The filibuster by Paul effectively stopped a vote from going forward, and vows to continue in order to "shame the president into doing the right thing,” which is to get a public vow from Obama that no Americans will be targeted within U.S. borders by the domestic drone program.
What is troubling lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle is suspected terrorists or those with suspected ties to terrorists that are U.S. citizens could be killed without having their day in court.
Of course the underlying issue is American citizens could be indiscriminately targeted based upon other criteria because they are considered an enemy of the state or possibly even inconvenient to schemes and agendas the government wants in play.
Evidence can easily be manufactured using government resources, and it would be extremely difficult to know what is or isn't true under those circumstances.
When pressed by Paul about a scenario in the Bluegrass State where a person could be executed while sitting in a cafe, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. asserted a person can't be assassinated on U.S. soil unless they are considered an imminent threat to the security of the country.
Again, that's what is at issue. The power resides in the executive branch, and the vast majority of those decisions are made in secret. There is no doubt any president or other government officials could use their power for purposes far beyond terrorist threats to get rid of someone permanently.
The drone program has set the state for that, which is what concerns so many people about the lack of clarity concerning the parameters the program would operate under.
