Skip to comments.Watch Rand Paul’s Interview With Megyn Kelly: ‘Terror Suspects Should Still Get Their Day in Court’
Posted on 03/07/2013 12:17:45 PM PST by Timber Rattler
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) joined Megyn Kelly this afternoon on America Live in an interview to discuss his nearly 13-hour filibuster yesterday on the Senate floor. Paul decided to undertake the tiring task in order to hold up the confirmation of CIA Director nominee John Brennan over the Obama administrations use of drones.
Kelly then brought to Pauls attention a letter from Attorney General Eric Holder, making clear that the president does not have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil. The letter was released just minutes before the interview.
He asked why that statement could not have been made yesterday while he asked for an answer to that question for 13 straight hours.
So there is a result and a victory. Under duress and under public humiliation, the White House will respond and do the right thing. It took a month and a half to get them to admit that the CIA doesnt operate in the United States. Thats been the law since 1947. So now, after 13 hours of filibuster were proud to announce that the president is not going to kill unarmed Americans on American soil, said Paul.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnewsinsider.com ...
Holder just issued the following curt note in a huff:
The Attorney General
Washington, D.C. March 7, 2013
The Honorable Rand Paul United States Senate Washington, DC 20510
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.
Eric H. Holder, Jr.
So, this means that due to the advancement in drone technology and their weaponization, the ATF would’ve handled Waco much differently had it happened today.
Holder forgot to preface his “no” with “conceivably...”
A little background on my comment:
The president could conceivably have no choice but to authorise the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland.
Rand Paul should ask for a clarification in what is meant by “not engaged in combat”. Those sound like weasel words to me.
It's the REGIME he is worried about protecting, not the homeland!