After ending the filibuster 13 hours later, Attorney General Eric Holder sends a letter that says,
Dear Senator Paul:
It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: "Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?" The answer to that question is no.
Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Weekly Standard says everyone but Senator Paul himself have received the letter.
According to CNN, Paul says:
"I'm quite happy with the answer," the senator from Kentucky said on CNN. "I'm disappointed it took a month and a half and a root canal to get it, but we did get the answer."
Well I'm not. Because it is still the President who happens to be sitting at the White House who will decide what "combat" is. By the ever "wider" definition being adopted by this particular administration of what "terrorism" may mean, "combat" could mean a protest against the president's policy, or intention to protest.
"If we let him/her, he/she might commit a terrorist act, so we preemptively eliminate him/her", or something along that line. And people will go "Oh.. OK... I guess you're right."
Some media outlets like MSNBC reported on the filibuster with a disdain, but failed to mention Senator Paul is asking about the US drone attack INSIDE the United States. As if it is totally OK to use it outside the US.
In Pakistan and Afghanistan, people were killed by the US military drones in their weddings and funerals. Are weddings and funerals "combat"?
Well Rand Paul is not his father, that's for sure.