ShareThis Page

Real scandal

| Sunday, March 17, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

Real scandal

“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.

Mark Crowley


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.