Holder just issued the following curt note in a huff:
The Attorney General
Washington, D.C. March 7, 2013
The Honorable Rand Paul United States Senate Washington, DC 20510
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.
So, this means that due to the advancement in drone technology and their weaponization, the ATF would’ve handled Waco much differently had it happened today.
Holder forgot to preface his “no” with “conceivably...”
A little background on my comment:
The president could conceivably have no choice but to authorise the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland.
Rand Paul should ask for a clarification in what is meant by “not engaged in combat”. Those sound like weasel words to me.