Wow... I understand the significance of what Rand Paul did. That does not change one damn thing about the prdcedent set with Obama's interpretation of what is an imminent threat is. [not immediate] You don't get it. They already assassinated an American citizen without due process because he maybe could have been a threat in the future. THAT IS WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. I'll spell it out real simply like, they labeled an American citizen and imminent threat because he may pose a risk in the future. They assassinated him without due process. They have affirmed they can do as much here and rather, that they should do as much here. Whether that be hanging you until dead, or dropping a missile on your shanty. The processes of death have been deemed inconsequential. Rand Paul does not want that happening to Americans on American soil, but he also state Al Awlaki should have been afforded due process.
I think you and tsai3904 are misunderstanding me, that I'm
not supporting what happened the al-Awlaki. I agree with both of you, and Rand, and Ron, that he should have been captured and afforded due process in the American legal system.
What I am stating, is that I think the clarification Rand forced the Administration to concede is significant even if it is minor. Even the DOJ white paper on al-Awlaki stated that he was "engaged in planning operations to kill Americans". That, to me, does not sound synonymous with "engaged in combat".
Can I know for sure? Of course not. And even if the Administration made it plain as day that those two conditions are *not* the same (meaning al-Awlaki couldn't be targeted in the U.S.) I wouldn't trust them at their word.
However, whatever legalese the administration may use today or tomorrow to wiggle their way out of the "engaged in combat" phrase, the very simple fact that Rand got them to make this statement/concession to the American public is significant because the American people--I think--understand what "engaged in combat" really means. Regardless of whatever fancy-word two-step the Administration may try in the future.
That's what's significant. No matter what the Administration says or doesn't, their words and promises will not protect us. The People's ability to hold them accountable for abuses of power *can* protect us though. It's a strong deterrent. This statement/concession is a strong tool for that in the realm of the public court, should we ever need to use it.
