“Engaged in Combat”

Last night, Rand Paul said this:

Well, words do make a difference, and I would feel a little more comfortable if we would get in writing a letter that says he doesn’t believe killing people not actively engaged in combat with drones in America, on American soil, is constitutional.

Today, Eric Holder wrote Paul this letter.

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.

Aside from noting that Holder took out the “actively” modifier in Paul’s statement (though Paul said some version of this so many times last night that Holder’s formulation might be justified by one of those other ones), I’d have to say that Paul has only managed to move the pea under a different shell in this shell game.

Because now we need a definition of what “engaged in combat” means.

 

Tweet about this on Twitter14Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook11Google+2Email to someone

27 Responses to “Engaged in Combat”

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27

Emptywheel Twitterverse
emptywheel How is it Keith Alexander's patented new system couldn't save JPMorgan from being hacked? http://t.co/WH50pilfvk
6mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel RT @MarkUdall: Summited Dallas Peak last week & reached my goal of climbing all 100 of #CO's tallest peaks: http://t.co/c56r0xXf3l http://t…
8mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @Krhawkins5 That said, I like to point out when he acts like he's still Riyadh Station Chief.
13mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @Krhawkins5 I learned it when I noted he swore his oath to a Bill of Rights free Constitution.
13mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Where do I place bet that Senator who called Gilliibrand porky also voted to make it harder to access birth control? http://t.co/DgbhhVBU1X
40mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel RT @jeffjohnroberts: Law geeks: here's the deep-dive into why PACER is so screwed up http://t.co/wKAyh31Rz3
50mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @tomtomorrow I try not to do anything on FB that would reflect badly on nice people who follow phantom me there @MattBors @RubenBolling
59mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @HayesBrown Really hoping McCain is a big topic for Sunday's shows. Cause of the cognitive dissonance it would cause McCain's regular hosts
1hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel I mean, surely Dennis Kucinich would have taken over the world by now (with his tall wife) if he were just 2 inches shorter?
1hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @aqjuvenal I mean, aside from abt 6 short private equity banksters I know. They're also exceptions. Otherwise ... science! @AdamSerwer
1hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @aqjuvenal Isn't it scientifically proven that the Wall Street Masters of the Universe make short men serve as their lawyers? @AdamSerwer
1hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Actually think short men are great. Except in DC where they appear to try to compensate by taking over world. @AdamSerwer excepted, I guess
1hreplyretweetfavorite