Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

White House, Holder respond to Rand Paul: ‘The answer is no’ (Lindsey Graham offended!)
Washington Examiner ^ | 3/7/13 | Joel Gehrke

Posted on 03/07/2013 11:38:23 AM PST by cotton1706

Attorney General Eric Holder wrote Sen. Rand Paul,R-Ky., to confirm that President Obama does not have the authority to kill an American on U.S. soil in a non-combat situation, Obama’s spokesman announced today.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney quoted from the letter that Holder sent to Paul today. “Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on an American soil?” Holder wrote, per Carney. “The answer is no.”

Carney added that, “if the United States were under attack, there were an imminent threat,” the president has the authority to protect the country from that assault.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., criticized Paul for posing the question. “I find the question offensive,” he said on the Senate floor this morning.


TOPICS: Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: bhodoj; combatdrones; counterterrorism; domesticterrorism; drones; holderdrones; holderletter; holderrandpaul; randpaul; randpaulfilibuster; randpaulholder; standwithrand
Question from Paul: “Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on an American soil?”

Lindsey Graham: “I find the question offensive,”

1 posted on 03/07/2013 11:38:24 AM PST by cotton1706
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: cotton1706
Lindsey Graham: “I find the question offensive,”

I find Lindsey Graham offensive. He is the classic RINO fool.

2 posted on 03/07/2013 11:42:19 AM PST by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706

I am so offended by these subversive “Republican” civil servants. Their constituents need to send them out to pasture.


3 posted on 03/07/2013 11:42:38 AM PST by Truth2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706

Is there not one credible Tea Party candidate that will step up in South Carolina and take on this Rino?


4 posted on 03/07/2013 11:42:59 AM PST by tennmountainman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706

It’s official, the GOP leadership has no spine.


5 posted on 03/07/2013 11:46:30 AM PST by YankeeReb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706
White House, Holder respond to Rand Paul: ‘The answer is no’

I guess the next question is: Would you bet your life on Holder and 0bama being truthful?

6 posted on 03/07/2013 11:48:16 AM PST by The Sons of Liberty (It's not "GUN CONTROL"! It's "PEOPLE CONTROL"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706
Question from Paul: “Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on an American soil

Why isn't anyone asking him to define combat? There HAS to be a reason why it was inserted, or he would have simply stated they don't have authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American.......on an American soil.

Remember, they are LAWYERS.....

7 posted on 03/07/2013 11:49:30 AM PST by IllumiNaughtyByNature ($1.84 - The price of a gallon of gas on Jan. 20th, 2009.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IllumiNaughtyByNature

I don’t know, but combat may already be defined under law.


8 posted on 03/07/2013 11:54:10 AM PST by cotton1706
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: YankeeReb

Why did Holder issue the comment to begin with and why did it take a Congressman 12+hrs on the Congressional floor to get a response from the President of the United States!
Offended yes, as a citizen I am offended that, The DOJ would issue a statement like this let alone have armed drones above neighborhoods on American soil!
My God the Swat, police, FBI, and CIA are not enough!
Give Obama a new goal for the newest medal in the American Valor Book!
Number of Citizens KIA on native soil!
I do not believe the new America! I want nothing to do with it!
First your money now your Guns and next your life!
Why is the Federal Government so afraid of it’s own?
Offended yes I have been for 4+ years!


9 posted on 03/07/2013 11:59:29 AM PST by Conserev1 ("Still Clinging to my Bible and my Weapon")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: YankeeReb
I disagree.

No matter how the commons are against amnesty, the GOP will show a spine and support it.

10 posted on 03/07/2013 12:03:27 PM PST by Theoria
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., criticized Paul for posing the question. “I find the question offensive,” he said on the Senate floor this morning.

If the question was so offensive, then why did it take a 13-hour filibuster to get a clear answer?

11 posted on 03/07/2013 12:04:53 PM PST by kevkrom (If a wise man has an argument with a foolish man, the fool only rages or laughs...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706
Holder is slimy. Kept his answer vague on purpose until he got called on it. Good for Rand Paul not letting this pass. Contempt of congress, Holder has no credibility.
12 posted on 03/07/2013 12:06:36 PM PST by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706

John MeCain, Mitt Romney & Lindsey Graham are exactly the type Republican Karl Rove wants more of in the party.


13 posted on 03/07/2013 12:10:01 PM PST by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasCajun

RINO Republicans are just extra democrats.


14 posted on 03/07/2013 12:12:32 PM PST by cotton1706
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706

Mr.Graham... Please bend over so I can shove my size 12 up your as$! The only thing I want to hear coming out of your mouth is...”Gak!I’m having a stroke!Gak!”


15 posted on 03/07/2013 12:17:58 PM PST by baddog 219
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706
“if the United States were under attack, there were an imminent threat”

Who gets to decide that? The _resident?

16 posted on 03/07/2013 12:23:22 PM PST by Fresh Wind (The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IllumiNaughtyByNature
Why isn't anyone asking him to define combat?

I'm going to guess that any party who has declared his willingness to oppose the government by force of arms will be deemed to be "engaged in combat" even if sleeping in his bed.

17 posted on 03/07/2013 12:23:42 PM PST by PapaBear3625 (You don't notice it's a police state until the police come for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney quoted from the letter that Holder sent to Paul today. “Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on an American soil?” Holder wrote, per Carney. “The answer is no.”

But doing it through other means is OK?

18 posted on 03/07/2013 12:29:48 PM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706
MSNBC! Said:

Holder doesn’t rule out drone use in the US

Attorney General Eric Holder was on Capitol Hill Wednesday morning testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on his agency’s policies from guns to drones. NBC’s Pete Williams reports.

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/mitchell-reports/51070018#51070018

19 posted on 03/07/2013 12:38:35 PM PST by Uncle Miltie (Due Process 2013: "Burn the M*****-F***er Down!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706

Sen. CRUZ: does the constitution allow a u.s. citizen on u.s. soil that doesn’t impose a imminent threat to be killed by the u.s. government ?

AG HOLDER: i do not believe that — again, you have to look at all of the facts, but the facts you have given me, and this is a hypothetical, i would not think in that situation a use of a drone or lethal force would be appropriate.

CRUZ: general holder, i have to tell you, i find it remarkable that in that hypothetical that is deliberately very simple, you are unable to give a one word, one syllable answer no.

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/mitchell-reports/51070018#51070018


20 posted on 03/07/2013 12:40:51 PM PST by Uncle Miltie (Due Process 2013: "Burn the M*****-F***er Down!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IllumiNaughtyByNature
I'm guessing that Holder used the term combat because that's the whole point of what Paul was talking about:

"We're arguing about targeted strikes of people not involved in combat. That's my concern."

. . .

That's all I'm asking here. I'm asking for the President to admit publicly that he's not in favor of summary executions. That's really all I'm asking. Summary executions of noncombatants. It seems like a pretty easy answer. We could be done with this in a moment's notice if someone would call the President, ask him the question, we could be done with this. Because that's what I want to hear. Not that he's not going to use the military to repel an invasion. Nobody is questioning the authority of the President to repel an invasion. But I am questioning the authority of the President to kill noncombatants asleep at home, eating at the restaurant, or what have you"

. . .

"Another way to resolve this where we could conclude this debate and get on with the nomination would be for the majority party to come forward with a resolution that says you know what? We aren't going to kill noncombatants in America with drone strikes. We're not going to use the military."

. . .

"So it's a really easy question and the president should just very frankly answer the question, 'I will not kill noncombatants. In America.'"

. . .

"If the president will sort of say what Attorney General Holder was trying to say this morning and put it into actual words, that he thinks that he has the military authority to reject imminent attack, I think we all agree to that. But if he says that he's not going to use drones on people who are not engaged in combat in America, I think we could be done with this debate."

21 posted on 03/07/2013 12:43:03 PM PST by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: IllumiNaughtyByNature

They are lawyers, and semantics is their specialty.

Everyone of us posting in this forum, or
posting anti-Obama things on FaceBook or the
Tea Party Community are, by the newly-defined
and named conditions of being a terrorist (by the
DHS), terrorists and dangerous enemy combatants.

It is my cynical, peevish and maybe even childish
belief that the 40 or so posts and comments I’ve
made today alone on this topic would be considered
‘combat’ by Holder and Prezident Skeeter.


22 posted on 03/07/2013 12:43:18 PM PST by CaptainPhilFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706

23 posted on 03/07/2013 12:45:21 PM PST by thouworm (DEMOGOGUE: leader who makes use of prejudices, false claims and promises to gain power.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


24 posted on 03/07/2013 6:36:26 PM PST by SunkenCiv (Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson