Rand Paul's tangible filibuster worked.

I do not agree with 90% of what Rand Paul stands for, especially on economic issues.  But using drones in the US on Americans, deserved as much attention as possible, to get clarification.

This is the initial letter AG Holder sent to Rand Paul, which triggered Paul's filibuster of John Brennan's nomination vote.

Why did this letter trigger Rand Paul to ask more questions? Because AG Holder was verbose, volunteering an example of when drones could be used.  It led to the logical question: What other circumstances would allow the President to use drones to kill Americans in the US?

But hold on, didn't Holder say that such an act would only occur under the applicable laws and the US Constitution?

I think it is obvious: Under the Bush Administration, John Yoo, in his capacity at the DOJ, authored the legal memo that provided clearance to use torture against enemy combatants.  Laws and constitutions are subject to loose interpretations by those who wish to do whatever they want to do.  That is why Holder's explanation did not pass muster -- he literally said that the White House could use drones against Americans if it could find the legal reasoning to do so.

Apparently Rand Paul's efforts got the AG's notice, and he sent Senator Paul the following, concise letter:

Now that's much better!