# Why aren't Progressives questioning the legality & morality of Obama's drone targeting policy? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 11, 2013, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-progressives-questioning-the-legality-morality-of-obamas-drone-targeting-policy/652659 "2013-03-11T22:28:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2013, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-progressives-questioning-the-legality-morality-of-obamas-drone-targeting-policy/652659/41 "2013-03-12T16:41:27Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > [Haven’t](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=668262&highlight=drone) > > [we](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=668426&highlight=drone) > > [done this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=677642&highlight=drone) > > [before](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=682177&highlight=drone)? Just once I’d like to see a “Liberal Hypocrisy!!!1!!” OP come back in and admit that he got it wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2013, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-progressives-questioning-the-legality-morality-of-obamas-drone-targeting-policy/652659/42 "2013-03-12T16:48:37Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Having said that, there is a certain amount of negative PR we get by using drones instead of manned aircraft. It’s not rational, but it does make us look like Darth Vader and the Evil Empire. I think the (emotional) logic is that if the “killer” can’t himself be killed, it puts so much emotional distance between trigger-puller and target that it makes the target seem less human, and thus easier to kill, which is bad if the government decides to turn it against whomever they want, like political dissidents or what have you. And yes, I wonder where the OP’s been. Hell, why aren’t more _conservatives_ questioning the policy? ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2013, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-progressives-questioning-the-legality-morality-of-obamas-drone-targeting-policy/652659/43 "2013-03-12T20:18:56Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Yeah, right. :rolleyes: I’m sure that bombing weddings and funerals and rescue workers will do nothing but win the populace over. Unlike white Christians, they aren’t _human_ enough to be angered by the deaths of friends and relatives and seek revenge. I’m sure it’ll make them all give up and submit to us, just like the Nazi bombing of Britain got Britain to surrender to Germany. If the US was using indiscriminate bombing you’d have a point, but all the available evidence shows that the drone program very dramatically reduces the number of people killed as collateral damage. Also, your attempt to Godwin the thread with reference to the Nazi bombings of Britain shows that either you don’t understand the reality of the drone program or you’re hoping the rest of the people don’t. The Nazis during their bombings were very deliberately trying to kill as many civilians as possible. The use of drones represents the very opposite, trying to minimize the number of civilians killed. In fact, since you’re bringing up WWII, and you obviously consider the drone program a war crime and those who commit it monsters, can we assume you felt the same regarding the Americans who participated in bombing missions in WWII which killed vastly more civilians both in raw numbers and as a proportion of those killed. If however, you don’t consider the American bombers of WWII to be war criminals, then please explain why not. Similarly, you’re making weird references to “brown people” and “white Christians.” In another thread you strongly insisted that Cuban-Americans weren’t “brown”. Please explain why you think Arabs are “brown” while Cubans are “white”. Thanks ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2013, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-progressives-questioning-the-legality-morality-of-obamas-drone-targeting-policy/652659/44 "2013-03-12T20:32:24Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > 1. They recognize that all these Libertarians who were perfectly fine with drone attacks under Bush, but not under Obama, are just playing politics. This is so obviously false that I’m inclined to question either your honesty or your knowledge of the various conservative movements. MANY prominent voices among the libertarians and the paleoconservatives have long been dead set against the War on Terror, adamantly against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and downright alarmist regarding what they considered the etsablishment of a neofascist security state under George W. Bush. Rand Paul’s father, Ron Paul, has been arguing vigorously against the Iraq War and the War on Terror for years! So have people like Pat Buchanan, Andrew Bacevich, Daniel Larison, Rod Dreher, Nick Gillespie… if those names don’t ring any bells, you don’t know anythiong about libertarianism or paleoconservatism, and should refrain from commenting. Rand Paul is saying exactly what his father has been saying for more than a decade- the idea that he just started hypocritically denouncing practices he supported during the Bush administration is absurdly off the mark. If he’d been in the Senate 10 years ago, he’d have been saying the same things then, and Dubya would have hated him then as much as Obama does now. ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2013, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-progressives-questioning-the-legality-morality-of-obamas-drone-targeting-policy/652659/45 "2013-03-12T20:45:19Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > I think the (emotional) logic is that if the “killer” can’t himself be killed, it puts so much emotional distance between trigger-puller and target that it makes the target seem less human, and thus easier to kill, which is bad if the government decides to turn it against whomever they want, like political dissidents or what have you. > > … What you’re saying is true, but I’d wager that’s been true for awhile…can a guy pressing a button on a Naval Destroyer firing a cruise missile be killed? No. Can a pilot dropping a laser guided bomb be killed? No. Not in any real sense. In fact, I’d wager there’s a new weird element of emotional closeness (?) a drone pilot feels. He not only pulls the trigger, but he also has to watch for hours after. That would be tolling on me emotionally. I’d rather be shooting missiles from a Naval Ship. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2013, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-progressives-questioning-the-legality-morality-of-obamas-drone-targeting-policy/652659/46 "2013-03-12T20:49:27Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > . . . I’m sure it’ll make them all give up and submit to us, just like the Nazi bombing of Britain got Britain to surrender to Germany. If I were to go with a WWII analogy, it would be the fighter aircraft that strafed the car that Erwin Rommel was riding in. It was a direct attack on a high-level enemy leader, and, in fact, may have had some benefit to D-Day operations. Drone strikes are more like tactical airstrikes than strategic airstrikes. Were we to mass several hundred drones to drop several thousand bombs, your comparison would be better. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2013, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-progressives-questioning-the-legality-morality-of-obamas-drone-targeting-policy/652659/47 "2013-03-12T20:58:26Z")
The key difference is, when a Republican President does something like this, it is an impeachable offense. When a Democrat does it, it’s bad but not bad enough to stop voting for the guy. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![I\_Made\_French\_Toast\_For\_You](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@I\_Made\_French\_Toast\_For\_You](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Made_French_Toast_For_You)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-progressives-questioning-the-legality-morality-of-obamas-drone-targeting-policy/652659/48 "2013-03-13T00:58:43Z")
This was posted in another thread, but seemed important to this one. Here’s [Greenwald’s response](http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/10/paul-filibuster-drones-progressives) to the OP’s question. In short: people don’t care because it doesn’t affect them personally (there’s an “empathy gap”), and because drone strikes on American soil (the ones that could very well affect them) are being labeled as paranoid delusions. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-progressives-questioning-the-legality-morality-of-obamas-drone-targeting-policy/652659/49 "2013-03-13T02:21:51Z")
What an odd thread. Might as well ask why [del]progressives[/del] liberals don’t question the morality of the drug war or torture. Even the Daily Show and Colbert Report were riffing on it, and they’re about as edgy as a butterknife. ---
**Author:** ![actualliberalnotoneofthose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e79b87/32.png) [@actualliberalnotoneofthose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/actualliberalnotoneofthose)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-progressives-questioning-the-legality-morality-of-obamas-drone-targeting-policy/652659/50 "2013-03-13T03:30:47Z")
Libertarians were not supporting Bush, and much of the Libertarian criticism of Obama is because he is too much like Bush. Libertarians wanted the “change” and are disappointed, in my experience. Much criticism of Obama’s policies has carried over from criticism of Bush, but for some reason some “liberals” want to lump libertarians who were saying the same thing long before 2008 in with “conservatives” that didn’t become conservative until 2008 or took the previous 8 years off. ---
**Author:** ![actualliberalnotoneofthose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e79b87/32.png) [@actualliberalnotoneofthose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/actualliberalnotoneofthose)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-progressives-questioning-the-legality-morality-of-obamas-drone-targeting-policy/652659/51 "2013-03-13T03:33:06Z")
> [@I\_Made\_French\_Toast\_For\_You](#): > > This was posted in another thread, but seemed important to this one. > > Here’s [Greenwald’s response](http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/10/paul-filibuster-drones-progressives) to the OP’s question. In short: people don’t care because it doesn’t affect them personally (there’s an “empathy gap”), and because drone strikes on American soil (the ones that could very well affect them) are being labeled as paranoid delusions. Interesting since libertarians are always the ones being accused of having no empathy. In practice it’s the opposite. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-progressives-questioning-the-legality-morality-of-obamas-drone-targeting-policy/652659/52 "2013-03-13T03:46:20Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > This is so obviously false that I’m inclined to question either your honesty or your knowledge of the various conservative movements. Care to point out when one of them ever filibustered a nominee because of it? You make a fine point that some people like Ron Paul were vocal opponents of the war, but it was not because of drone strikes or any specific method of attack; it’s because he is a non-interventionist (basically an isolationist). The fact that he would be against drones is part and parcel of him being against most anything involving other counties. The previous silence is especially stark when we look at some of the GOP commentators and politicians have said in the past wrt due process for terrorists: **Bush** : “After the chaos and carnage of September the 11th, it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers” **Karl Rove** : “Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments” **Sarah Palin** : “Al Qaida terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America, and he’s (Obama) worried that someone won’t read them their rights” Obvious strawmen presented by those on the right, yet now we are believe that they back someone like Paul who is endorsing the spirit of those comments? > [@astorian](#): > > Rand Paul is saying exactly what his father has been saying for more than a decade- the idea that he just started hypocritically denouncing practices he supported during the Bush administration is absurdly off the mark. If he’d been in the Senate 10 years ago, he’d have been saying the same things then, and Dubya would have hated him then as much as Obama does now. Obviously we cannot argue the counter factual, but I think there is enough evidence to suggest this is unlikely. This was political grandstanding plain and simple. He knew he could gain some political currency by manufacturing outrage, forcing Holder to answer his absurd hypothetical, and having Obama legitimize his fears by having to respond to a bogey man scenario. It’s just a birth certificate by another name. The GOP knows they can gain relative political power by making a vague implausible allegations that play on negative stereotypes about the President. They know that if they repeat them enough, they can force Obama to address the “controversy”, making sure he provides clarity to an issue or question that was clear to anyone without an axe to grind. Why do I say that? First, this filibuster was based on a paranoid delusions. This is not a substantive, reasonable, or logical dispute. To quote this [article](http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/03/rand-paul-drones-filibuster-fundraising-campaign): > [@](#): > > Paul’s rant targeted a nonexistent dispute: whether or not Obama administration officials believed they could use drones (or other weapons) to kill American citizens within the borders of the United States without due process. Take away all Paul’s hyped-up hysteria—watch out, Jane Fonda!—and he didn’t truly disagree with the administration’s position that in an extraordinary circumstance, such as an ongoing terrorist attack, the US government can deploy lethal force against evildoers who happen to be American citizens. So why did Paul go ballistic? Here’s a clue: The day after he ended one of the longest filibusters in US history, he tried to cash in on his stunt by zapping out a fundamentally inaccurate fundraising email for his 2016 reelection campaign. Take a look at what Holder initially said to Paul: [QUOTE=Eric Holder] [T]he US government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so. As a policy matter moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat…The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront. It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001. [/QUOTE] Paul doesn’t disagree with any of this really, he just wanted to create some stupid hypothetical that allowed him to grandstand. Basically asking Obama via Holder to swear he couldn’t violate the constitution despite pretty clear evidence that he has no intention or desire to do so. That’s to say nothing of the obvious consequences that would arise if he attempted to do so. How do we know this? He said it himself: [QUOTE=Rand Paul] Nobody questions if planes are flying towards the Twin Towers whether they can be repulsed by the military. Nobody questions whether a terrorist with a rocket launcher or a grenade launcher is attacking us, whether they can be repelled. [/QUOTE] He said this DURING his filibuster. Obviously, he understands that what Holder said is basically that in a nutshell. Again to quote the article: > [@](#): > > The attorney general limited his no-drones declaration to Americans “not engaged in combat.” An American participating in a terrorist attack that constitutes an extraordinary circumstance could still end up on the wrong end of a Hellfire missile (with Paul supporting such a development). > > Paul did not force a change in Obama administration policy or even a clarification of policy. What Holder said in the second letter was a reiteration of what he said in the first letter that Paul essentially endorsed while filibustering. Now let’s look at what Rand Paul didn’t do: he didn’t ask for a judicial review of the Executive Office’s powers. He didn’t propose a congressional update the Authorization for Use of Military Force. He didn’t propose any substantive legislation before or afterwards that addresses what he said his concerns were during his filibuster. Again, to quote Paul: [QUOTE=Rand Paul] I rise today to begin to filibuster John Brennan’s nomination for the CIA. I will speak until I can no longer speak. I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, t **hat your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court.** [/QUOTE] Paul later admitted in his own filibuster and via his subsequent legislation, that he has no intent on addressing that issue. He has no issue using lethal force without due process on American soil. The only issue is whether the target presents an imminent threat. To make the basis of his argument due process is illogical. More importantly, if he wanted to make it a constitutional issue, then why is he so unconcerned with Americans killed overseas? [QUOTE=Rand Paul] It’s a great victory because we’ve been asking a question of the president, and this is a question that limits the presidential power. Presidents, Republican and Democrat, they don’t want to limit their power, so this was the body of the Senate saying to the president, **Are you going to obey the constitution?** [/QUOTE] Seeing as the President swears to uphold the constitution upon being sworn in, and given that there are clear methods of address such violations, why would you even think this question needs to be asked? It’s one thing to allege just transgressions have occurred, or even that they will likely occur, but he did neither. [QUOTE=Rand Paul] The main reason for asking this question was, we have drone strikes overseas where people are being killed who are not actively engaged in combat. Now, they may be bad people, but they’re not actively engaged in combat. I don’t think in America, if you’re in a cafe, if you’re e-mailing somebody, even if you’re conspiring, that you should be summarily killed. You should be arrested if they think you’re guilty of something. You should get a trial and an attorney and all the due process. In America, we do have the Bill of Rights. In fact, that’s what our soldiers are fighting for. So I don’t think we should give that up to say, Oh, the whole world is a zone of war, and therefore, you can be named an enemy combatant and wafted off to prison somewhere [/QUOTE] Again more concerns he didn’t even bother to address. As I said before, there are legitimate reasons to be concerned with Obama administration policies and drones in general, but Rand Paul has done nothing to address any of those things. Given that his performance was style without substance, I doubt he would have done the same to a GOP president given that he wouldn’t have had a self-interested motive for doing so. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-progressives-questioning-the-legality-morality-of-obamas-drone-targeting-policy/652659/53 "2013-03-13T03:52:37Z")
> [@astro](#): > > **Why aren’t Progressives questioning the legality & morality of Obama’s drone targeting policy?** Actually, left-progressives are pretty much the only Americans who **are** questioning it. You can find some little criticism of it on Free Republic, but that’s only because it is something Obama is doing; any Pub POTUS would get a pass. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-progressives-questioning-the-legality-morality-of-obamas-drone-targeting-policy/652659/54 "2013-03-13T04:09:06Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Actually, left-progressives are pretty much the only Americans who **are** questioning it. You can find some little criticism of it on Free Republic, but that’s only because it is something Obama is doing; any Pub POTUS would get a pass. So you’ve never heard of Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, The American Conservative, Paleoconservatism or libertarianism? You do realize that all ripped into Bush or were you unaware of that? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-progressives-questioning-the-legality-morality-of-obamas-drone-targeting-policy/652659/55 "2013-03-13T04:21:04Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > So you’ve never heard of Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, The American Conservative, Paleoconservatism or libertarianism? > > You do realize that all ripped into Bush or were you unaware of that? Oh, I’m aware of it, but, all those together have very little social visibility (which I monitor), more (or perhaps less) the pity. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-progressives-questioning-the-legality-morality-of-obamas-drone-targeting-policy/652659/56 "2013-03-13T04:44:06Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Oh, I’m aware of it, but, all those together have very little social visibility (which I monitor), more (or perhaps less) the pity. You think Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul had “little social visibility”? Ok, name me a libertarian more prominent than Ron Paul and name me a paleocon more prominent than Pat Buchanan? Beyond that, why would you want racist scumbags like those two to be more prominent? It’s funny that I often hear white progressives speaking with a certain amount of admiration for the two of them but I never hear minority progressives doing the same. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 7:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-progressives-questioning-the-legality-morality-of-obamas-drone-targeting-policy/652659/57 "2013-03-13T07:31:34Z")
**Brainglutton** , Which progressives have higher social visibility than Paul and Buchanan and are vocal opponents of Obama’s use of drones? ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 8:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-progressives-questioning-the-legality-morality-of-obamas-drone-targeting-policy/652659/58 "2013-03-13T08:04:10Z")
Glenn Greenwald responds to “[progressive](http://m.guardiannews.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/10/paul-filibuster-drones-progressives)” reaction to Paul filibuster. Among other things he addresses whether or not the question posed by Paul was necessary: > [@](#): > > First, the reason this question matters so much - can the President target US citizens for assassination without due process on US soil? - is because it demonstrates just how radical the Obama administration’s theories of executive power are. Once you embrace the premises of everything they do in this area - we are a Nation at War; the entire globe is the battlefield; the president is vested with the unchecked power to use force against anyone he accuses of involvement with Terrorism - then there is no cogent, coherent way to say that the president lacks the power to assassinate even US citizens on US soil. That conclusion is the necessary, logical outcome of the premises that have been embraced. That’s why it is so vital to ask that. ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-progressives-questioning-the-legality-morality-of-obamas-drone-targeting-policy/652659/59 "2013-03-13T13:24:57Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Now let’s look at what Rand Paul didn’t do: he didn’t ask for a judicial review of the Executive Office’s powers. He didn’t propose a congressional update the Authorization for Use of Military Force. He didn’t propose any substantive legislation before or afterwards that addresses what he said his concerns were during his filibuster. > Paul later admitted in his own filibuster and via his subsequent legislation, that he has no intent on addressing that issue. He has no issue using lethal force without due process on American soil. The only issue is whether the target presents an imminent threat. To make the basis of his argument due process is illogical. More importantly, if he wanted to make it a constitutional issue, then why is he so unconcerned with Americans killed overseas? This is a legitimate argument, but it is wholly inconsistent with what you said earlier. BEFORE, you asserted that libertarians were just fine with drone warfare and civil rights violations during the Bush administration. That was obviously not true- it would be nice of you to acknowledge that before changing your argument. Rand Paul has not changed his principles- he was against drone warfare and the War on Terror when Bush was President and he still is. What you’re complaining about NOW is not what he’s saying but how and where he’s saying it. Was filibustering Brennan the only way Paul could have forced Obama to address his concerns? No- but it was a damn effective way. He succeeded in getting Holder to state publicly that drone attacks on US citizens are not Constitutional. Holder and Obama could have ended the filibuster before it began by saying so sooner. Now, was Rand Paul guilty of “grandstanding”? OF COURSE he was!!! He’s a man of principle, but he’s ALSO a guy with a big ego, a love of the limelight, and Presidential aspirations of his own. He chose to take on Obama and Holder in the most public forum possible, rather than trying to work things out quietly. He did so PARTLY to advance his cause and partly to make himself the most visible face of the GOP in Washington. He succeeded on both counts- and you’ aren’t the only one pissed at him for that. GOP hawks like John McCain are livid. But he couldn’t have succeeded if Obama and Holder hadn’t foolishly and arrogantly handed him an issue to make hay with. ---
**Author:** ![Kepler1571](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/db5fbb/32.png) [@Kepler1571](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kepler1571)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-progressives-questioning-the-legality-morality-of-obamas-drone-targeting-policy/652659/60 "2013-03-13T14:35:39Z")
The answer to OP is: because we’re hypocrites. If it were a Republican doing this stuff we would be marching in the streets. Well, we would be talking about marching in the streets, but maybe not this weekend, I mean, this weekend isn’t good, I have a 10k and then my daughter graduates from Montessori preschool. But next weekend, absolutely, down with fascism! Obama’s actions on this are going to go down with LBJ’s actions in Vietnam among the most shameful episodes of liberals not standing up for our ideals when it mattered. I’m sure we’ll all have wonderful rationalizations, but it comes to down to a combination of laziness and lack of ethical conviction. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-progressives-questioning-the-legality-morality-of-obamas-drone-targeting-policy/652659.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-progressives-questioning-the-legality-morality-of-obamas-drone-targeting-policy/652659.md?page=4)