I watch the video of Rand Paul
and I don't recall him saying any of this in his 13 hr Filibuster but, that's still beside the point. Rand Paul is wrong to suggest there could be some situations that would warrant the use of drones!
There is NEVER a good reason for drones to be use for surveillance anywhere because, they will always end-up being used for all the wrong reasons, including unconstitutional reasons and already have been over and over again over seas.
We do NOT Now or Ever need or want a surveillance state!
"They (drones) may only be considered in extraordinary, lethal situations where there is an ongoing, imminent threat."
This implies "Rand Paul" would consider the use of Drones and/or Drone Strikes if there is an "ongoing, imminent threat", which also means the Constitutional right to due process would be violated the moment the "so called" imminent threat was killed either by a drone or, a police force that used the drones spotting technology to find said "imminent threat" and kill them.