Developing: Pakistani Plane Escorted by UK Fighter Jets — 2 Men Arrested

Listen to the Buck Sexton Show Live on TheBlaze Radio

Business

(UPDATED) Eric Holder’s New Letter to Sen. Rand Paul: Here’s Your Answer

Mar. 7, 2013 2:01pm Becket Adams

Citing a new letter from Attorney General Eric Holder, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Thursday responded to Kentucky Senator Rand Paul’s question regarding the White House and its stance on the use of drones on U.S. citizens.

“Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on an American soil,” said Carney, reading Holder’s letter. “The answer is no.’”

Here’s Holder’s letter:

Eric Holder Sends Brief Response to Sen. Rand Paul

Twitter

However, Carney added that “if the United States were under attack, there were an imminent threat [emphasis added],” then the president would have the authority to order military action to repel said threat.

So, although Holder’s response to Sen. Paul’s is a flat “No,” it sounds like we still haven’t escaped “imminent threat vs. immediate threat” purgatory.

Still, regardless of the letter’s brevity and the fact that Sens. Lindsay Graham and John McCain characterized Sen. Paul’s question as “ridiculous,” the fact that his filibuster pushed the White House into issuing an official response means one thing: The freshman senator gets results.

–

UPDATE: Following the release of Holder’s letter, Sen. Paul said that he is satisfied with the White House’s response and that he will end his objection to the nomination of John Brennan as director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

“We’ll hold a vote as soon as people want to,” he said, adding that he was “quite happy with the answer.”

“I’m disappointed it took a month and a half and a root canal to get it,” he added, “but we did get the answer.”

Later, on the Senate floor, Sen. Paul addressed Holder’s letter: “So it has taken a while, but we got an explicit answer. I am pleased that we did and I think the entire battle was worth while.”

Follow Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) on Twitter

Featured image Getty Images. This post has been updated.

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (307)

Cogent1325
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 3:51pm
Will no one ask the obvious question? HOW DO YOU DEFINE “COMBAT”?!?!

What if writing an email critical of the president is considered “psychological combat?”

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
thegoldman
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 3:49pm
The military only if we are invaded…

By another country…

The National Guard is a different story…

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Mathchopper
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 3:46pm
Do “noncombatants” include tea-partiers, NRA members or preppers. I really doubt it. Keep your powder dry. You’ll need it soon.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Brentley
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 3:42pm
OK..how many of you really believe HOLDER? Rand Paul is one of them. He should have asked HOLDER to resign and then saw to it that he did. Holder will never give us the answers to Fast and Furious..and if Paul thinks that HOLDER will abide by a piece of paper then he is as dumb as they come.
We are being played by both parties by all candidates and they are spinning the country into the ground.
PRAY that hearts eyes will open and they turn from their evil wicked ways.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 4:10pm
  You need to think strategically. He did the right thing by ‘accepting’ this. If he would have continued to press he would have been made out to be a petulant foot stomping child. As it is, in accepting this gracefully, he’s placed himself into the position of an adult who has corrected a child and then accepted the child’s apology. Obama was forced to save face, and was demonstrated quite visibly to not be the infallible, invincible giant that many believe that he is. He blinked. Rand won, and he won the right way.
  
  Expect the character assassination of Rand Paul to begin immediately, and that’s only if he’s lucky and something worse doesn’t happen. Obama will feel the very strong need to make a very severe and public example of the serf who dared to challenge the emperor.
  
  Report this comment
- freedomcatcher
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 4:46pm
  @ Ghost
  
  Could be that Rand after 13 hous was just so exausted that his answer was just more of a reflex than anything.
  
  Report this comment
thibx
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 3:40pm
you damn right he would use it. if you believe anything oboma or holder says you are nuts. watch when the republicans replace oboma the communist democrats will be yelling to do away with the law.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Tigress1
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 3:40pm
Since Rand Paul seems to be able to get the attention of the current administration, maybe he can hold another filibuster questioning why the gov. has been purchasing so much ammunition, guns and tanks? Who do they feel is such a huge threat, or are they sending all these weapons to Syria, etc.?

I’ve been listening to Glenn Beck, Rush and now Hannity all day, and while what Rand Paul did yesterday was great and badly needed, that doesn’t mean that he should automatically be catapulted to the front of the line for the GOP Presidential Nominee in 2014. While I feel Paul is a good guy and a patriot, simply doing ONE thing doesn’t necessarily qualify someone to be our President! Yeah, it’s nice to be excited, but gosh! Don’t go overboard already!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Leerm
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 3:38pm
The only thing that tees me off here is that it took so long to get simple answer. And of course it is NO. And there is no difference between a police officer killing a US citizen who is holding hostages with a gun to their head and the President ordering a US citizen killed who is holding a button to a weapon of mass distruction. Lets all use a little common sense here.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- barber2
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 3:45pm
  I think the White House just enjoys toying with political opponents and playing like Mob Bosses . This administration has chip on its shoulder and always acts defensively. They only play to win. Guess it’s that Alinsky ” taking power from those who have ” attitude. Weird, since now these guys now have the power and they are being very nasty in its use. Bad attitudes.
  
  Report this comment
Need to be FREE
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 3:35pm
They did say “No” but did they answer the question? I don’t think so.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Bro Geo Too
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 3:35pm
Dear Rino’s,
You have been measured, you have been found wanting, your days are numbered.
Sincerely,
American Patriots

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
woodenputter
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 3:34pm
Obama’s going to do what he wants, when he wants. The constitution of the United States of America means nothing to this fraud, why would his word mean anything?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
cast
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 3:32pm
Good job yesterday Rand Paul. NOT! a good enough answer from Holder. Who do they see as an imminent threat? The Tea Party 9/12 groups ect.? Mr. Paul should still vote no for Brennan. Thank You Mike Lee for the no vote on Brennan.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
barber2
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 3:31pm
What about if the White House declares Martial Law ? If the Far Left Chicago radicals bring their OWS allies back into Democrat- controlled cities and their international Black Bloc Anarchists join in, will the White House declare Martial Law ? Does this mean that Americans can then be targeted because they are ” in combat” with government troops ??

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- firman
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 4:39pm
  And will they do what they did during katrina and go door to door taking guns? If we resist, we will be considered “Dronable”.
  
  Report this comment
V-MindMeld
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 3:30pm
I still am not convinced! sorry just can’t trust him or his boss, Rand should’nt cave so easy. and I hope they write some laws that will specify that they can not use drones in that manner,,,,they all lie and will always have an excuse for their lies,,,,,,

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
NigelTufnel
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 3:24pm
Where is Meteor, Sinsai and Keaton? They should be outraged at their president for acting like bush! Probably looking to throw someone from a train for singing out loud! Drone that old woman!!!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Ghandi was a Republican
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 3:19pm
Bring Holder back to the Senate for clarification and an answer to why he didn’t have an answer when it was brought to his attention in person. He needs to be questioned on the record where he can be held LEGALLY accountable. “WE ARE A NATION OF LAWS”

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
oceandove
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 3:14pm
The President does not have the authority to use a WEAPONIZED Drone, so he has the authority to use drones to spy on the people? Does he have the authority to kill using a drone that is NOT weaponized? After all, a pen is a weapon to be used to stop a rapist, so a drone itself can be used to kill in the same way.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Chrison
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 3:14pm
Holder’s letter would be quite reassuring if this particular President wasn’t so prone to taking actions without proper authority because, as he constantly put is, “We can’t wait!” This President has repeatedly overstepped his bounds and, unfortunately, the Congress has allowed him to do so. Some immediate examples include:

* The “recess appointment” of members to the NLRB when the Congress was not in recess which a federal court has now deemed to be null and void.

* The fact that the President hasn’t presented a budget within the requirements of the law. For that matter, the democatically-controlled Senate hasn’t presented and passed a budget in FOUR years!

* The President’s frequent use of “executive orders” to put in place policies he can’t get through Congress, including ordering ICE to not detain illegal aliens unless they have committed some other illegal act.

And so forth, and so on. In short, this President has clearly and REPEATEDLY shown by his actions that the requirements of the Constitution are, at least for him, OPTIONAL and if he so choses he can ignore them!

If THAT doesn’t scare the living hell out of Americans, then I’m not sure what will! So, Senators McCain and Graham, YOU may think that Senator Paul’s filibuster was “ridiculous” but there’s a whole LOT of Americans who are pretty darned worried!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
LakeHartwellSailor
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 3:13pm
Rand Paul may be satisifed with this answer, but I sure as heck am not. Additionally, has Holder addressed Senator Cruz’s question regarding the Constitutionality of using Drones against US Citizens? Rand Paul seemed to frame his question around combat conditions and the use of drones on US Citizens; while Senator Cruz framed his question around the Constitutionality of using drones.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Cogent1325
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 3:55pm
  Agreed….and remember, Clinton can change the definition of “sexual relations,” (a BJ isn’t an act of sex according to Clinton) Obama can change the definition of “war” (bombing Libya isn’t an act of war according to Obama), then why is no one worried how they might change the definition of combat?
  
  What if combat ends up being staying out of your house later than 10 pm? What if combat becomes any comments negative or critical of government action? What if combat ends up being owning guns…or silver?
  
  Report this comment
My Two Cents
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 3:12pm
Meanwhile…Senators McCain and Graham wring their hands and worry about offending the liberals.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
ree758
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 3:12pm
Do not confirm Brennan

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
oceandove
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 3:12pm
Again he avoids any Constitution reference. The President doesn’t have the authority, UNDER THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. Congress can NOT give him this authority, without amending the U.S. Constitution.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
team1blazer
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 3:11pm
Thank you Sen. Paul (and Cruz, Rubio…)for standing firm and backing these communists into the corner where they belong. Keep it up. This republic is worth fighting for. Sen McShame and Gramcracker need to be horse whipped.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
davetrav
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 3:11pm
WHY wasn’t that said from day one . If the people in Washington were honest enough with the American people , we would have already been out of this mess. WISE UP WASHINGTON.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
buckeyetater
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 3:09pm
I have had it for a while now with this arrogant man. What a total disgrace he is. And I don’t believe that it is an additional question it was the original questioned asked privately over 6 weeks ago without a sufficient reply. If Mr. Holder had answered the question 5 1/2 weeks ago to Mr. Paul’s very simple question we wouldn’t have had to have a 13 hour filibuster would we. We also wouldn’t have to ask the question if this president and all that surround him weren’t the most radical group of communist ever to stink up the Whitehouse. Ten years ago it would have been rediculous but since 2008 not so much.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- barber2
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 3:36pm
  Agree that Holder is arrogant, just like his boss and the rest of the Chicago radicals. I also do not think he has answered the real question of defining ” involved in combat ” and ” imminent ” threat as to how each can affect the interpretation of this statement.
  
  Report this comment
4XGrace
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 3:06pm
Holder had his fingers crossed so it doesn’t count.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.