On March 6th, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky rose to filibuster the administration’s nomination of John Brennan for the top spot at the CIA. The Senator spoke for 13 hours before calling it a day.
The next day, Attorney General Eric Holder responded:
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.
Seems pretty cut and dry, right? Sorry, I don’t see it that way.
Where I get hung up is the phrase “not engaged in combat.” Now we’re going to rely on the administration to define what is, and what is not combat.
But isn’t the whole world a battlefield? What exactly would we classify as an enemy combatant here in the US?
And apparently, crafty wording notwithstanding, this only applies to you if you’re on US soil. American citizen living in Yemen? We’ll drone your ass.
Are you outspoken and critical of your government? Well, if you’re not with us, you’re with them. I guess that makes you an enemy combatant. You’d better put your head between your knees and kiss your ass goodbye.
Granted, we’re a far stretch away from that now. But down the road? Who knows.
Aaron Graves
Aaron Graves is a veteran and a staunch libertarian, consistently breaking ranks with his Conservative friends on social issues, and with his Liberal friends on economic issues. He is also the guy that wrote the crap that you just read. Sic Semper Tyrannis
Follow Me:
2 thoughts on “Holder’s Response to Paul Leaves Something to be Desired<span class="wtr-time-wrap after-title"><span class="wtr-time-number">1</span> min read</span>”