I would think most people would be against drone killings of american citizens without due process who aren't an imminent threat.
I've heard this mentioned a few times. I'm not exactly up on the issue, but it seems like one of these:
-Side A sees an item of policy that has way too much room for abuse.
-Side B doesn't see what the big deal is, because the policy has a totally different purpose and they can't see why anyone would abuse the policy.
Public policy and social mores never fail to snowball over a period of years in an inexorable way. A slight policy change can result in a quiet cultural revolution over the course of the next 30 years. Part of me is tempted to say Paul's probably grandstanding but obscure loopholes can really come to wreak havoc later. Laws need to be just in all facets, any breach is a big deal.