[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

Holder actually said something quite different from what the article says. Here's what Holder's letter to Paul actually said:

"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." (Bolding added.)

The caveat "not engaged in combat" is a loophole big enough to fly a formation of drones through.

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

By posting on this website, I’m certain we’re all “engaged in combat” by their definition. Words mean nothing to these people.

[Terry Mross]

The feds thought Ruby Ridge was a battlefield with enemy combatants. They brought military vehicles to the fight. And again at Waco.

[B4Ranch]

An American citizen engaged in combat against America(ns) on American soil should be an authorized target of the president. As long as our Congress, Senate and Courts are functioning I feel it is proper and correct to take out anyone attempting to destroy the American government.

Now should we become tyrannic, that when CWII starts and we should fight to restore the Republic.

WHAT IS A PATRIOT?

PATRIOTS are not “Revolutionaries” trying to overthrow the government of the United States.

PATRIOTS are “Counter-Revolutionaries” trying to prevent the government of the United States, from overthrowing the Constitution of the United States. - Unknown Author

[omega4179]

somebody walking down the street armed would be shot by police without due process.