Published: Sunday, March 17, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
Updated: Sunday, March 17, 2013
“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.”
I'm glad that U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., got that written answer from Attorney General Eric Holder by filibustering the new CIA director's nomination. But don't forget how narrow the scope of the question was.
Holder, as Janet Reno's deputy attorney general, saw what the FBI and ATF could do long before drones. Whether Afghanistan 2012 or Waco 1993, children died because government thought they didn't choose their parents wisely.
And in January, Holder said to Congress that “it does become difficult for us to prosecute them (HSBC bank) when we are hit with indications that ... if you do bring a criminal charge (money laundering), it will have a negative impact on the national economy.”
We have an attorney general who seems upset at being denied drones for killing citizens, yet won't prosecute money-laundering bank personnel who partnered with murderous criminal gangs. The Fast and Furious scandal seems mild by comparison. That he's still attorney general is scandalous.
- Sadly missed, fondly remembered
- What am I paying for?
- Enviro leftist tactics
- ‘Public Welfare’ misnomer
- Multiple Bibles: It’s OK
- Local zoning essential
- Fox sarcasm
- Met candidates
- Guns a public health issue
- Public will win
- Unions can, churches can’t?
You must be signed in to add comments
To comment, click the Sign in or sign up at the very top of this page.
Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.