So your safe, from Drone strikes if you are NOT engaged in "combat"... Hmmm, and do we "Trust" this Yahoo, to keep his, and his Bosses, Word????? By HIS actions, we know Better.....
Define "engaged in combat". If the American People revolt, they will be engaged in combat with a tyrannous government.
Now to define combat. However, I have never been so proud of a sitting Senator! A sixteen hour filibuster all on his own. Damn! And I'm disgusted by McCain's and surprised (and also disgusted) by Graham's responses to castigate him for it.
Graham is every bit as much a statist lawyer politician as any of them..just one who claims to be conservative while supporting a federal government with it's nose in everything and a tendency to legislate his religious "morality" for all. I'm not actually a big fan of Rand since he announced his support for Rombama in the last election but he is starting to work his way back into my good graces. PS...I also believe that the question is what Barry considers "combat"...
I think you ment to say "When". Senator Paul's reputation just went up a couple notches. I'd like to see him run in 2016.
I suppose this means that 'the President has the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill one engaged in combat on American soil' which leads into the above questions as to what defines 'one engaged in combat'. Maybe this is a clue as to who the .gov considers the terrorists to be: Excerpt from the miac report which calls most of us Patriots members of the Militia - but then again, so do most of our state constitutions albeit in a positive light... (full pdf attached below)
Interesting pdf on militias Melbo. Personally I have never thought of aryan nation/white supremacists as militias, but I guess... It seems that if you are not cookie cutter Americans and if there is more then two or three, that makes a militia. I was arguing with a liberal windbag who said the whole rand Paul thing was stupid cause never would the Pres use a drone. Then he went on to say that the militia that Timothy McVeigh still around and those terrorists are a threat. I just nodded but as I recall Timothy was not in a militia. So I looked up the definition of combat. This is what the Bing dictionary said: 1. fighting: fighting between two people or groups, especially between armies ( often used before a noun ) "He had never seen combat." "combat troops" 2. fight or struggle: a struggle between opposing individuals or forces "combat between good and evil" So by definition these were combats: Ludlow Massacre, Kent State, Ruby Ridge, Waco. Well that's scary!
Don't forget Wounded Knee where our own government first disarmed citizens and then murdered them. Frankly, I don't know that it really matters a wit if Holder publically claims it is legal or not. When has the law stopped this White House from doing whatever they want? Constitutionality isn't particularly constraining to this White House either. So Holder's letter and the technical legalities are pretty simply not relevant in protecting a citizen from a White House execution order regardless of where they are or whatever they are doing. More significant is the integrity of the soldier/officer with a finger on the button and the officers over them to their sworn oaths. AT
Militia is a media buzzword that conjures immediate negative images in the minds of many. This image was created by the same powers that made the term a buzzword. It's also often painted on those who are modern 'preppers' (which is a term that has replaced the more ominous sounding 'survivalist'). it becomes a name game depending on your perspective. Rebel vs Freedom Fighter - It all depends on who you support... If you support a certain Government, then anyone who opposes that Gov is a rebel, if you are against that Gov, the opposers are freedom fighters. Was the Boston Tea Party an act of Patriotism or an act of terrorism? Depends on if you were a supporter of the Brits or the new Americans at the point in time. Outlaw, Vigilante, Hero, etc - they are all subjective terms that depend on your POV. Notice how our media consistently reports a person with a gun as a gunman? It doesn't matter that they should be called a murderer, berserker, criminal or something else: "Police have apprehended the gunman, more at 11:00'. It sets the image on the fact that it's a man with a gun, further emphasizing the image that guns are bad. For whatever reason, I (edit: should really say we) have this cursed ability to easily spot bullshit when it's presented to us. Much of our media's reporting (wording) on current events is contrived to evoke an emotional reaction out of the viewer/reader that serves the purpose of [someone]. I don't buy it.
Those who think we are not yet in a civil war are flat out wrong. I began my military service during the Vietnam War, but the bulk of my time served was during The Cold War: We are in a life or death battle for the Republic right now. The similarites are striking; Mutual assured destruction as the deterrent and the psychological warfare are both in play.
