Thursday, March 07, 2013

Rand Paul gets his answer

About that filibuster...

"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." 

-Eric Holder Attorney General of the United States
From here.


Alice C. Linsley said...

Sure was hard to get an answer from people claiming greater transparency in government.

Anonymous said...

There's that sticky little phrase "not engaged in combat" that still makes me uncomfortable. No American should EVER be shot with an armed drone, anywhere, period. Just who defines "combat" in the hyper-PC world that America has become? Could political opponents be "engaged in combat" (of the mind)? We live in an age of semantic obfuscation and such terms can easily redefined as the power-holders see fit. This is a sleight-of-hand response by Holder.