Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Did Rand Paul Just Get The ‘No’ He Was Looking For?

March 7, 2013 by  

Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has received the answer to his question of whether or not the President has the authority to kill U.S. citizens on U.S. soil with drone strikes.

Thursday U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder sent Paul another letter clarifying the Administration’s position on drone strikes on U.S. soil.

Read the letter below:

letter

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney read directly from the letter that Holder sent, as he sought to further clarify the Administration position.

“The President has not and would not use drone strikes against American citizens on US soil” if they are not engaged in hostile activity, Carney said.

“Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil? The answer is no,” Carney continued.

Sam Rolley

Staff writer Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After learning about many of the biases present in most modern newsrooms, Rolley became determined to find a position in journalism that would allow him to combat the unsavory image that the news industry has gained. He is dedicated to seeking the truth and exposing the lies disseminated by the mainstream media at the behest of their corporate masters, special interest groups and information gatekeepers.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Did Rand Paul Just Get The ‘No’ He Was Looking For?”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • Vicki

    Definition of not engaged in combat.?

    • Vicki

      Sam Rolley (the OP) writes:
      “Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has received the answer to his question of whether or not the President has the authority to kill U.S. citizens on U.S. soil with drone strikes.”

      Who added the “not engaged in combat” to the question or was that left out?

      • LTCRIce

        Good catch Vicki these left leaners play words all the time…write your COngressmen.. I do weekly…

      • Vicki

        I saw this particularly good comment in the facebook posts above and wanted to bring it into the main thread

        ———————————————————–
        Michael Cericola

        Read the statement. It does not clarify anything:
        “Does the President have the authority to use a weaponize drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?” The answer to that question is no.
        OK. Let’s look at the wording. He does not specify if the American is in combat either for or against America. He doesn’t specify whether if we as a citizen defend our nation against an invading force will the President use a drone against us because then we are combatants. And last but not least what about collateral damage. I don’t want to be holding my child and watch her draw her last breath because the President wanted to kill Mr. Tommy Smith sitting in the next park bench.”
        ———————————————————-

    • Vigilant

      Vicki says, “Definition of not engaged in combat?”

      Obama definition: already dead.

      • Vicki

        :)

  • dwayne dejoy

    Define hostile activity

    • bob

      Driving a pickup truck in Los Angeles

  • LTCRIce

    Ok I know what I call “combat” how does the DOJ and DHS and President define Combat?

    • windsailor

      depends upon the circumstances, and they change as the need for revision arises.

  • http://emsphotographyadventure.wordpress.com jabbok3kids

    “if they are not engaged in hostile activity,” Carney said. What is hostile to them? That is my question.

  • windsailor

    Does his answer fall in the same category as ” open and Transparent” government? A proven lie…….

  • ronnysam

    have we forgottennFema and Dhs will make most of those ecisions

  • waitman40@hotmail.com

    You might be engaged in combat if you are eating in a diner talking to a friend. Clarify Mr. Fast and Furious!

  • Rebecca Larsen

    Can we get more clarification please? Just because I am carrying a concealed weapon (with permits) Does that make me “engaged in hostile activity”? Or does just owning one, speaking out against the government, or protesting make me be classified as “engaged in hostile activity”?

    • anthony

      Good point there, Rebecca.

  • Pegathee

    Following his current pattern…doesn’t mean he won’t try it!

  • mike

    I will define” engaged in combat” for you, anyone who is against this administration and the farce that is our so called representatives! don’t think for one second that any of us that speak against the dictator in chief is not being monitored!

  • anthony

    Notice the emphasis on the “American not engaged in combat” part of that statement. It says nothing of People who will defend their freedom against a tyranical government. There is the gray area, people.

  • windsailor

    Check the date of the letter, that’s when it was effective……today is another day, new interpretation.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.