Democrats during the Bush administration championed themselves as defenders of freedom and civil liberties.

The Patriot Act was widely vilified by liberals at the time; the National Security Agency’s warrantless wiretap program was considered a great offense and extraordinary rendition was abhorrent.

Then President Barack Obama was elected.

Almost overnight, discussions about civil liberties and the growing powers of the executive branch came to a halt in Congress.

Last week, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., tried to bring these issues back in focus.

Paul’s 13-hour filibuster of now-CIA Director John Brennan’s nomination highlighted the extreme powers held by the executive branch since 9/11. He asked the president if it was legal to use a drone to assassinate an

American on U.S. soil. In one day, Paul referenced drones more than Congress ever has, according to The Atlantic.

Attorney General Eric Holder had previously responded to Paul’s questioning, stating while there is no plan to use weaponized drones on U.S. soil, there may be an “extraordinary circumstance” which would “authorize the military to use lethal force” within the country. Holder later told Paul it was not possible to assassinate an American non-combatant with a drone.

It’s easy to hear that and think “that’s reasonable,” but this is a legal issue, and anyone familiar with law knows vague terms like “extraordinary circumstance” need reasonable definitions to be understood.

Already, the administration has used vague legal terms to justify the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki, the American citizen and radical cleric. The most offensive was its definition of what constituted an “imminent threat.”

In a paper released just last month, the administration claimed the condition that a terrorist leader who poses an “imminent threat … does not require the

United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.”

And it’s widely known that “militants” killed by the administration’s overseas drone strikes are simply “all military-aged males in a strike zone,” regardless of innocence.

Yet that didn’t stop The Washington Post’s editorial board from calling Paul “paranoid” for being unhappy with Holder’s answer, nor MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell from making similar claims of paranoia about Paul’s “wild imaginings.”

However, the issue was never the immediate threat of a drone strike on American soil, and anyone who frames it that way is creating a straw man.

The issue is about the danger of giving the president the power to assassinate American citizens he or she accuses of being a terrorist without any oversight. The issue is about what the long-term effects of this power might be in a seemingly indefinite war against an abstract. The issue is about what this precedent sets for a future president who may not be quite as subdued.

Nonetheless, many liberals rallied around these ad hominem attacks and red herrings about Paul’s other policies (many of which I don’t agree with either).

So quickly, liberal Democrats have assumed the role Republicans held during Bush’s presidency.

I remember when criticism of the Patriot Act and the warrantless wiretaps were based around accusations of paranoia. The old adage “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear” was thrown around often as an attempt to criticize those fearful of over-reaching executive power.

Paul’s filibuster flipped this scenario, showing the true colors of Democrats as spineless partisans lacking in any sort of conviction.

It’s as though liberal elites, from the intelligentsia to the media, have become so enamored by Obama they’ve gotten tunnel vision.

Here’s a president who is intelligent and articulate, who can make the country look better in the eyes of the world and who is progressive on social issues.

Nevermind that Obama hasn’t done all that much with social issues, nevermind that “Obamacare” was a Heritage Foundation plan and nevermind that his foreign policy and love of secrecy is straight out of Bush’s playbook.

Even Brennan, the nominee so vigorously defended, endorsed torture under Bush, supported the FISA Amendments Act and led the drone program.

Of course, there are outliers like Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who had made seven attempts over two years to see the White House’s legal backing for drones. And Monday, House Democrats demanded the Obama administration that release information on its use of drone strikes.

However, the Democrats need to do more in order to win back the civil liberties crowd.

They need to grow a pair and stand up to the president.

David Scheuermann is a 21-year-old journalism and computer science junior from Kenner.