*It's not about Rand Paul!*

[ProSense]

70. No

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&quot , 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.

GOP Senators Introduce Pointless Drone Bill

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