It is factually correct to say that there could be a hypothetical, however unlikely, future scenario where it would be both lawful and Constitutional for the President to authorize the use of military force within the United States. (This already occurred during the Civil War.) That would include any weapon in the US arsenal, including "drones". "Drones" are an evolution in warfare that started with the rock, the spear, the bow and arrow and continued with guns, cannons, bombs, and missiles â" nothing more.
The ONLY valid question is whether it is lawful to execute a military or covert action under some particular circumstance, and whether it is lawful and necessary to target an individual or a place. I'm not making those value judgments, but the tool used, while absolutely an enabler, is utterly and completely irrelevant. Furthermore, both Brennan's and Holder's responses are completely accurate and not contradictory. It is accurate to say that CIA does not have this authority in the United States, and it is accurate to say that there could be a scenario where the military would have such authority. There is no conflict, no subterfuge, no conspiracy.
People are conflating multiple things. The justification for targeted killing of US citizens OUTSIDE the US includes several narrow criteria, a key one of which is being OUTSIDE the US. Holder's response is that the President has the authority to use the military within the US, which is factually correct, and necessarily includes any weapon in the US arsenal, including "drones". So why would they be "ruled out"? I understand the arguments, but people are really conflating multiple issues, and don't seem to even understand why we're using unmanned aircraft where we're using them in the first place.
If Paul wants the President to "rule out" the use of some particular military tool on US soil, why isn't he also asking the President to "rule out" manned aircraft, guns, or anything else?
Even the Posse Comitatus Act is very straightforward:
"Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
The "except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress" allows domestic use of the military in cases authorized by Congress OR the Constitution. Many legal scholars would agree that the President's inherent Article II authority would allow such employment of the military -- as was the case with President Lincoln. This is not a new concept.
If people can't envision any case where it would ever be appropriate to use US military force on US soil, then they aren't very imaginative -- or knowledgeable of history.
Of course, if there ever were a September 11-scale event where it would be clearly appropriate to employ the US military on US soil, there would be a large contingent of Americans -- who I am ashamed to call fellow citizens -- would immediately think it was a "false flag operation" used as an excuse to carry out domestic military operations.
Paul doesn't really want debate; he is pandering to those who think the government is constantly looking for ways to "go after" Americans at home, and to people with this paranoia complex, it connects quite well.