NOTE TO STUDENTS: Before answering the questions, read the "Background" below.

1. The first paragraph of a news article should answer the questions who, what, where and when. List the who, what, where and when of this news item. (NOTE: The remainder of a news article provides details on the why and/or how.)

2. a) What is a filibuster?
b) For what reason is Senator Rand Paul staging a filibuster? (What is he aiming to achieve?)

3. What makes Senator Paul's filibuster unusual?

4. What did Attorney General Eric Holder tell a Senate committee earlier Wednesday about the Obama administration's use of drones?

5. From para. 15-16: Sen. Paul described the legal situation as one in which one person - the president - holds the power to be the accuser, the judge and the executioner, since terrorist-designation proceedings are all contained within the executive branch and done generally in secret. "Are we so afraid of terrorism, are we so afraid of terrorists that we're willing to just throw out our rights and freedom?" he asked.
What do you think: Should any president (Democrat or Republican) have the power to order a drone strike on an American citizen? If so, only in another country, or in the U.S. also? Also if so, under what circumstances? Explain your answers.

6. When asked in February if he believed he has the authority to authorize a drone strike against an American citizen on U.S. soil, President Obama didn't exactly answer the question. Then, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) posed that exact question to Obama's CIA nominee Brennan in a written questionnaire. His answer: "This Administration has not carried out drone strikes inside the United States and has no intention of doing so."
So why didn't President Obama just say, "No, the president cannot deploy drone strikes against U.S. citizens on American soil"?
Do you think the president, John Brennan and Attorney General Holder should have given definitive answers? Why or why not?