Personally, I'm grateful to Rand Paul for his filibuster. Although the Obama administration has clarified that it won't use drone strikes inside the US (gee, thanks) it has not abandoned its policy of assassinating Americans it believes to be terrorists. When George W. Bush was vastly expanding the Presidential power to use force without Congressional involvement, I warned that someday there would be a Democrat in the White House who would happily receive the gift of enhanced executive discretion bestowed on him by Bush. And, lo and behold, Obama is that Democrat. When I made that criticism of Bush, I wasn't alone. Many Democrats, including then-Senator Obama, expressed similar criticisms. But now that Obama is pushing the Presidential power envelope way beyond anything Bush/Cheney ever attempted, the Democrats have fallen silent. And so I'm grateful to Rand Paul for speaking out and in the process shaming those Democrats who have kept their mouths shut when they should be the loudest voices taking the President to task. Either we believe in the rule of law or we don't. Either we believe the Constitution prohibits the President from appointing himself judge, jury and executioner, or we don't. There is no middle ground on this issue. President Obama is just flat-out wrong to claim the Constitution gives him the right to assassinate American citizens, whether in this country or elsewhere.
yes, pretty childish behavior on the part of the administration. For weeks, their answer to that question has been "of course we have the right to do that whenever we want". Only when put directly on the spot in public view did they say "no". Which answer do you think is the lie?