Well, 2013 is not 2001 or even 2006. There was a lot of overreaching in the aftermath of 9/11, and people largely accepted it because they were scared and pissed off, and thought it would be a temporary state of affairs. I'd like to think that the pendulum has finally swung the other way and we're having a libertarian moment here, but I'm not quite that optimistic. As for why this happened at this exact moment in time, well, this was all fallout from Paul being dissatisfied with Eric Holder's answers to his questions about a pretty important policy. The nomination of a new CIA director was a very opportune time for him to force the issue.

And for once this isn't really a partisan issue. There are some people acting out of partisan motives, of course, attacking what they would otherwise not attack or defending what they would otherwise find indefensible, but those people are drones of another sort. This is a really interesting issue for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is how it divides the parties (see McCain and Graham attacking Rand Paul).

The issue of "American citizens" is the effect of the fourteenth amendment. Before the fourteenth amendment there was no such thing a an "American citizen." People were citizens of their states and all people, regardless of whether or not they were a citizen were protected by the U.S constitution and state constitutions on all matters that didn't specifically mention citizenship. With the fourteenth amendment the concept of "U.S citizenship" was created and since then people have given "American citizens" special privileges. I agree, it is wrong, but regardless a push for anyone's fifth amendment right is better than not pushing at all.

You've got no idea. Just look at what the "southern republicans" like Graham really think. Half of the republican party are warmongering neo-conservatives, and for some reason much of the democrat party has become war-mongering as well. This is NOT a party issue. 

Glenn Beck shares his thoughts on why America needs saving:

Every national mythos have one clear goal -- to explain why you're better than the others regardless of reality -- basically what Beck's problem on the video is cognitive dissonance between the mythos and reality. What he cannot understand that this's not a problem of reality but a mythos, so he blames the reality.

If I'm not mistake in discussion with sc94597 on gun laws (yet another pain spot of national mythos) I publically called American national mythos a load of bollocks. Well, it is true that pretty much every national mythos are load of bollocks, but at the same time in given reality it's been created from it makes perfect sense but no further.

But what makes it interesting for me is not that US citizens might have killed on US soil without fair trial (one of the things I couldn't care less), but the way people, whom I call American patriots, have come in recent decade. From "No to Z.O.G." (written on a T-shirt below) kind of people to actually someone with an ability to think (not that they got smarter, but people who are smarter have became American patriots).

There's moderately public person over here, name's Tim Kirby if I spell it right, who just recently officially have became my compatriot, explained what he calls a parallel axis of political views of Americans aside from regular "Liberal-Conservative/Democratic-Republican" axis, that could consists of people of either views. Long story short:

- "Do not tread on me" (patriots), prime examples are Alex Jones (conservative) and Thom Hartmann (liberal);
- "Obama... Hope" (those who are moving away), prime examples are Glenn Beck (conservative) and Cenk Uygur (liberal);
- "Walmart" (consumer-zombies, thinking-hurts kind of people), various, the biggest chunk;
- "CNN" (people of the system, media whores, i.e. those who attached to the regular axis the most), various, any media bigwig;
- "Eye of Providence" (1%), The Elite.

I could easily name few more like one of the brightests persons is Paul Craig Roberts, who used to not only "attached" to regular axis but was part of the administration. The tragedy of this parallel axis is it's outside of exisitng political system, only few relatively marginal movements a-la Tea Party (conservative wing) and Occupy whatever (liberal wing) somewhat represent it, and it couldn't be represented within current political system even theoretically.

Not really news to me, but these ramblings are smth that solidify my views on the subject. 

False. If I have bread, and I trade with you for a carrot, that is an occurence of trade, and that's all the market is.

Why do I need the Government to establish any part of that?

Markets even exist where the Government abolishes them. How can that occur if you cannot have a market without Government.

this page 13 of this thread is filled with impressive minds.. thank you all. its re-assuring.

My thoughts:

It was political grandstanding as part of his run up for election in 2016. I think he's running a fantastic campaign, and ticking all the boxes. This was the start of his move to:

a) Get him more attention from early on so that when he declares, fewer people would have never heard of him. And what did they hear when they last heard him? Oh, yeah, he did a historic thing standing up for civil liberties. Not bad.

b) With those who are more politically intune, he's started making moves to appeal to the civil liberties crowd (anti-war and ACLU), as well as reaffirm himself with the libertarian base who were somewhat disgruntled by his actions when he endorsed Romney over Ron Paul (which, again, was clearly done for two reasons: as a credential amongst the Republican moderate, and to get him a speaking slot in the RNC last year, and to climb the GOP ladder).

---

Now, while we have got why he did it aside, we need to consider the real impacts of the actual event what happened:

In the short term, nothing. Sure, he's got a piece of paper saying that they won't do it. But, so what? The USA has been under the rule of man for quite some time, now. Laws no longer apply to the Government. And men are perfectly capable of lying.

That board that Graham put up in the Senate yesterday morning says it all:

"Number of Americans killed on American soil by drones: 0"

2 years ago, it would have been

"Number of Americans killed by drones: 0"

15 years ago

"Number of people killed by drones: 0"

What's that board going to say in 5, 10 years time, if the current trend continues?

"Number of white middle-class Americans killed by drones in US soil between 1am and 2am last Friday: classified"

Of course, they already have to use the term "by drones".

---

On the other hand, at least it's got the debate going again, but it shouldn't even be up for debate. Using violence somebody who hasn't aggressed on you is immoral, period.

While I do agree that Rand is doing it very much to benefit his 2016 campaign, I also think he believes in these things as a libertarian. His voting record and rhetoric are libertarian by the book. If he looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and acts like a duck then he's a duck. Frankly, I'm glad he's more politically minded than his father, because then he (and people like him) replace those who would do harm and he will leave us (the population) alone. 

Hey, it might be stupid question but are MANPADS legal in the US? I mean if you have drone problems what is the best and affordable solution you have? :D

If they are illegal after all, try to use these. Tested by Taliban and Mali jihadists -- it works:

Obama went around quacking like an anti-war and pro-constitution duck before 2008, also. Like I said in my post, men lie.

Does that mean I think Rand is lying? No. I would cast Rand under the "libetarian" umbrella, but he is so far from his father. I've seen many debates as to whether Ron was a closet Anarchist, with a fair amount of evidence supporting that claim. Nobody could possibly think that of Rand.

He's a beltway Libertarian like Reason, CATO, or Freedomworks. He'll get rid of the TSA, let you drink raw milk, and let people use whatever lightbulbs they fancy... but on the /real/ issues, it's still up in the air. Will he tackle the industrial military complex? Will he end the War on Drugs? (I'm guessing he'll just leave pot smokers alone in the states that legalize it... that's a fair step, but again, far from the ideal). What of the Federal Reserve?

Not that I'm attacking Rand Paul. As it currently stands, I'm a British citizen with Hong Kong residence, I have about as much the right to vote as somebody who was caught with a joint in Virginia 15 years ago (in Virginia and Kentucky... convicted felons lose the right to vote for life). If I could vote however, it would be for Rand Paul in 2016, unless the Dem  candidate was somebody like Kuchinich, or the Libertatian party had a chance of winning my state... so, yeah I'd vote for him.

That, coming from me, says a lot. I've sworn off voting in the UK, the only exception being any form of succession vote: leave the EU, break up the UK, whatever. So, to say that I'd vote for him at all, is a major step. Would I donate to the campaign or go out and caucus for him? Hell no. Might have done with Ron.

I don't really know why my post went in the direction that it did, but oh well.