Holder’s Answer to Rand Paul Is Not Good Enough

All Americans owe Rand Paul a debt of thanks for his recent filibuster to force the Obama administration to clarify its position on the constitutionality of drone strikes on American soil.  Unfortunately,  the Attorney General’s answer was not only slow in coming, it fell short.

Mr. Holder said that it would not be constitutional to kill a noncombatant American on American soil without due process of law. This sounds good until we remember that the Obama administration used a drone to kill two noncombatant American citizens in Yemen. One of these, Anwar al-Awlaki, was a propagandist for combatants fighting against the American soldiers abroad. Such propagandists are arguably part of the enemy force, and a case can be made for targeting them as an act of war, whether by drones or otherwise. But was Mr. Holder claiming that an American on American soil who is suspected of propagandizing for the enemy may be killed without charge or trial? This question needs to be answered, and quickly.

It must also be noted that Mr. Awlaki’s son was also killed, for no worse crime than having made a poor choice of fathers. Collateral damage is an unfortunate part of war, but must we now expect it to be a fact of life of drone strikes in America? I want an answer, Mr. Holder. If Rand Paul won’t ask you, I do so now.

Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad, Ph.D.
Minaret of Freedom Institute

Leave a Reply