Further Update on Drones
Michael Ramsey
Apparently the Attorney General has sent a letter to Senator Rand Paul that states in full:
"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."
Two questions:
(1) Really? That must be some pretty broad definition of "combat," because I would have thought that the President could use a weaponized drone (like any other weapon) to stop an imminent and unlawful lethal use of force that wouldn't come under the ordinary definition of combat (e.g., an assassination).
and
(2) Well, then, why does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat not on American soil?
My guess is that the Attorney General is indeed using a unusually broad definition of "combat" such that al-Awlaki, or anyone else the President believes is assisting terrorism, is "engaged in combat."
Senator Paul says he is happy with the answer, but I think that's because he is not a lawyer.