Even two broken clocks agree with each other at some point. I believe Sen. Rand PaulRandal (Rand) Howard PaulMcConnell: Impeachment distracted government from coronavirus threat Warren knocks McConnell for forcing in-person Senate vote amid coronavirus pandemic House chairwoman diagnosed with 'presumed' coronavirus infection MORE (R-Ky.) has performed a service with his talking filibuster against current U.S. drone policy, so long as John Brennan is promptly confirmed now that the point has been made. In my view, if the U.S. can target a known terrorist in a nation such as Yemen, kill him. However, when drones are used obsessively and more civilians are inadvertently killed, this is bad. When the claim is made that drones can be used on American soil against American citizens under secret legal authorization that neither Congress nor the American people know about, this is flat-out wrong.


It is suggested that drones against Americans in America should be allowed in a 9/11-type situation. This doesn't make sense. I cannot envision how this occurs, but if the attorney general believes it can, he should clearly and publicly explain.

This business of secret legal opinions about the American government being able to kill American citizens is wrong, dangerous and unprecedented.

We progressives raised hell (in my view, correctly) when former President George. W. Bush pursued certain objectionable policies. We were in agreement, then, with some principled conservatives and libertarians. Today, we progressives should be just as vigilant when questionable policies are pursued by a Democratic president, and work with Rand Paul in a common effort to restore the rule of law and the practices of a constitutional republic in which secret legal opinions justifying the killing of Americans on American soil by the state should not be accepted.

I support Brennan being confirmed as CIA director, but on this matter of drones, principled liberals should support and work with Rand Paul and principled conservatives and libertarians. The current drone policy is a slippery slope that must not become a practice or a precedent.