Obama Administration Announces Drone Policy For Attacks on Americans - Mike Swanson (03/07/2013)
JOIN: WALLSTREETWINDOW FREE MEMBERSHIP
* Join and receive the Two Fold Formula guide to picking stocks and combine tested fundamental valuation metrics with technical analysis.
*Align yourself with the big trends of the stock market and be alerted when these trends change.
*Receive free updates when we see an investment opportunity in an emerging sector before the crowd gets in.
After Senator Paul Rand's filibuster yesterday the Obama administration backed down on the use of drone attacks on American citizens inside of the United States. Well sort of.
This was the situation yesterday. It was completely crazy:
Today Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder sent a letter to Rand Paul that reads:
" 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.
It took a filibuster for hours on end that created national press coverage to get the President of the United States and his Attorney General to answer a simple question that has been asked of them for weeks. What it means is that if someone in the federal government announces that you are "engaged in combat" on American soil they can kill you.
The question is what does it mean to be considered "engaged in combat"?
When the government flies drones over Pakistan they consider someone doing jumping jacks as an enemy combatant under rules of engagement.
What rules will they apply inside the United States for this? Will this remain classified top secret?
How long will it be before a drone is used to kill an American citizen inside of the United States without a warrant, court order, or even a legal charge? A year? A decade? Never? Or tomorrow? Why do they feel it necessary to grab this power?