I don't believe this issue can be rationalized by dreaming up a scenario where a wacko is killing hostages. One can use that exact same scenario in their argument to ban all citizen ownership of guns. This issue is with the government's assault on the Bill of Rights, where you and I as American citizens have a right to due process and a trial before being convicted and sentenced for a crime. In the case of drone use, you can be found guilty and executed by the government with no protection whatsoever.
Rand Paul is simply trying to get Obama and his administration to definitively state these drones won't be used against American citizens on U.S. soil, thereby violating the Bill of Rights... and they won't commit to that, and certainly won't approve legislation prohibiting such use. I wonder why?
No one has an issue with law enforcement taking action against a wacko killing hostages, because such action is VERY public and the actions will be scrutinized and those responsible for the decisions held accountable. It's a far different scenario where the attack occurs from afar, where the invisible drone might be many miles away, or even above the clouds. If someone is is killed while in their house or automobile by a drone-launched missile, this can easily be attributed to a natural gas leak in the house or even passed off as a mob hit, where our government quietly lets the news media run with the fabricated story, and the public never learns the truth.
The Obama administration seems hell bent on destroying anyone who doesn't agree with them or supports their agenda. Look at what they're doing with one of the most respected journalists in our lifetime, Bob Woodward. Remember the guy in the St. Louis airport who was working for the Ron Paul campaign? He stated some of those in the independent movement had been placed on government watch lists. I don't think it too far fetched to believe someone considered disruptive to such government because they're speaking out and resisting these policies could find themselves classified as a terrorist suspect, and with the Patriot Act in place, that can essentially remove your rights to due process under the law. And with the capability of drone strikes against those classified as terrorists on U.S. soil, it becomes a scary scenario.
I understand drone use in some circumstances in other countries, when military intervention might not achieve the desired results, and where our laws don't apply. But to avoid legislation that prevents such acts against our own citizens on U.S. soil is clearly the beginning of the end of our Bill of Rights as American citizens, in my opinion.
Sorry, Mr. President, but I don't believe you when you state you have no intention of conducting these strikes against our citizens. You seem to have a very short memory. You initiated the sequester legislation last year when the government faced shutdown due to the approaching debt ceiling, remember? Now your own statements blame the Republicans for this legislation that you created, and our wonderful media doesn't even hold you accountable for this lie. I simply don't trust you, Mr. President. I want to see legislation that prevents drone attacks on U.S. soil, so we can at least hold you accountable if this occurs under your watch. I applaud Rand Paul for taking this stand. What's disappointing is that few others stepped up to join him.
Personally, I want police and SWAT teams taking out a wacko, not a drone missile. At least that way we have the option of NOT killing all the remaining hostages along with the wacko.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
