Skip to comments.Holder: No drone strikes on American citizens ‘not engaged in combat’
Posted on 03/07/2013 4:28:02 PM PST by mandaladon
Attorney General Eric Holder has responded to Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul's question about whether the federal government can legally use a drone strike against an American citizen on U.S. soil if the person is "not engaged in combat":
Earlier this week, Holder wrote in a letter to Paul that the president has the authority to order militarized drone strikes on American citizens within the United States, but only in an extraordinary circumstance.
In protest, Paul spoke for 13 hours straight on the Senate floor Wednesday, arguing against the drone policy.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
It would all depend on who it is that defines “combat.”
“Combat” = drinking coffee at Starbuck’s while posting on FR.
Khrushchev’s threat/prediction turned out to be correct.
Anyone who voted to confirm this Brennan CIA POS should lose their reelection.
You have to parse everything these bastards say.
It’s just a matter of time before a drone will be used in this capacity, and it will be argued that the drone was not on American soil, but rather in American airspace.
How about voter fraud?
A sure sign that Senator Paul was sucessful standing up to Holder.
The Baraqqis are working on a ballot-stuffing drone, LOL.
Heard this on the CBS evening news and about fell out of my chair. Didn’t the government already state that vets are terrorists? Combative against the government could easily mean anyone who votes against or says anything against the usurper, is a Tea Party member, owns a Bible, owns a gun, etc. That just shut down any state seceeding from the Union. Welcome to al Amerika.
We are being THREATENED.
Riiiigggghhhhtttttttt . . . . . . . . . . . . . and, I’m supposed to believe anything that comes out of this administration because . . . . . . . . !!????
Indeed. Were those at Waco engaged in combat? Ruby Ridge? If you're a victim of a bad no-knock entry and defend yourself is that 'combat'? How about if you and your commie girlfriend are busy building and planting explosives to kill cops? How about if you occupy a college admin building carrying a firearm?
Drinkin a gig gulp while driving an internal combustion automobile
Holed up in your “compound” with your “arsenal” while the IRS lays siege due to you refusing to pay the Obamacare tax for not having an approved policy = “combat” = drone strikes without due process.
lulz - I need to find a new hotspot.
YES, we are.
That letter drips venom and resentment.
not turning in your firearms?
Your answer is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!
It violates the 4th Amendment!
The folks who were at Waco and Ruby Ridge are unimpressed.
Not driving a black truck.
“We are being THREATENED.”
Yes, we most certainly are.
That’s mighty nice of Eric The Red.
“Riiiigggghhhhtttttttt . . . . . . . . . . . . . and, Im supposed to believe anything that comes out of this administration because . . . . . . . . !!????”
DHS doesn’t need drones, they’ve got SWAT teams
“not turning in your firearms?”
I’m sure as hell not going to be turning any of mine in.
Dr. Paul is now our leader and an American HERO!!
Our new conservative “rock star” Marco Rubio voted for brennan.
Special Agent Gibbs Rule #9: Never go anywhere without a knife.
“YES, we are.
That letter drips venom and resentment.”
Please note the letter head:
“The Attorney General” not, “Office of the Attorney General” or the seal of that office.
I wonder when they changed that?
For those who are questioning the “combat” clarifier, realize that it comes directly from the question Sen. Paul was asking:
“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.”
Do you mean the 5th Amendment? I don’t see how the 4th applies...
“Special Agent Gibbs Rule #9: Never go anywhere without a knife.”
My Ka-Bar is always nearby.
As are some other goodies.
His answer to the the question can be interpreted at least five different ways. Four of them are very, very bad.
“Thought combat” coming soon.
That’s a blink which is a hell of a lot more than the full force of the GOP has been able to get out of Obama.
Juan and Linda are drones, attacking America daily.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Take your Bible, too. That’ll do it for sure!
Oh!!!! And you MUST go to the most LIBERAL part of town for the full effect of The-Drones-That-Won’t-Be-Falling. Ugh
Obama has referred to the republicans as the “enemy” on several occasions.
Any kind of resistance.
Combat=Pop tart gun
So if the BATF or some other Blue Helmet is doing a No Knock Invasion of your house and you resist????
To quote Hillary “What does it matter now?”
“Combat” = registering to vote.
are drones so precise that there is no collateral damage ?
Would “voting from a roof top” be considered “combat?”
I just want all the rules spelled out like the founding fathers ensured in the Constitution.
If we are going to play games, we all need to know the rules.
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.