After ending the filibuster 13 hours later, Attorney General Eric Holder sends a letter that says,
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 H. Holder, Jr.
Weekly Standard says everyone but Senator Paul himself have received the letter.
According to CNN, Paul says:
"I'm quite happy with the answer," the senator from Kentucky said on CNN. "I'm disappointed it took a month and a half and a root canal to get it, but we did get the answer."
Well I'm not. Because it is still the President who happens to be sitting at the White House who will decide what "combat" is. By the ever "wider" definition being adopted by this particular administration of what "terrorism" may mean, "combat" could mean a protest against the president's policy, or intention to protest.
"If we let him/her, he/she might commit a terrorist act, so we preemptively eliminate him/her", or something along that line. And people will go "Oh.. OK... I guess you're right."
Some media outlets like MSNBC reported on the filibuster with a disdain, but failed to mention Senator Paul is asking about the US drone attack INSIDE the United States. As if it is totally OK to use it outside the US.
In Pakistan and Afghanistan, people were killed by the US military drones in their weddings and funerals. Are weddings and funerals "combat"?
Well Rand Paul is not his father, that's for sure.
30-Day free trial by following the link.
Tokyo Time
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_usoz_2.gif)
8 comments:
He's happy with the answer because he has a starting point now instead of a gray fog area, he has to work on legally defining or re-defining what 'combat' is. (I think the Founding Father expected citizens to engage in combat under these types of situations i.e. governmental dominance, they certainly did)
The President with Holder supporting him, already has killed US citizens on foreign soil without trial or even charges because they denounced US actions in newspaper articles and were associated with terrorists, sometimes called Tailiban.
Congress never did anything about it.
If you want to point out the difference of being an American killed on homeland or foreign soil, go ahead.
The IRS (Congress) sees you as an American wherever you go in the world so it can collect US taxes on your income made here or aboard...if you are engaged in 'combat,' never enters the question.
Americans have killed hundreds of thousands of civilians with good old conventional bombings or bullets, why do people start losing their minds now cause they use a different technology?
Anon above, Rand Paul was talking about the drone strikes on US citizens on the US soil, without any due process. Don't confuse the issue like Rachel Maddow did.
I see, so the problem would be killing americans in american soil using drones instead of just killing americans in american soil by another method.
Without due process, with only a whim of the president, anon above. You must be Rachel Maddow.
You guys never said or did anything when Waco took place so why should today be any different.
Go ahead point out the differences.
Hey, better late than never. By the way how come no one is screaming about that ex-LAPD cop who was burned to death by the government like Waco people? Oh I see, both that incident and Waco incident took place during the Democratic presidents.
Nobody's screaming about the ex-LAPD cop because any time someone points out inconsistencies or unacceptable behavior by law enforcement, some idiot justifies it saying "the TV said he was a bad person so it's okay to kill him!"
Sadly, we'll never know what that was really all about. As usual. Just hope we're not going to be the next.
Post a Comment