More on the Filibuster

Justin Raimondo has written a piece in praise of Rand Paul’s efforts.  He is quite positive about Senator Paul’s efforts.

Raimondo ends with the following:

NOTES IN THE MARGIN

In a terse, guarded letter in response to Sen. Paul, Holder has – finally – given a clear "no" to the original question that started this whole brouhaha: does the US government have the legal right to kill Americans on American soil without trial or due process? Clearly a victory for the Kentucky Kid – and perhaps an augury of victories to come.

But this isn’t what Holder answered or wrote; not even close to the statement in the 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.

                            Sincerely,

    Eric H. Holder, Jr.

Is there some other Holder statement that I have not seen?  Holder says nothing about trial or due process.  Holder’s statement cannot be deemed a “victory for the Kentucky Kid….”  Holder’s statement is wide enough for a drone to pass through whenever the president deems it.

Jacob Hornberger captures the reality of the statement much better than does Raimondo:

What about Holder’s supplemental letter read yesterday by White House Press Secretary Carney? A careful reading of it reveals that it’s simply a clever device to obfuscate Obama’s real position. It’s saying that the president lacks the authority to use a drone to assassinate an innocent American—i.e., an American “not engaged in combat on American soil.”

I fully stand by my earlier view on this subject, and appreciate Rand Paul’s efforts for the educational value.  But this statement by Holder does not augur well for victories to come.  While I appreciate Raimondo’s comments regarding Paul’s efforts, I do not understand his enthusiasm for (and inaccurate representation of) Holder’s statement.