I saw today that some people were complaining and poking fun at Rand Paul for his talking filibuster yesterday. Paul was making a point about how the Obama administration needed to clarify that it would not use unmanned drones to killl American citizens on our own soil. I see nothing wrong with that, and would much rather have the type of filibuster where someone gets up and TALKS instead of places a hold on a bill. Now, I didn't agree with everything Paul was saying during that marathon and some of it seemed a little peevish and paranoid, but I completely support his right to say what he thinks. As one of the Supreme Court justices said, the answer to bad speech is MORE speech. So those people who don't like Rand Paul on principle or because he's a member one the Republican party should still, in my book, salute him for bringing his concerns out in the open instead of, as so many in Congress do, keeping them behind closed doors.

P.S. Here's Eric Holder's answer to this.

It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: "Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?" Holder wrote. "The answer to that question is no."