"The federal government may not use drones to kill U.S. citizens on U.S. soil if they do not represent an imminent threat."

"The Commander in Chief does, of course, have the power to protect Americans from imminent attack, and nothing in this legislation interferes with that power."

Cruz and Paul introduce a bill.

Meanwhile, Holder answers Paul's question:

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney quoted from the letter that Holder sent to Paul today. “Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on an American soil?” Holder wrote, per Carney. “The answer is no.”

So then, all agree.

Or... I don't know. McCain and Graham seem to have suffered a narcissistic injury:

"So we've done a, I think, a disservice to a lot Americans by making them believe that somehow they're in danger from their government," McCain said. "They're not. But we are in danger. We are in danger from a dedicated, longstanding, easily replaceable leadership enemy that is hellbent on our destruction. And this leads us to having to do things that perhaps we haven't had to do in other more conventional wars."...

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) [said] "Noncombatants under the law of war are protected, not subject to being killed randomly. So to suggest that the president won't answer that question somehow legitimizes that the drone program is going to result in being used against anybody in a room having a cup of coffee, to me, cheapens the debate."

It's so hard to see these young twerps getting attention. The elders should run the show.

Hey, remember when the NYT presented Obama as cool — with his "kill list"?

Paul flipped it.