Some People are so off Base with Rand Paul filibuster!

I was listening to Red Eye Radio on my way home last night, I don't listen very often but the few times I did normally they had a well reasoned opinion which more then half the time I could agree with.  Tonight they weren't well reasoned and I disagreed to the point of turning off the station.  They went on for hours about how Rand Paul's filibuster was just a stunt, and how government would never hurt unarmed citizens....and that it's somehow disrespectful to ask the President if he'd ever use drones against Americans.  They basically took the whole, 'if you didn't do anything, you have nothing to worry about' stance which goes against everything liberty stands for.

Rand Paul was never against taking action against an citizen who was actively carrying out an attack (a combatant), same way a police officer is allowed to shoot a suspect who is threatening their life or the life of another person. What police can't do is go in and shoot someone while they're watching TV because he's suspected of having done something or is planning to do something. Rand wanted assurances that the President couldn't use drones against Americans on American soil like the drone attack overseas used to kill that 16yr old American citizen who wasn't actively engaged in carrying out any sort of attack.

Rand Paul was defending due process rights that every American has, even ones actively planning terrorist attacks. For example, lets say the FBI is tracking an individual he's making threats of jihadist forums, he just bought a box truck, he's buying up fertilizer, etc, etc. Without a doubt this guy is planning a major strike. That man still has the right to due process and the government shouldn't be able to take his life away without it (ie putting a drone missile through his window while he's eating breakfast). Get a judge to sign a search warrant, surround the house with swat teams, etc. If he goes for a gun or knife, by all means police have the right to defend themselves. If not take him into custody gather evidence and put him on trial. Now if the man as actively carrying out attack, he's in his rigged box truck heading towards the Washington bridge into the city.....yes green light drone missile, take him out. BOOM. Because you're at the point where the person is an immediate danger to police and citizens. I don't want to put words in Rand Paul's mouth but I think he'd agree with everything I just said there.

All Rand wanted from the administration was basically they wouldn't use drones to kill Americans without due process of a trial, he didn't want the US drone strike policy that's being used overseas and that was headed by Brennan to be used on American soil, and the administration gave very mixed messages on the issue of whether due process rights would be respected which is why Rand held his filibuster. Again, police defending themselves or other citizens against someone has their "finger on the trigger" so to speak is not violating due process rights, I'm 99% sure Rand Paul is OK with that.