The Senate on Thursday voted to confirm John O. Brennan as the new Director of Central Intelligence, by a vote of 63-34, following what was at times a contentious confirmation process.

Brennan has spent the last four years as the top counterterrorism official in the White House in his role as Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. Originally a consolation prize, following his withdrawal from consideration as CIA Director in 2008, Brennan conveyed the role’s proximity to President Barack Obama into one that possessed a large deal of sway over the counterterrorism policies of the administration.

A second chance to lead the CIA for Brennan came following the surprise resignation of former Gen. David Petraeus in Oct. 2012. In the days and weeks after Obama named Brennan as Petraeus’ successor, however, he faced possible roadblocks from various corners. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) threatened to hold up confirmation until more information was handed over related to the Sept. 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya that killed four Americans. Brennan then had to face questions about his role in the waterboarding of detainees during his time at the CIA under the George W. Bush administration.

Brennan received the approval of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on Tuesday, following a deal with the White House to provide Senators access to classified memos related to the administration’s ongoing targeted killing program. What could have been a smooth vote to confirm Brennan was held up by a nearly thirteen hour-long filibuster by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) over the potential use of armed drones in the United States.

After receiving a letter from Attorney General Eric Holder clarifying the administration’s position, Paul agreed to allow Brennan’s nomination to come to a vote. The vote for cloture passed easily by 81 votes to 16, paving the way for a swift confirmation vote only minutes thereafter.

Attorney General Eric Holder has responded to questions on the President’s authority to use drone strikes on U.S. soil in response to concerns about an overreach against civil liberties.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Thursday announced that Holder had written to Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) to clarify the administration’s stance on the use of armed drones to kill U.S. citizens on American soil. In the letter, Holder acceded to Paul’s request that he place in writing of what he told the Senate Judiciary Committee in a meeting before the panel on Wednesday, that a drone strike against an American citizen who is not an imminent threat would be unconstitutional:

CARNEY: Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil? The answer is no. The answer to that question is no.

Paul spent the majority of Wednesday filibustering John Brennan’s nomination as CIA Director to obtain Holder’s answer. A previous letter sent from Holder to Paul had not done enough to clarify the administration’s stance in Paul’s eyes.

Holder’s response to Paul was direct and to the point:

Dear Senator Paul:

It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: “Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?” The answer to that question is no.

Sincerely,

Eric H. Holder, Jr.

Fox News’ Megyn Kelly read Holder’s letter to Sen. Paul on-air, as the Senator had yet to receive it. “Hooray,” Paul responded. “For 13 hours yesterday we asked him that question and so there is a result and a victory under duress, and under public humiliation, the White House will respond and do the right thing.” He then told CNN’s Dana Bash that he was “happy” with the answer and would be dropping his hold on Brennan’s nomination.

While Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) undoubtedly won the DC news cycle on Wednesday with his twelve-hour long filibuster against CIA Director nominee John Brennan, his opposition to drones is not as all-encompassing as you would think.

The coverage of the filibuster fixated on what appeared to be Paul’s unwavering opposition to the use of unmanned vehicles, commonly called drones. As Paul made clear, though, he was only speaking in opposition to their use in a narrow sense, as part of a targeted killing ordered against a U.S. citizen on American soil.

While the White House has so far ignored calls to declassify the Department of Justice memos laying out the administration’s legal argument, it has explained that drone strikes could not Constitutionally be carried out against an individual who was not an imminent threat, effectively answering Paul’s limited question.

Paul’s opposition to the use of drones began with his concerns about their use for surveillance purposes against U.S. citizens without a warrant. To this effect, Paul introduced in 2012 what he called the “Preserving Freedom From Unwarranted Surveillance Act,” that would ”prohibit the use of drones by the government” without a warrant. The Pentagon has pushed back against the need for this new legislation, arguing that the laws that apply to manned aircraft — such as small airplanes and helicopters — would necessarily apply to unmanned drones as well.

That worry about drones is not universal for Paul, however, as he’s less concerned when it comes to enforcing border security via drone. Laying out his stance on comprehensive immigration reform, Paul published an op-ed in the Washington Times making clear that he felt that border security had to be addressed before a path to citizenship could be enacted:

Border security, including drones, satellite and physical barriers, vigilant deportation of criminals and increased patrols would begin immediately and would be assessed at the end of one year by an investigator general from the Government Accountability Office.

Though he did not make it clear, it can be assumed that Paul was referring to drones of the unarmed variety, rather than advocating launching Hellfire missiles at immigrants attempting to cross the border.

Paul’s concerns about drones have also yet to extend into their use as a weapons platform in combating terror overseas. While holding the floor of the Senate, the junior Senator from Kentucky repeatedly acknowledged that strikes in Pakistan and Yemen have shown themselves effective. Paul also several times referenced the use of the tactic known as “signature strikes,” where groups of men between 16-55 who meet a certain profile are considered legitimate targets. These references were only spoken in opposition to the transfer of the tactic to being used against Americans, as Paul said he “didn’t want to say” whether their use as part of a strategy of targeted killing was in the right.