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 ...
not turning in your firearms?
Ping
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, I’m supposed to believe anything that comes out of this administration because . . . . . . . . !!????”
I concur.
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.
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.