April 25, 2013 12:26PM # Rand Paul’s “Teachable Moment” By [Malou Innocent](https://www.cato.org/people/malou-innocent) --- SHARE On the U.S. government’s targeted killing and drone-bombing program, [in the past](http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/yemen-drones-the-imperial-presidency-7002?page=show) [I have harped on](http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/the-convoluted-debate-drones-5682?page=show) [the fact that despite the discrete](http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/pakistan%E2%80%99s-boldness-reveals-america%E2%80%99s-weakness-5244?page=show) [and immediate effects of](https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/us-must-reassess-its-drone-policy) [disrupting terrorist activity](http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/praise-drones-5006), no expert can conclusively answer whether such tactics materially reduce the threat of terrorism. But don’t just take my word for it: - General James E. Cartwright, the retired, former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, [has said](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/22/us/influential-ex-aide-to-obama-voices-concern-on-drone-strikes.html?_r=0) about drones undermining America’s long-term battle against extremism, “We’re seeing that blowback…If you’re trying to kill your way to a solution, no matter how precise you are, you’re going to upset people even if they’re not targeted.” - General Stanley McChrystal, the retired, former commander in Afghanistan, [has said](http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/07/us-usa-afghanistan-mcchrystal-idUSBRE90608O20130107) about drones and anti-American sentiment, “The resentment created by American use of unmanned strikes … is much greater than the average American appreciates. They are hated on a visceral level…” - And John Bellinger, a former State Department legal adviser in the George W. Bush administration, [has said](http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-10-02/opinions/35279231_1_drone-strikes-anwar-al-awlaki-drone-program) that one day, drone strikes might “become as internationally maligned as Guantanamo.” Today, [in a piece for *U.S. News and World Report*](http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2013/04/25/rand-paul-must-continue-to-argue-against-presidential-use-of-drones), I write about yet another relevant factor in the drone debate beyond the scope of the aforementioned issues: the Congressional prerogative to limit executive war powers. It explains why Senator Rand Paul (R‑KY) should keep fighting the good fight for more transparency over the program: > Today, our commander in chief, through a secretive decision-making process based on classified evidence, has declared the right to use lethal force against anybody, anytime, anywhere on earth. Although Paul’s effort to shine a harsh light on targeted killings has thus far been commendable, he has squandered many opportunities to explain how we get back to the constitution-based system he champions. In this respect, the liberty movement has been right to hold his feet to the fire. Thus, here comes the “teachable moment.” [Check it out](http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2013/04/25/rand-paul-must-continue-to-argue-against-presidential-use-of-drones)! ##### Related Tags [Defense and Foreign Policy](https://www.cato.org/defense-foreign-policy), [Constitutional Law](https://www.cato.org/constitutional-law), [Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies](https://www.cato.org/robert-levy-center-constitutional-studies) [![Creative Commons License](/build/cato_2020/images/creative-commons.svg)](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) This work is licensed under a [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/).