[Timber Rattler]

Title shortened for length.

Holder just issued the following curt note in a huff:

The Attorney General

Washington, D.C. March 7, 2013

The Honorable Rand Paul United States Senate Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Paul:

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.

[Travis McGee]

[Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America]

So, this means that due to the advancement in drone technology and their weaponization, the ATF would’ve handled Waco much differently had it happened today.

[DoctorBulldog]

Holder forgot to preface his “no” with “conceivably...”

A little background on my comment:

“The president could conceivably have no choice but to authorise the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9913615/Barack-Obama-has-authority-to-use-drone-strikes-to-kill-Americans-on-US-soil.html

[randita]

Rand Paul should ask for a clarification in what is meant by “not engaged in combat”. Those sound like weasel words to me.