23 votes

Did The Department of Justice Say That The Government Would Not Assassinate Americans?

March 8, 2013 by WashingtonsBlog

Holder’s Letter Raises More Questions Than It Answers

After a 13-hour filibuster by Senator Paul asking for a yes-or-no answer, on the question of whether the government could kill Americans on U.S. soil with drones, the Attorney General responded:

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 Holder

But – as anyone who has worked in the legal or legislative field knows – statements which do not pin down all possibilities create loopholes large enough to drive trucks through.

Remember, Holder’s letter to Paul can’t be taken in a vacuum. The government has said for many months that it has the power to assassinate Americans on U.S. soil.

Read more: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/03/did-the-department-of...

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

We the People must frame the discussion. Not our Servants/Media

If you really analyze the drone discussion, Rand assumes its ok to have weaponized and survellence drones controlled by our servants here in America. The globalists always go big and if they get a little less, they still took 3 steps forward. Our demand is the true intent of the Founders, that We the People are the true masters of Government. The Founders would never have allowed our Servants to have more power than we the Masters. Look at the George Washington era. There was no standing army. The People held the firepower. The central govt was tiny and powerless. Not the case today. We the People must quit being fooled and allowing our Servants to frame the discussions. Drones in America is Tyranny. Period.

The Founders intent of the 2nd Amendment was that We the People would always retain MORE FORCE and POWER than our Servants.

We the People must quit allowing ourselvest to be lead by others and the media. We the People must think for ourselves and what it truely means to be the Masters of this nation and our government.

robot999's picture

Okay guys/gals

What RAND has done here is Build a Platform of PUBLIC OPINION from which he can start to submit laws that rebuild what we have lost.

Sheeple: Gee I guess Obama can't kill us. (Truth: Of course he can, and the letter didn't change a damn thing.)

Paul: This bill today before the Senate DEFINES in law what the Obama administration has set forth in their letter - that they cannot kill American Citizens... (Truth: The Sheeple will concur because it is what they believe to be a foregone conclusion.)


"Government is the entertainment division of the military-industrial complex". - Frank Zappa


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."

The holes are easy to see:

1) Does the President... ( Anyone else, North com?)
2) Only a weaponized drone ( to specific )
3) ..to Kill... (should be apprehend with force)
4) ..engaged and combat ( to broad )
5) American Soil, (were else then )

This means nothing,

“In the beginning of change, the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for it costs nothing to be a patriot.”

Mark Twain

Yakkity Yak Yak

That letter means nothing. The loophole is simple; gathering with friends over beers talking about restoring government to its limited roots will be considered engaging in combat against the imperial government.

"Do right and risk the consequences”
― Sam Houston

tasmlab's picture

When they do kill you

When they do decide to kill you, whether it be by drone or shooting you in the chest or bonking you on the head with a govt frying pan, who takes the Federal system to court based on this letter?

Does your spouse get to stand in line somewhere and file a grievance? Does the white house then pay a fine to the government for its transgression?

Currently consuming: Morehouse's "Better off free", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

Just as in Nature

Things that are possible tend to happen.

Holder's statement leaves open hundreds of ways for the Usurpers to rid themselves of political opposition. Kidnapping, indefinite detainment, and assassination can all be done without weaponized drones.

It also leaves open the possibility to use Weaponized Drones to kill Americans on US soil that are suspected of being engaged in combat. Just as in the video that Manning released, "It looks like he has an RPG, KILL THEM ALL!"

The Feds have put a Straight Jacket on ALL Americans in order to protect us from the 'terrorists' and from ourselves. They are improving the restraints and as the jacket gets tighter, it is going to hurt much more trying to get it off.

Do yourself a favor, look up the definition of 'Terror' and see if the Federal Gov't is the Primary source of it.

Rand and the others shouldn't

Rand and the others shouldn't consider the matter settled due to this letter. What it means to be "engaged in combat" needs to be fleshed out.

I must be willing to give up what I am in order to become what I will be. Albert Einstein

Is protesting a terrorist government considered combat?

Is taking action against a tyrannical regime considered combat?

"A vote for the lesser of two evils is a vote to keep things the same", Buckminster Fuller..
A choice for liberty is always a choice for liberty.

A Lawyer's reply

"It doesn't say anywhere that it is not."

Recall who we are dealing with. Lawyers and Central Planners who know what's best for us. Lawyers and Central Planners who have monopolized coerced consent in the Duopoly and most of the resources on the planet. For our own good of course.

When push comes to shove, expect those with 2 billion hollow points, 30,000 Drones, and 2,700 tanks to go for the knockout.

Fun Fact: 30,000 people out of 7.5 Billion own or are acquiring 90% of the world's resources. What's "best for us" is far better for them.

All I Can Say Is



Can the Federal Government Kill Me Without a Trial?

The answer to my ears sounded like an unequivocal NO! I take the answer on its face value just as most unsophisticated Americans have as well. That power in numbers who believe it works on my behalf. Just the acknowledgment of the "NO" answer removes a vast amount of power from the presidency and congress and they know it. The implications are far reaching and destroys much of their previously accumulated power as well. Let's start looking at the implications on a higher level and articulate the meaning of the fed's loss. I see a bunch of government employee losers from what Rand did.

What about self defense?

I love what Rand did, and even see it as productive. I agree that he's effectively discrediting much of the assumed and accumulated power coming from the executive branch. BUT, there is still the matter of self defense.

Would soldiers be able to respond to American citizens trying to kill them? Yes. We all have the right to our lives and liberty.

All I know is that that Posse Comitatus is(was) a good thing. It cuts down on the unhappy incidents. Everybody knows a policeman has the right to protect themselves and even the obligation to protect others. If somebody holes themselves up with a high powered rifle and starts shooting people, I say bring in the police snipers and a swat team.

What if they start shooting at soldiers?

"engaged in combat" is better than "enemy combatant". You're defending yourself when somebodies "engaged in combat" against you.

A drone doesn't have the right to self defense, so a drone by definition can only murder you short of a declaration of war against the American citizens. (good luck with that one Obama)

Hurray for Rand! Well done.

the dropping of "actively"

Rand took this answer as a victory, probably because continuing to split hairs would not have gone over well and might've lost much of the political capital he gained in the filibuster, but it is interesting to note that Holder dropped the word "actively" from Paul's line of questioning. "engaged in combat" is a much easier to manipulate term than "actively engaged in combat"

still, it's an improvement, and we can continue to argue the definition of "engaged in combat" to clarify that it only allows for self-defensive actions, not pre-emptive killing.

An enemy combatant is one who

An enemy combatant is one who tries to remove from me my constitutional rights whether they work for the government or not.

I don't know why people pretend to busy themselves

over definitions of words when anyone with a lick of sense knows where this is headed. The discussion has been formed.. There WILL BE drone strikes inside the US.

By false flags most likely to put fear into the public and secure their hold on control.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

The letter actually states that the US Gov't CAN assassinate us.

As long as we're "engaged in combat"!

I attempted to bring this up here:


Does "walking to combat" or "talking about combat" or "planning combat" imply "engaging in combat"?

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!



All depends on what is defined as 'combat'.

The law cannot make a wicked person virtuous…God’s grace alone can accomplish such a thing.
Ron Paul - The Revolution

Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms. Ron Paul

follow up to the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act will be the

COMBAT act defining combatives as Civilians Online Mumbling Badly
Against Tyranny.

With all due respect, I will no longer be a voting prostitute for Constitution rejecting harlots.