Glenn Greenwald defend Rand Paul against "Democratic myths"

[ljm2002]

42. I notice you studiously avoid...

...addressing the question of whether the President should have the singular authority to order an assassination-by-drone of an American citizen on U.S. soil, without any other due process.

That to me is the essential question here. You also studiously avoid the issue of what is meant by someone "engaged in combat". Again: OWS members, and other peaceful demonstrators, have been classified as "terrorists" by various law enforcement agencies. Who will make the judgment of whether that translates into "engaged in combat"?

Your hysteria seems to be in response to the fact that some leftists are in agreement with Rand Paul on this one, narrow issue. Or, sort of in agreement: he does, after all (as you correctly point out), not want to outlaw assassination-by-drone ordered by the President, he just wants some rules in place. But you seem to think that anyone who believes it is good that he opened up this discussion, is therefore a Libertarian or a Randroid or a Paulbot or, worst of all, a Greenwald-worshiper (Gasp!!!).

You have no faith in your fellow Democrats or DUers to be able to make distinctions. Your tactic is to try and club us into submission with cascades of verbiage, several paragraphs per post taken from whatever link you provide, much of the verbiage not directly responsive at all because for you, if you flood us with verbiage and most importantly, get the last word, then you've won.

Well whoopee. If you get your way, we will have accepted the right of the President of the U.S. to assassinate U.S. citizens on U.S. soil by declaring them "enemy combatants". Gosh, that sounds eerily familiar...