[IllumiNaughtyByNature]

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.....

[cotton1706]

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

[PapaBear3625]

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.

[Conscience of a Conservative]

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."

[CaptainPhilFan]

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.