Here’s Kevin explaining why Eric Holder’s curt reply to Rand Paul’s question on domestic drones is “slippery,” at best:
Sen. Paul’s communications team declared victory after Eric Holder sent a letter to Paul today saying that no, President Obama does not claim “the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil.” … While it sounds nice that if an American isn’t “engaged in combat,” she’ll be safe, that still leaves the Obama Administration a lot of wiggle room. And precious little oversight.
That was last Thursday. Fast forward to today:
“Sen. Paul’s 13 hours on the Senate floor won’t have any practical effect on our policy and how we’re going after terrorists on a day-to-day basis,” a senior administration official told Yahoo News on condition of anonymity. But didn’t Paul wring a letter out of Obama’s top lawyer, Attorney General Eric Holder, in which he effectively promised that Americans who aren’t lining up to take a shot at the Capitol with a grenade launcher (to paraphrase the senator) are safe? In a word: No. During his 13 hours on the Senate floor, Paul repeatedly asked whether Obama believed he had the authority to kill an American, on U.S. soil, who was not “actively attacking” America. The question prompted Holder to respond. “Dear Senator Paul,” Holder said in a 43-word letter. “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.” Holder didn’t use the phrase “actively attacking.” And administration officials privately agreed on Friday that “not engaged in combat” was the key phrase going forward. None of them agreed to define the expression on the record.