I encourage you to watch the filibuster then, because Rand Paul is explicitly claiming that he is not concerned with a person " engaged in some sort of military-style assault upon the US" being killed by drones. His concern is explicitly that there has been no clarification that drones will not be used to kill non-combatant citizens on American soil. He has directly said his concern is with non-combatants. Multiple times. How can there be any reasonable opposition to this?
His concern is explicitly that there has been no clarification that drones will not be used to kill non-combatant citizens on American soil.
'[T]he US Government has not carried out drone strikes within the United States and has no intention of doing so.'
That sounds pretty damn clear to me. That's why I say Senator Paul is pandering; he has had the clarification he asked for. Holder can't very well cite laws that Congress has not seen fit to write.
No, not really. Also, I invite you consider the second half of my comment above. As far as I know, there is no law limiting the Administration's use of drones pursuant to its lawful exercise of military force.
