Below is a link to the recent testimony of Attorney General Eric Holder in response to a question or questions by Senator Cruz about the use of drones against U.S. citizens located in the United States. I had heard it suggested that Mr. Holder in essence refused to answer the questions. You decide for yourself – basically, I thought that the Attorney General’s responses were fine when considered as a whole.
It might have been better, within the context of the setting including that it was public in nature, if Mr. Holder had just responded outright, “no, I don’t believe it would be appropriate or within the Constitution to use drones in the hypothetical situation that you have described.”
Instead, the manner of Mr. Holder’s answer was more similar in nature to the manner in which a lawyer speaks, which might not have been the best approach, or perhaps he was not prepared for the question or was not able to evaluate the question and formulate his answer within the time that he thought that he had to answer.
The questioning was about a hypothetical situation, and it is arguable from a lawyer’s viewpoint that the hypothetical situation is incomplete and lacks foundation, and could be vague and ambiguous. On the other hand, Senator Cruz specifically drafted his question or questions, and it could be expected that he would ask follow-up questions until he felt that he had obtained a sufficiently specific yes or no answer. The following is a link to Mr. Holder’s testimony: