Regardless of your side of the aisle, I hope you back Rand Paul. His crusade on Drones was historic. And his own party kicking him after the fact.
Useless ass McCain and Graham.
I understand where you're coming from, and what appears to be the case, but I don't think it's quite what it seems.
His 13 hour - or however long it was - grandstand was nothing more than a show, I'd surmise. It was good publicity for his future endeavors but did nothing to solve the problem.
He wanted to know if you could use a drone strike to kill a US citizen, on US soil, unprovoked (assassination style). Eventually the reply came back -
During his 13 hours on the Senate floor, Paul repeatedly asked whether Obama believed he had the authority to kill an American, on U.S. soil, who was not “actively attacking” America. The question prompted Holder to respond. “Dear Senator Paul,” Holder said in a 43-word letter. “It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: ‘Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?’ The answer to that question is no.” Holder didn't use the phrase “actively attacking.” And administration officials privately agreed on Friday that “not engaged in combat” was the key phrase going forward. None of them agreed to define the expression on the record.
You have to realize with the expansion of "cyber terrorist" you could actively be "attacking", AKA "engaged in combat", by being a "cyber terrorist" if you were on a computer. You could also be "engaged in combat" by talking on the phone, giving the "enemy" information.
What I also have not heard anyone bring up, which is even more troubling than using drones to assassinate Americans, during this entire "American on American Soil" debate, is the Posse Comitatus Act. The military is not allowed to operate on American soil regardless, why are they asking if the military can use a drone to do it?
Obviously from Holders response, the military can assassinate American's, when they're engaged in combat, whatever that may be.
Back to Rand Paul - Like anyone else - he has good points, and he says a lot of things I agree with. But you have to remember the game is rigged, and voting for the next president of the corrupt casino is not going to help change the odds in your favor. The system is broken and continues to decline, regardless of the R or D we have sitting in the white house. You're allowed to vote so you can keep hoping the next guy will solve the problems, don't get discouraged, the next one will solve the problem! Keep voting.. We'll get there. Except that's historically inaccurate. The decline continues on the downward path, and by participating you're only spending your energy where it's hopeless.
Find the solution outside of the corruption.