Combat on American Soil

The nation's honorable top lawyer, Eric Holder, has provided a written answer to senator Rand Paul's question about the government's ability to kill US citizens using drones. Eric Holder now says that the government does not have the power to take out Americans "not engaged in combat on American soil." However, the definition of the word combat has not been made public.
I'm not quite sure what the current administration defines as ''combat,'' but Obama's bombing of Lybia was in the administration's non-congressionally-challenged words merely "counterterrorism activity." Likewise, the definition of the word combat will be lost in the definition of "imminence."
Consider how the people taken out in Yemen were simply going about their day, not actually carrying a rifle or building a bomb to take out US interests. The fact that the drone targets could be willing to attack in the future was enough for them to get wiped off the face of Yemen. Without a doubt, we have changed the definition of the word ''imminence'' and ''war,'' and will most certainly redefine the word "combat."
However, the fact alone that the executive branch thinks it can take out Americans not engaged in combat outside of American soil should be reason enough to worry that China and Russia will have precedent to in the future use drones on their dissidents and defectors. Though, at the rate things are going, soon the US itself may have dissidents and defectors.
Let's consider if Obama had been in charge on 9/11 and been faced with the prospect of shooting down a plane. The technology of death -- a missile -- is the same as the one that would be equipped on a drone. Obama would have been able to, on 9/11, shoot down the plane that was headed for the Pentagon, even while knowing that there were innocent Americans on board.
However, should the president be able to take out a hijacked bus that is packed with a bomb and headed to crash into a nuclear power plant? Then the question of imminence comes into effect. Your life and right to trial may come down to how capable the local authorities are at stopping the bus, or assuring the president and public that they can stop the bus. The point is, Eric Holder's simple response of "no" is not enough. The American people have a right to know when their government thinks it can kill any of them.
After Rand Paul's filibuster, senator McCain criticized him for scaring Americans into thinking that their government could harm them. Though, the Founding Fathers warned that governments do just that: they usurp power and harm the interests of the majority. And Americans should be scared! Tomorrow we could have a very panicked president Joe Biden struggling to keep a traumatized nation together.