He made the nation pay attention to an issue the media deemed irrelevant. And he got precisely what he demanded:


http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/at...88572.html

Now, was that so difficult, Mr. Holder?

Apparently it was. Said it took him a month and a half and the filibuster was just a vehicle to get his request out in front of the public.

I've long said the filibuster, a real one- reading the phone book and that type thing, is something that should be used a lot more often. The punch the clock, "I'm filibustering" then going home routine accomplished next to nothing.

The next question is...how does Holder define "in combat?"

Well played Mr. Paul...well played.

(03-07-2013 05:37 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  The next question is...how does Holder define "in combat?"

Shush, silly. That's for the president to determine. By secretly putting your name on a list, a list that you will never find out about (until it's too late) and can't challenge.

Holder artfully neglects to answer the question Paul actually asked (and Cruz as well) in favor of a strawman. "Suspected of being a terrorist" somehow failed to be included in his response. Of course the president can't order the assassination of an American citizen who isn't even suspected of doing anything wrong. As he noted while misconstruing (intentionally?) Cruz's remarkably simple hypothetical the first time, the president couldn't even have such a person arrested. But that was never the question, just as whether the president could use drones to stop another Pearl Harbor or 9/11 was never the question. And this response does not answer the actual question.

This letter provides no additional assurances above what we had before the filibuster began. If Paul actually considers this an adequate response I might start considering the view that it was all just grandstanding.