a problem until the person who uses the drugs does something to you, or does something that would affect your life that you don't want to have happen to you, like an airline pilot who crashes because he was full of drugs."[199] He was a regular tobacco smoker for most of his life, and strongly critical of anti-tobacco campaigns.[200] While he disapproved of drug use, he criticized the War on Drugs, comparing it to alcohol prohibition, and stated that the United States Treasury would benefit from the decriminalization and regulation of drugs.[193] Describing his philosophical views, Zappa stated, "I believe that people have a right to decide their own destinies; people own themselves. I also believe that, in a democracy, government exists because (and only so long as) individual citizens give it a 'temporary license to exist'–in exchange for a promise that it will behave itself. In a democracy, you own the government–it doesn't own you."[193]
In early 1990, Zappa visited Czechoslovakia at the request of President Václav Havel, and was asked to serve as consultant for the government on trade, cultural matters and tourism. Havel was a lifelong fan of Zappa who had great influence in the avant-garde and underground scene in Central Europe in the 1970s and 1980s (a Czech rock group that was imprisoned in 1976 took its name from Zappa's 1968 song "Plastic People"
.[201] Zappa enthusiastically agreed and began meeting with corporate officials interested in investing in Czechoslovakia. Within a few weeks, however, the U.S. administration put pressure on the Czech government to withdraw the appointment. Havel made Zappa an unofficial cultural attaché instead.[202] Zappa also planned to develop an international consulting enterprise to facilitate trade between the former Eastern Bloc and Western businesses.[184]But blindly adopting his name makes perfect sense for you.
