What Holder Realy Said

G

Gotholic

Well-Known Member
March 7, 2013

What Holder Really Said

Posted by William Grigg on March 7, 2013 02:23 PM
It took a 13-hour filibuster from Senator Rand Paul to wring this terse statement from Attorney General Eric Holder:

“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.”

Like all statements from people who presume to rule others, this brief message from Holder – – who is Nickolai Krylenko to Obama’s Josef Stalin – should be read in terms of the supposed authority claimed thereby. This means removing useless qualifiers in the interest of clarity.

What Holder is saying, in substantive terms, is that the President does have the supposed authority to use a drone to kill an American who is engaged in “combat,” whether here or abroad. "Combat" can consist of expressing support for Muslims mounting armed resistance against U.S. military aggression, which was the supposed crime committed by Anwar al-Awlaki, or sharing the surname and DNA of a known enemy of the state, which was the offense committed by Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdel. Under the rules of engagement used by the Obama Regime in Pakistan, Yemen, and Afghanistan, any “military-age” male found within a targeted “kill zone” is likewise designated a “combatant,” albeit usually after the fact. This is a murderous application of the "Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy," and it will be used when -- not if -- Obama or a successor starts conducting domestic drone-killing operations.

Holder selected a carefully qualified question in order to justify a narrowly tailored answer that reserves an expansive claim of executive power to authorize summary executions by the president. That’s how totalitarians operate.
Click to expand...

Source
 
Winky

Winky

Well-Known Member
The idea that the boys playing their video games at Creech Air Force Base in Nevada
will one day be shootin' them AGM-176 Griffins
at Americans inside the confines of the contiguous 48 states isn't so far fetched now is it?
1fzr0o.jpg


If the folks being blown up could be effectively portrayed as a threat to the State I'm sure even Minx would applaud such a the thing.

2vvvxms.jpg
 
2minkey

2minkey

bootlicker
that is one of the worst ozzy-era sabbath songs. sounds like iommi is just going through motions.
 
Winky

Winky

Well-Known Member
Groovy man
that was music from my pre-teen years
mom saw to it I got all the cool vinyl
 
2minkey

2minkey

bootlicker
but what did holder realy (sic) say?

maybe you should start randomly bumping less retarded threads?
 
Winky

Winky

Well-Known Member
and I never thought that I'd have to take direction from a wise latina and a fat hag lesbian?
mj739k.jpg
 
Winky

Winky

Well-Known Member
Some poor unsuspecting schlub getting splattered all over the place
by a Hellfire missile can hardly be considered combat.

fer Christ's sakes, they were originally intended for anti-armor use

Personally I think it is cute as hell that Raytheon has developed the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-176_Griffin for quote unquote
"irregular warfare operations" hah

“Power is in tearing human minds to pieces
and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.”
George Orwell
 
2minkey

2minkey

bootlicker
Gotholic said:
Yeah, because a thread showing the word "combat" has been used very broadly is stupid?
Click to expand...

in this case yes. you can find evidence for anything if you're trying hard enough to put together the signs. it helps if you are mentally ill.

 
Winky

Winky

Well-Known Member
A stone cold commie and a total whackjob?
I think I'd rather believe in Scientology !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top