False premise. That said, if I were engaged in some sort of military-style assault upon the US then of course I would expect to encounter armed opposition. Is it your view that when a country is attacked the executive is supposed to sit on its hands?
Call me cold-heart, but I think George W. Bush would have been better off ordering fighter jets into the air back in 2001 instead of listening to a story about a pet goat. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pet_Goat#George_W._Bush:_9.... for context).
It would be easier to buy the "we'll only use this new, extraordinary power to combat terrorists (or pedophiles, or drug dealers, or whatever the boogeyman of the day is)" excuse if it hadn't turned out to be a lie time, and time again.
Over and over, the government grabs more power for itself, then uses and abuses that power in whatever way it wishes.
What makes this particular case even more eggregious is that there's absolutely no oversight whatsoever. Obama (or whoever we're unlucky enough to be saddled with after him) can just designate anyone he wants a "terrorist", without anyone being able to question his judgement or even ask for justifications. It's assassination power on a whim.
How much more absolute power are you going to be willing to grant the government for the sake of security theater?
What is the oversight that was used when the administration decided to bomb Dresden, or to firebomb Tokyo? How does it differ from the oversight employed against "organizations involved in the attacks on 9/11"?
How many more innocent people were killed in those attacks than will ever be killed by drones? Have you ever watched "Fog Of War"? Tokyo was made of wood and paper.
I encourage you to watch the filibuster then, because Rand Paul is explicitly claiming that he is not concerned with a person " engaged in some sort of military-style assault upon the US" being killed by drones. His concern is explicitly that there has been no clarification that drones will not be used to kill non-combatant citizens on American soil. He has directly said his concern is with non-combatants. Multiple times. How can there be any reasonable opposition to this?
His concern is explicitly that there has been no clarification that drones will not be used to kill non-combatant citizens on American soil.
'[T]he US Government has not carried out drone strikes within the United States and has no intention of doing so.'
That sounds pretty damn clear to me. That's why I say Senator Paul is pandering; he has had the clarification he asked for. Holder can't very well cite laws that Congress has not seen fit to write.
No, not really. Also, I invite you consider the second half of my comment above. As far as I know, there is no law limiting the Administration's use of drones pursuant to its lawful exercise of military force.
And Holder has told him that that's not going to happen, short of an obvious military emergency. The President is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces and is responsible for the defense of the US in such situations.
If the Senator is so worried about pre-emptive drone attacks, why hasn't he crafted any legislation defining the scope of the executive's power to deploy military assets within the domestic boundaries of the United States? Or introduced a bill to rescind or amend the Authorization for Use of Military Force that is presently the law of the land? Why, in short, is he engaging in windy rhetoric but making no use of his legislative power?
Even if you trust the Obama administration implicitly, I do not believe you can trust every subsequent administration not to abuse the powers given them, or indeed in this case simply use them.
By the way, he's actually drafting such a bill, he said so an hour or so ago in his filibuster.
Then he should introduce the bill instead of filibustering an appointment. I don't trust every future administration not to abuse its powers, but likewise I recognize that the incumbent administration can't bind its successors. Only Congress or the Judicial Branch can do that, and so far neither have seen fit to restrain the Executive Branch on this issue.
Call me cold-heart, but I think George W. Bush would have been better off ordering fighter jets into the air back in 2001 instead of listening to a story about a pet goat. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pet_Goat#George_W._Bush:_9.... for context).
EDIT: I forgot to add that the US has been employing drones since at least 2002. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan and http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1900248,00.html among other sources.
I thought it was wholly reasonable then and I think it's wholly reasonable now.