I saw where Paul claimed that he is "...not talking about someone with a bazooka (or) a grenade launcher on their shoulder. Anyone committing lethal force can be repelled with lethal force. No one argues that point."

But his original question made no such distinctions that I saw. Holder was asked to respond to an absolute and responded accordingly. I wouldn't have categorically ruled out ever using a particular weapon either.

Nice rhetorical trick there, Rand.

Which brings me to something else I found odd. Why the focus on drones? If the concern is whether the administration believes itself empowered to kill a non-combatant in a cafe, what difference does the weapon used makes? Surely we would be more likely to use a sniper or some other means in the US anyway. This part of the debate strongly reminds me of the assault weapons ban argument.

.223 semi-automatic rifle - okay. .223 semi-automatic rifle with a pistol grip - ooh, scary. Must be banned.

Yet we see the same people who rightly point out the silliness of the argument above using the same logic for a weapon system that has a remote contoller rather than on the spot. The issue should be limits of action, not particular means.

Which is why I applaud Rand Paul for his actions here. Our country woefully needs serious discussion and resolution on the limits we should place on the administration as it combats enemies given the very different circumstances we see today. These are serious questions and we need to quick ducking.

I believe he will fail now as American politics are simply too dysfunctional today for the thoughtful resolultion we need, but I do believe his actions are advancing the discussion, which will bring us closer to determining and placing the correct limits on this and future administrations so they are not allowed to determine those limits on their own (meaning minimal).

Go Rand!

BTW, I apologize for the not answering questions below. No time for a bit. The above kind of clarifies my position I hope.==============================

The President should categorically deny using any weapon on US citizens.  He is bound by the Constitution to do such.  If the Flight 93 comes up, and he acted . . . he would not need 50 legal briefs to stake out the position.  The public would accept that he acted in the moment.  Staking out legal positions ahead of time is ominous as it purports to give the POTUS and all future POTUSes such power.  They don't have that power.  They have the power to respond to specific attacks and will be judged accordingly after the fact.  

)

"We're borrowing 10% of GDP each year to get 1-2% growth. That isn't"
an improving economy. We're simply mortgaging the future.