Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sen. Paul declares 'victory' after Holder offers assurance on drones
Fox News ^ | 03/07/2013

Posted on 03/07/2013 12:31:07 PM PST by SeekAndFind

Sen. Rand Paul declared "victory" Thursday after Attorney General Eric Holder assured him that the president cannot use a drone to kill a non-combatant American on U.S. soil -- an assurance Paul had sought during his 13-hour filibuster the day before.

"Hooray!" Paul responded, when read the letter for the first time during an interview with Fox News. "For 13 hours yesterday, we asked him that question, so there is a result and a victory. Under duress and under public humiliation, the White House will respond and do the right thing."

During his dramatic filibuster, which delayed a vote on CIA director nominee John Brennan, Paul had demanded the administration clarify the government's authority to kill on U.S. soil. The filibuster ended early Thursday morning.

But on Thursday afternoon, Holder sent a terse letter to Paul that said: "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."

In response, Paul said Thursday that "we're proud to announce that the president is not going to kill unarmed Americans on American soil." He later took to the floor to promote the attorney general's response, before the Senate moved to vote on Brennan.

Though Paul's 13-hour stand drew praise from all sides of the political spectrum, the senator did take heat Thursday from some in his own party who claimed he stirred unnecessary fear about the use of drones.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; US: Kentucky; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 113th; drones; ericholder; randpaul; randsconcerntrolls; standwithrand; waronterror
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last

1 posted on 03/07/2013 12:31:11 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
MORE FROM HOTAIR

Strictly speaking, Eric Holder already acknowledged this yesterday after three agonizing minutes of Ted Cruz teasing it out of him. But Rand Paul wanted a formal statement from the White House as a condition of ending his filibuster. And now, apparently, he’s got it:

White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters at 1:15 pm. that Mr. Holder’s letter to the Kentucky Republican went out shortly after noon, and just 12 hours after Mr. Paul stages a marathon talking filibuster on the Senate floor demanding clarification of U.S. drone policies and the president’s authority to order strikes on Americans.

Mr. Holder’s letter answers Mr. Rand’s question, “Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill Americans not engaged in combat on U.S. soil,” Mr. Carney said.

“The answer to that question is no,” he said. “A letter signed by the attorney general has gone out in the last half an hour.”

That’s nearly the full text of the letter, a copy of which you can find at the Weekly Standard. All that’s missing is how it begins: “It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question.” Yeah? Paul’s been demanding an answer from the White House about this since mid-February at least. Only yesterday, after he spent 13 hours on the Senate floor repeating that question a few thousand times, did it finally come to Holder’s attention?

Also, before you celebrate, think carefully about whether Holder’s really answering his concerns. Paul wasn’t just asking about “weaponized drones.” He was asking about targeted killing generally. Sending the CIA in to shoot a guy in the head because he’s on O’s “kill list” doesn’t address the due process concerns just because no drone was used. The phrase “not engaged in combat” is also murky since the entire point of this debate is about defining what it means to be “engaged in combat” against the United States. Paul’s point yesterday was that, even if a U.S. citizen is an “enemy combatant,” the feds should be barred from summarily executing him if he’s on U.S. soil. Only if he’s in the process of carrying out an attack is lethal force justified. That’s his definition of “engaged in combat,” at least inside the continental U.S. The alternate definition is that an “enemy combatant” is, by his very nature, always engaged in combat against America. The DOJ itself more or less adopted that definition by defining “imminence” so broadly in its “white paper” on drone attacks as to suggest that members of Al Qaeda are always, at every moment, posing an imminent threat because they’re “continually plotting.” By that standard, Obama could drop a bomb on a U.S.-born jihadi hiding in an American safe house and still be okay under Holder’s letter here because the target was, as a member of Al Qaeda who was up to no good, necessarily “engaged in combat.” We’ll see what Paul has to say to all this. Not sure if he’s seen the letter yet, but for now he’s enjoying seeing them forced to speak up:

Rand Paul doing an end zone dance on Fox: “Under duress, and under public humiliation, the White House will relent and do the right thing.”

— Mike O’Brien (@mpoindc) March 7, 2013

Update: Perhaps it’s time for Congress to stop letting Obama define his own authority on this:

We suspect the day an administration starts killing Americans with drones at cafes — to borrow one of Rand Paul’s hypotheticals — is the day impeachment proceedings begin. If Congress is worried, though, there is a simple expedient. As Andy McCarthy has written, “Nothing prevents Congress from amending the AUMF to provide explicit protections for Americans suspected of colluding with this unique enemy. Congress could, for example, instruct that in the absence of an attack or a truly imminent threat, the president is not authorized to use lethal force in the United States against Americans suspected of being enemy combatants. Congress could also define what it means by ‘imminent.’”

And in fact, Paul and Ted Cruz have a bill in the works that would do just that. Which poses a dilemma for O: Resist on grounds that the bill is a violation of separation of powers because it circumscribes his authority as commander-in-chief, or give in because it would be simply atrocious for a president to oppose a bill limiting his power to assassinate Americans?

Update: Paul says he’s A-OK with Holder’s response:

“I’m quite happy with the answer,” Paul told CNN. “Through the advise and consent process, I’ve got an important answer.”


2 posted on 03/07/2013 12:32:54 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

To: SeekAndFind

Next thing we’ll hear, Rand will have been taken out by a Hellfire missile while having a latte at Starbucks.


4 posted on 03/07/2013 12:33:28 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum ("Somebody has to be courageous enough to stand up to the bullies." --Dr. Ben Carson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_for_our_time ... IT’S A TRAP!!!! Aien’t worth the paper or Disk Space it’s written on! ALL MOSLEMS(and thier TOADIES) LIE!


5 posted on 03/07/2013 12:33:50 PM PST by US Navy Vet (Go Packers! Go Rockies! Go Boston Bruins! See, I'm "Diverse"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Define non combatent.


6 posted on 03/07/2013 12:34:23 PM PST by Frapster (There you go again...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

FROM WASHINGTON TIMES:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/7/holder-no-authority-drone-strikes-non-combatant-am/

Holder: No authority for drone strikes on non-combatant Americans

Attorney general sends letter to Sen. Paul after filibuster

EXCERPT:

White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters at 1:15 pm. that Mr. Holder’s letter to the Kentucky Republican went out shortly after noon, and just 12 hours after Mr. Paul stages a marathon talking filibuster on the Senate floor demanding clarification of U.S. drone policies and the president’s authority to order strikes on Americans.

Mr. Holder’s letter answers Mr. Rand’s question, “Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill Americans not engaged in combat on U.S. soil,” Mr. Carney said.

“The answer to that question is no,” he said. “A letter signed by the attorney general has gone out in the last half an hour.”


7 posted on 03/07/2013 12:34:49 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
 photo LIN_zps726ba1a0.jpg
8 posted on 03/07/2013 12:35:28 PM PST by baddog 219
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
READ THE FULL LETTER FROM ERIC HOLDER TO RAND PAUL HERE

Eric Holder responds to Rand Paul's filibuster with this letter:

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 Holder

Here's an image of that letter:

UPDATE: Apparently, the White House and Justice Department failed to send the letter to the person who asked the question--Rand Paul.


9 posted on 03/07/2013 12:37:26 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Frapster
FROM THE WEBSITE OF SENATOR TED CRUZ:


Press Release of Senator Cruz

Cruz, Paul Introduce Bill to Prohibit Drone Killings of U.S. Citizens

Contact: (202) 228-0462 / press@cruz.senate.gov
Thursday, March 7, 2013

WASHINGTON, DC—U.S. Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Rand Paul (R-KY) today introduced legislation to prohibit drone killings of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil if they do not represent an imminent threat.

“Our Constitution restrains government power,” Cruz said. “The federal government may not use drones to kill U.S. citizens on U.S. soil if they do not represent an imminent threat. The Commander in Chief does, of course, have the power to protect Americans from imminent attack, and nothing in this legislation interferes with that power.”

Key bill text:
The Federal Government may not use a drone to kill a citizen of the United States who is located in the United States. The prohibition under this subsection shall not apply to an individual who poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to another individual. Nothing in this section shall be construed to suggest that the Constitution would otherwise allow the killing of a citizen of the United States in the United States without due process of law.

###


10 posted on 03/07/2013 12:40:27 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Errrr ...I Hate That Guy!


11 posted on 03/07/2013 12:40:30 PM PST by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Holder’s attitude towards the truth is about the same as that of Islam; you need not tell it to the Infidel (Patriot) if you can advance the faith (the regime) with a lie.


12 posted on 03/07/2013 12:41:46 PM PST by JimRed (Excise the cancer before it kills us; feed &water the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS, NOW & FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Sen. Rand Paul declared "victory" Thursday after Attorney General Eric Holder assured him that the president cannot use a drone to kill a non-combatant American on U.S. soil -- an assurance Paul had sought during his 13-hour filibuster the day before.

I have a question for Senator Paul. If the president is notified that an airliner with 200 passengers on board has been hijacked by Muslim extremists who plan to fly it into a packed football stadium then does he have the authority to order that airplane shot down?

13 posted on 03/07/2013 12:41:47 PM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

The question in effect becomes — which do you prefer, 200 people dead or 3000 people dead?

Damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

I don’t think the constitution gives you a guide to this.

Something beyond that document has to prevail.


14 posted on 03/07/2013 12:45:35 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

I doubt they’d use a drone to bring down a passenger jet. A fighter jet would be more appropriate.

And I’d argue yes, the President does have the authority. If I were President and that situation presented itself, I’d give the order to shoot it down without batting an eye.


15 posted on 03/07/2013 12:47:30 PM PST by AnAmericanAbroad (It's all bread and circuses for the future prey of the Morlocks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The cutesieness of the letter is pathetic. Holder apparently thinks he’s making a point.


16 posted on 03/07/2013 12:47:37 PM PST by jagusafr (the American Trinity (Liberty, In G0D We Trust, E Pluribus Unum))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
And they trust Eric Holder and Barack Obama? And what is the definition of combatant, according to this government? I have a feeling it's not what Senator Rand Paul thinks it is.
17 posted on 03/07/2013 12:49:42 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (I'll raise $2million for Sarah Palin's presidential run. What'll you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jagusafr

RE: The cutesieness of the letter is pathetic. Holder apparently thinks he’s making a point.

It took Holder 13 hours to give a one word answer.

Ted Cruz kept asking Holder the same question yesterday and Holder could not give a straight answer.


18 posted on 03/07/2013 12:50:13 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
I have a question for Senator Paul. If the president is notified that an airliner with 200 passengers on board has been hijacked by Muslim extremists who plan to fly it into a packed football stadium then does he have the authority to order that airplane shot down?

You didn't watch any of the filibuster, did you? I watched only three hours of the thirteen, and he addressed that specific scenario *multiple* times.

19 posted on 03/07/2013 12:55:58 PM PST by kevao (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanAbroad

So it’s not a question of whether the President can order an American citizen killed without due process, it’s just a question of how its done?


20 posted on 03/07/2013 12:58:36 PM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
I have a question for Senator Paul. If the president is notified that an airliner with 200 passengers on board has been hijacked by Muslim extremists who plan to fly it into a packed football stadium then does he have the authority to order that airplane shot down?

My opinion is Hell yes. Even if I was on that Plane. GW made the call on 9/11 after the tower attacks and I thought it was right then I would think it was right if Nero did it.

That is a world appart from Jose in Tupilo that is pissed at Nero and calls him a Muzzie loving Half Breed that should be tried for treason.

21 posted on 03/07/2013 1:00:48 PM PST by VRWCarea51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Sen. Rand Paul declared "victory" Thursday after Attorney General Eric Holder assured him that the president cannot use a drone to kill a non-combatant American on U.S. soil ...

Yes, it was a victory. Thanks you Rand Paul.

But when dealing with democrats - people who wonder about the definition of 'is' is... it's best to tie down meanings. Who would trust these democrats any further than they can be thrown. Democrats need to give their assurances publicly - NOT just to blowhards that love to be flattered like Sen. John McCain.

This is too important to leave to fools.

22 posted on 03/07/2013 1:03:41 PM PST by GOPJ (DHS HAS secured: 1.6 BILLION bullets - 2.700 tanks and 35,000 drones ...to use on American soil...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

You REALLY need to let that go.


23 posted on 03/07/2013 1:05:24 PM PST by Bratch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ

The battle lines in the GOP have now been drawn. Let’s get ready to rumble.


24 posted on 03/07/2013 1:06:25 PM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The question in effect becomes — which do you prefer, 200 people dead or 3000 people dead?

And what about an American citizen who is a member of a terrorist cell actively plotting against the U.S. by planning the hijacking? Who happens to be holed up in a rural compound? Doesn't the question become isn't it preferable to save the 200, and by extension the thousands of other lives, by taking out the one through whatever means are at hand?

My point in all this is that it can't be as neatly black and white as Senator Paul would have it. Yes, we have due process and rule of law. Yes, that is the preferable course to follow. But if someone has crossed the line and is actively working against this country then stopping them from attacking us should be a priority. If we can accept the president ordering the death of hundreds of citizens through the use of a Sidewinder missile if there is no other way to prevent a greater tragedy, then why do we flinch at the idea of him ordering the death of one citizen through use of a Hellfire missile if there is no other way of stopping a greater tragedy?

25 posted on 03/07/2013 1:06:37 PM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: kevao
You didn't watch any of the filibuster, did you? I watched only three hours of the thirteen, and he addressed that specific scenario *multiple* times.

What did he say?

26 posted on 03/07/2013 1:08:27 PM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: VRWCarea51
That is a world appart from Jose in Tupilo that is pissed at Nero and calls him a Muzzie loving Half Breed that should be tried for treason.

I'm not aware of anyone who is suggesting that using a drone would be appropriate under those circumstances. Not even Holder.

27 posted on 03/07/2013 1:09:37 PM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
And what about an American citizen who is a member of a terrorist cell actively plotting against the U.S. by planning the hijacking? Who happens to be holed up in a rural compound?

Nope. That was easy. If some American is plotting to blow up other Americans and you know it, then arrest him and charge him. You don't get to just blow them up.

28 posted on 03/07/2013 1:10:21 PM PST by Sirius Lee (All that is required for evil to advance is for government to do "something")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
We suspect the day an administration starts killing Americans with drones at cafes — to borrow one of Rand Paul’s hypotheticals — is the day impeachment proceedings begin.
The Republican House could impeach til the cows come home.

There's nothing...NOTHING President Obama would do that would cause the Democrat Senate to convict him. He could bomb a city and Graham and McCain would be cheering him on.

"As Commander-in-Chief, President Obama is perfectly within his right to drop a MOAB on Wasilla. It's just a shame Governor Palin was at CPAC at the time."

29 posted on 03/07/2013 1:10:46 PM PST by Bratch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bratch
You REALLY need to let that go.

Why? If it's a black and white issue then it's black and white in all circumstances.

30 posted on 03/07/2013 1:11:03 PM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

RE: And what about an American citizen who is a member of a terrorist cell actively plotting against the U.S. by planning the hijacking?

Why is blowing him up with a hellfire missile in the USA the ONLY OPTION in the above case?

We have had foreign terrorists plotting to blow up buildings in America before and we’ve arrested them using domestic intelligence.


31 posted on 03/07/2013 1:13:49 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Sirius Lee
Nope. That was easy. If some American is plotting to blow up other Americans and you know it, then arrest him and charge him. You don't get to just blow them up.

How many times a year to you hear about a police sniper shooting a hostage taker because they believe other people are in imminent danger? No arrest. No charges. Just a quick kill because there was no other way to prevent them from killing someone. Think of the Predator as a sniper on steroids and again, if there is no other way to prevent the taking of even more innocent lives, why not use it?

32 posted on 03/07/2013 1:20:05 PM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

It may not be a black-and-white issue, but your scenario certainly is.

The hypothetical you described is a group of people representing an imminent threat. The decision to shoot it down would be a no-brainer, as long as all other options were considered and rejected.

It’s already happened and TPTB made exactly that decision. A missile fired from a plane is just as lethal as an unmanned drone.

Of course, the plane’s passengers took the decision out of their hands. Just like they would, IMO, if any of our enemies ever try it again.


33 posted on 03/07/2013 1:22:19 PM PST by Bratch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

He said it was a red herring. Holder used both the 9/11 and Pearl Harbor scenarios to deflect from Rand Paul’s real concern.

Paul responded a number of times that neither he, nor any other senator, was questioning the Executive’s authority to respond to an immediate external attack upon the United States (specifically the 9/11 and Pearl Harbor scenarios). Nor did he question the use of lethal force in response to an imminent threat (someone aiming a rocket launcher at a building, someone robbing a bank....).

His concern was the lack of a clear response from the Administration as to whether they though they had the constitutional authority to assassinate a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, without due process, even if that citizen was known to be involved in terrorist activities, but was not at the moment posing an imminent threat.

He’s been asking for a clear response to that very simple question since the end of January. And, if you saw the recent exchange between Ted Cruz and Eric Holder over this same question, you have an idea of the completely muddled, non-responsive answers he’s been receiving from the Administration.

Even Turbin Durbin came to the Senate floor last night to pose the 9/11 scenario to Rand Paul, in a desperate attempt to distract from the real issue — can the Executive Branch be arbitrary in its application of due process, or is every U.S. citizen on U.S. soil entitled to his Fifth Amendment rights, provided he is not posing an imminent threat.


34 posted on 03/07/2013 1:24:59 PM PST by kevao (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Why is blowing him up with a hellfire missile in the USA the ONLY OPTION in the above case?

But what it if is the only option? What if he is unreachable by conventional law enforcement and has to be stopped immediately to prevent a terrorist attack? I'm not saying it's the first choice. I'm not saying it's the preferred choice. But if there is no other way then why not? If they are holed up in a cave in Yemen plotting against the U.S. then why not? If they're barracaded in a compound in Pennsylvania ready to give the order that will set a terrorist bombing into action then why not? If not acting will lead to the loss of even more innocent lives then why not?

35 posted on 03/07/2013 1:26:50 PM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Frapster
Define non combatant.

Exactly. More Holder double-speak. I'm certain they will call any US citizen who speaks out against the Gov't or refuses to comply with a firearms confiscation order a 'combatant'.

And what about using the drones for surveillance against US citizens? His statement is worthless.

36 posted on 03/07/2013 1:26:50 PM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts (Here once the embattled farmers stood... And fired the shot heard round the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

Let’s take the cases you cited one by one...

RE: If they are holed up in a cave in Yemen plotting against the U.S. then why not?

I was for it. I consider that an act of war and treachery. In which case, blowing up an American Jihadist like Al Awlaki is justified ( and we did ).

RE: If they’re barracaded in a compound in Pennsylvania ready to give the order that will set a terrorist bombing into action then why not?

Now that’s a little different. If we knew he was in a compound in Pennsylvania, we could always surround the compound and wait him out.

If we knew he was going to give an order to set a terrorist bombing into action, it would be better to capture him to find out where the action or future actions are going to take place.

It would be better to capture him than to kill him.


37 posted on 03/07/2013 1:34:46 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
What if he is unreachable by conventional law enforcement and has to be stopped immediately to prevent a terrorist attack?

You are talking about an *imminent* threat. Rand Paul said over and over and over again, just during the three of thirteen hours I watched, that he does not question the use of lethal force against an *imminent* threat.

Rather, Rand Paul was asking, What about a U.S. citizen, on U.S. soil, known to be involved in terrorist activities, but not at the moment posing an imminent threat? Can the Administration assassinate him?

You'd think the answer to that question would be a simple -- and an immediate -- NO! But Paul has gotten only lawyerly gobbledygook from Holder, Brennan and the WH for over one month on this simple question.

Perhaps the Administration is slow to respond clearly because they plan to expand the definition of "terrorist" to include Tea Party folks who cling hatefully to their guns, their Bibles, and their U.S. Constitution....

38 posted on 03/07/2013 1:38:34 PM PST by kevao (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: kevao

One thing is certain Obama and Holder would never used armed drones against their People!
So all you diverse residents be watchful of the skies!
Even though Holder said Obama would not use drones against the American People we all know FEDS LIE!
I really want to see the headlines of the first one shot down!
And the lawsuit of FEDS trespassing on an Americans soil!


39 posted on 03/07/2013 1:43:44 PM PST by Conserev1 ("Still Clinging to my Bible and my Weapon")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
How many times a year to you hear about a police sniper shooting a hostage taker because they believe other people are in imminent danger? No arrest. No charges. Just a quick kill because there was no other way to prevent them from killing someone. Think of the Predator as a sniper on steroids and again, if there is no other way to prevent the taking of even more innocent lives, why not use it?

Wow, conflating "plotting" with the "imminent danger" of someone holding hostages with a gun to their heads. Even in hostage situations, they attempt to talk the guy out, and you're jonesing to blow some guy up because he has a map and some plans. There is no moral difference between you and some guy proactively going out and shooting a politician because the politician is plotting to pass a law giving politicians free use of deadly force. You've ceded the high ground.

40 posted on 03/07/2013 1:45:04 PM PST by Sirius Lee (All that is required for evil to advance is for government to do "something")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Dear SeekandFind, you took the words right out of my mouth. I trust them about as far as I could throw a freight train. Like Jesus said, “you will know a tree by it’s fruit”. Take us home LORD.


41 posted on 03/07/2013 1:49:34 PM PST by kagnew (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
It would be better to capture him than to kill him.

Wouldn't that be true in both cases?

42 posted on 03/07/2013 1:54:21 PM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Unnecessary fear my butt. If the govt has their way we will have 10,000 drones flying overhead everyday spying on everything we do. Its a nightmare just thinking about it.

When they are doing stuff in the US that they are not doing in Russia you know you are screwed.


43 posted on 03/07/2013 2:03:37 PM PST by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

First of all, if a president has the power to say he WON’T used drones on Americans, he apparently has the power to change his mind and kill anyone he wants.

I don’t call it a victory when a muslim is CIA Director.


44 posted on 03/07/2013 2:14:23 PM PST by Terry Mross (How long before America is gone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: baddog 219

Graham is the one who saved Clinton’s butt during the impeachment. He voted with the democrats on the most serious charge. The talking heads were shocked.


45 posted on 03/07/2013 2:22:12 PM PST by Terry Mross (How long before America is gone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Man, I hope he got it in writing. Holder LIES about what he says as often as the LIAR IN Chief.


46 posted on 03/07/2013 3:30:25 PM PST by freeangel ( (free speech is only good until someone else doesn't like it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The man is a idiot.

That’s not even the main point. And there are exceptions to the rule.

Thankfully, this grandstanding jerk will never be President.


47 posted on 03/07/2013 4:12:09 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


48 posted on 03/07/2013 6:33:06 PM PST by SunkenCiv (Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

RE: That’s not even the main point. And there are exceptions to the rule.

Then why did it take so long for Eric Holder to give a straightforward answer?


49 posted on 03/07/2013 7:09:29 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

RE: That’s not even the main point. And there are exceptions to the rule.

Then why did it take so long for Eric Holder to give a straightforward answer?


50 posted on 03/07/2013 7:09:29 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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