Last Wednesday night, Tea Party darling Rand Paul filibustered for 13 hours, ostensibly about the nomination of John Brennan to be CIA director. Paul was primarily filibustering the use of the Obama's administration's use of drones. He was primarily upset about the potential use of drones on American citizens in America. He did also criticize the use of drones abroad based on "terrorists" past behavior.
Rand Paul asked Republican whipping boy, attorney general Eric Holder, "does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?" Holder replied that the answer to that question is no.
Before the filibuster, on Tuesday March 5, Eric Holder sent a letter to Senator Paul saying that the use of lethal military force is "..entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront." The two possible extraordinary examples that Holder gave where lethal military force would be alright would be Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Paul, seemingly agreed to this in his filibuster, saying, "nobody questions if planes are flying towards the Twin Towers whether they can be repulsed by the military." But, apparently Paul was questioning this.
During the Senate judiciary hearing earlier on Wednesday, another Tea Party darling, Ted Cruz questioned Holder if it was constitutional for a drone strike to be ordered on an American "sitting quietly in a cafe." Holder replied that it was not appropriate. After a lengthy back and forth, Holder said to translate appropriate to constitutional. Holder replied that his answer was not a contradiction to the letter he sent Paul.
So, you might be asking why did Paul go on his filibuster if he already had his answer to the questions he was going to bring up in his filibuster? I imagine he is positioning himself for a presidential run in 2016.