Sincerely,
It would all depend on who it is that defines “combat.”
Khrushchev’s threat/prediction turned out to be correct.
Anyone who voted to confirm this Brennan CIA POS should lose their reelection.
You have to parse everything these bastards say.
It’s just a matter of time before a drone will be used in this capacity, and it will be argued that the drone was not on American soil, but rather in American airspace.
How about voter fraud?
A sure sign that Senator Paul was sucessful standing up to Holder.
Heard this on the CBS evening news and about fell out of my chair. Didn’t the government already state that vets are terrorists? Combative against the government could easily mean anyone who votes against or says anything against the usurper, is a Tea Party member, owns a Bible, owns a gun, etc. That just shut down any state seceeding from the Union. Welcome to al Amerika.
We are being THREATENED.
Riiiigggghhhhtttttttt . . . . . . . . . . . . . and, I’m supposed to believe anything that comes out of this administration because . . . . . . . . !!????
Holed up in your “compound” with your “arsenal” while the IRS lays siege due to you refusing to pay the Obamacare tax for not having an approved policy = “combat” = drone strikes without due process.
Ping
Your answer is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!
It violates the 4th Amendment!
The folks who were at Waco and Ruby Ridge are unimpressed.
That’s mighty nice of Eric The Red.
DHS doesn’t need drones, they’ve got SWAT teams
For those who are questioning the “combat” clarifier, realize that it comes directly from the question Sen. Paul was asking:
“We’re arguing about targeted strikes of people not involved in combat. That’s my concern.”
. . .
That’s all I’m asking here. I’m asking for the President to admit publicly that he’s not in favor of summary executions. That’s really all I’m asking. Summary executions of noncombatants. It seems like a pretty easy answer. We could be done with this in a moment’s notice if someone would call the President, ask him the question, we could be done with this. Because that’s what I want to hear. Not that he’s not going to use the military to repel an invasion. Nobody is questioning the authority of the President to repel an invasion. But I am questioning the authority of the President to kill noncombatants asleep at home, eating at the restaurant, or what have you”
. . .
“Another way to resolve this where we could conclude this debate and get on with the nomination would be for the majority party to come forward with a resolution that says you know what? We aren’t going to kill noncombatants in America with drone strikes. We’re not going to use the military.”
. . .
“So it’s a really easy question and the president should just very frankly answer the question, ‘I will not kill noncombatants. In America.’”
. . .
“If the president will sort of say what Attorney General Holder was trying to say this morning and put it into actual words, that he thinks that he has the military authority to reject imminent attack, I think we all agree to that. But if he says that he’s not going to use drones on people who are not engaged in combat in America, I think we could be done with this debate.”
His answer to the the question can be interpreted at least five different ways. Four of them are very, very bad.
That’s a blink which is a hell of a lot more than the full force of the GOP has been able to get out of Obama.
Juan and Linda are drones, attacking America daily.