By Susan Duclos
After a 13 hour talking filibuster and public support from the left, right and center, Senator Rand Paul and others that joined with him, managed to apply enough pressure on the Obama administration to finally receive an answer to whether Obama has authority to kill an American on U.S. soil in a non-combat situation.
From AG Eric Holder, via White House mouthpiece Jay Carney "The answer is no."
Then Carney adds "“if the United States were under attack, there were an imminent threat,”
the president has the authority to protect the country from that
assault.."
One has to wonder why it took so long, a 13 hour filibuster, an explosion of support for the questions and demands for an answer from the Obama administration on social media, a petition on the White House website, countless articles and hours of television time, to get that very simply answer?
Should Senator Paul now followup with a request for an official definition from the Obama administration as to what they consider a "combat situation" on American soil to be?
[Update] Paul responds:
"Hooray!" Paul responded, when read the letter for the first time during an interview with Fox News. "For 13 hours yesterday, we asked him that question, so there is a result and a victory. Under duress and under public humiliation, the White House will respond and do the right thing."
More:
But on Thursday afternoon, Holder sent a terse letter to Paul that said: "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."
In response, Paul said Thursday that "we're proud to announce that the president is not going to kill unarmed Americans on American soil." He later took to the floor to promote the attorney general's response, before the Senate moved to vote on Brennan.
