Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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 H. Holder, Jr.
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 H. Holder, Jr.
Document: Attorney General Eric Holder drone letter to Sen. Rand Paul - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com
Looks like a definitive answer to me, at last. However, this was not an additional question. This was the original question.
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 H. Holder, Jr.
Document: Attorney General Eric Holder drone letter to Sen. Rand Paul - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com
Looks like a definitive answer to me, at last. However, this was not an additional question. This was the original question.
Yep:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/search.php?searchid=6407942
Document: Attorney General Eric Holder drone letter to Sen. Rand Paul - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com
Looks like a definitive answer to me, at last. However, this was not an additional question. This was the original question.
Yep:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/search.php?searchid=6407942
What is the link to?
What is the link to?
Same as yours, with more context.
I wonder it that'll be good enough for Rand. Seriously. Surely he'll find something else equally .... obvious.
I wonder it that'll be good enough for Rand. Seriously. Surely he'll find something else equally .... obvious.
So obvious that we had plenty of people on this board arguing that the answer was "obviously" yes?
I wonder it that'll be good enough for Rand. Seriously. Surely he'll find something else equally .... obvious.
So obvious that we had plenty of people on this board arguing that the answer was "obviously" yes?
Well the answer was obviously "no" all along. I suspect those who found it "not obvious" had agendas having nothing to do with that question.
In a sense Paul's a distraction, but at the same time not a lot of republicans or democrats are eager to challange Obama's exercise of executive power overseas vis a vis citizens and collateral damage to citizens and non-citizens. To the extent Paul furthered those questions, he did a service.
So obvious that we had plenty of people on this board arguing that the answer was "obviously" yes?
Well the answer was obviously "no" all along. I suspect those who found it "not obvious" had agendas having nothing to do with that question.
In a sense Paul's a distraction, but at the same time not a lot of republicans or democrats are eager to challange Obama's exercise of executive power overseas vis a vis citizens and collateral damage to citizens and non-citizens. To the extent Paul furthered those questions, he did a service.
Well the people who argued that the answer was obviously yes also suspected ulterior motives of the same people you do. However, the fact that you all came to different conclusions that you argued were "obvious" kind of makes our point for us, that the administration was not being clear in answering the question. They were purposefully obfuscating and deflecting. Now they've been forced to answer directly at long last.
Well the answer was obviously "no" all along. I suspect those who found it "not obvious" had agendas having nothing to do with that question.
In a sense Paul's a distraction, but at the same time not a lot of republicans or democrats are eager to challange Obama's exercise of executive power overseas vis a vis citizens and collateral damage to citizens and non-citizens. To the extent Paul furthered those questions, he did a service.
Well the people who argued that the answer was obviously yes also suspected ulterior motives of the same people you do. However, the fact that you all came to different conclusions that you argued were "obvious" kind of makes our point for us, that the administration was not being clear in answering the question. They were purposefully obfuscating and deflecting. Now they've been forced to answer directly at long last.
pfft. Any notion that Obama or Holder think the govt has any right to do a Ruby Ridge are RW fantasies involving aging ex-terrorists turned teachers.
However. there are still questions as to Obama's use of executive power overseas, but those are not properly addressed to Holder.
does this unwad your underooos?
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., spoke for over 12 hours on the Senate floor yesterday, staging a filibuster of John Brennan's nomination to be CIA director.
Paul objected to the administration's recent assertion that it could legally use a drone strike against an American on U.S. soil in "extraordinary" circumstances that posed an imminent threat to national security, and today, it appeared as though the White House had taken note, with Attorney General Eric Holder responding to a letter Paul sent to the administration regarding the use of drones on U.S. soil.
White House press secretary Jay Carney read both Paul's question and Holder's response at today's briefing.
"Senator Paul has raised questions about the president's authority to use leghal force within the United States, which John Brennan and the Attorney General have both answered," Carney said. "Today, Sen. Paul raised an additional question and the Attorney General has answered it."
According to Carney, Paul asked, "Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?"
In his response, also read by Carney, Holder replied succinctly: "The answer to that question is no."
Carney further urged lawmakers "promptly" confirm Brennan as CIA director, noting that his nomination cleared the Senate Intelligence Committee on a broad, bipartisan vote and adding, "This debate has nothing to do with the qualifications of John Brennan - Senator Paul said as much himself yesterday."
does this unwad your underooos?
does this unwad your underooos?
That they've been put on notice and responded as they should have from the beginning? Yes.
Paul's filibuster provokes answer from Holder - CBS News
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., spoke for over 12 hours on the Senate floor yesterday, staging a filibuster of John Brennan's nomination to be CIA director.
Paul objected to the administration's recent assertion that it could legally use a drone strike against an American on U.S. soil in "extraordinary" circumstances that posed an imminent threat to national security, and today, it appeared as though the White House had taken note, with Attorney General Eric Holder responding to a letter Paul sent to the administration regarding the use of drones on U.S. soil.
White House press secretary Jay Carney read both Paul's question and Holder's response at today's briefing.
"Senator Paul has raised questions about the president's authority to use leghal force within the United States, which John Brennan and the Attorney General have both answered," Carney said. "Today, Sen. Paul raised an additional question and the Attorney General has answered it."
According to Carney, Paul asked, "Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?"
In his response, also read by Carney, Holder replied succinctly: "The answer to that question is no."
Carney further urged lawmakers "promptly" confirm Brennan as CIA director, noting that his nomination cleared the Senate Intelligence Committee on a broad, bipartisan vote and adding, "This debate has nothing to do with the qualifications of John Brennan - Senator Paul said as much himself yesterday."
so now you guys are mad that your mad has been had?
