In response to:

What Rand Paul Got Right

Tinsldr2 Wrote: Mar 13, 2013 5:04 PM
Allan60 Wrote: 3 minutes ago (4:56 PM) If they weren't planning on using drones on Americans then why did it take them so long to deliver a straight answer? It may be true that they have no current plans, but they were trying to leave the door open so if it ever happened they could say "we never said we couldn't use drones on Americans". ////////////// They still never said they couldnt use drones on Americans and the door is still open. They gave virtually the same answer weeks ago.

Last week, freshman Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) held an old-fashioned filibuster against the nomination of John Brennan to head the CIA. Paul's stated reason for taking to the floor and talking for 13 hours was that the Obama administration wouldn't give him a straight answer on the question of whether the president can unilaterally order the killing of American citizens on American soil with "lethal force, such as a drone strike ... and without trial."

In other words, if an American member of al-Qaeda is sitting at a Starbucks, can the president sic one of his death-dealing robots on him?