Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by Profiteering, Mar 6, 2013.
He is hitting the nail on the head.
Are you so consumed with listening to yourselves that you can not hear what is happening
If he runs for president he has my vote!
What will it take to have someone address in a similar manner, the DHS build up we are also witnessing? Will Rand be as concerned with that?
With all the talk of budget cuts, they need to look at cutting DHS significantly.
Using a drone to kill citizens without due process is completely unacceptable. Politicians and bureaucrats shouldn't play Judge Dredd.
And Ted Cruz for VP!
If I'm going to be murdered by the government without due process, I prefer to be burned to death in a log cabin by a bunch of cops playing army men instead of by some soulless, flying WiFi router from Best Buy.
You know, the old-fashioned way
Well, as probably many of you have heard, Eric (I know nothing about "Fast and Furious") Holder came out with a short letter to Rand Paul explaining the Obama Government’s position on drone attacks with the borders of the United States.
"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."
Read more: Document: Attorney General Eric Holder drone letter to Sen. Rand Paul - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com
Not to be picky, but the "talking heads" already are also asking the same question, what does the phrase "...not engaged in combat on American soil?" really mean? Most of us, I think, are rational enough to think this means a person engaged in a physical terrorist act. Some wonder if that might mean a person sitting somewhere,who unknowingly is being observed after being perceived as a terrorist, and then picking up the phone to call a friend when some CIA/FBI/Army drone pilot observes this and believing you really are going to trigger a bomb releases a hellfire missile on you. It would be so much easier if the President just came out and simply said something, "...folks (he likes the word folks), this is all silly. We can not per the Constitution and regardless will not use drones to kill any citizen on American soil without following due process. I stand by doing it when an American on foreign soil engages in combat against our Country, There it's settled. Any Questions?". Of course he won't do that. It would be hypocritical as he doesn't appear to believe in the Constitution in the first place, but then he is a good actor so why not try and snow the sheeple one more time.....
The more telling answer was Eric Holder's original response, in which he couldn't bring himself to just come out and say "no", but instead deemed the use of such a type of force to be "inappropriate" - but that does not mean "no."
Eric Holder doesn't know how to answer a direct question. Why is anyone NOT surprised?
Ted Cruz Goads Eric Holder Into Admitting That Killing Americans With Drones On U.S. Soil Is Unconstitutional | Mediaite
Nice to see someone stick up for what they believe in and actually act on it.
Separate names with a comma.