It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Word Games, Mind Games and reading between the Lines

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 11:57 AM
Brennans confermation hearing focuses on Senator Rand Paul and Attorney General Eric Holder
Senator Paul asks a very simple question.
If you look closely to the answer ," NO !" No does not mean, no.
Why ? Because there are excemptions to the rule
Look for the key words in Holders response for the execemptions.
These words and phrases are open to interpetation, ( by the government )

imminent threat
engaged in combat on American soil

“What I’m asking is about drone strikes on Americans, on American soil,” Sen. Paul responded. “The president will not answer that he cannot do this. In fact, he seems to be asserting that he can do this.” Sen. Paul added, “The CIA is not supposed to assassinate people on American soil and the Department of Defense is not allowed to act on American soil because of the Posse Comitatus Act.”

Before he took the floor, Paul announced that he had received a letter from Holder which opened the door, in extremely rare circumstances, to using a drone to kill someone within U.S. territory. Holder said "catastrophic" attacks such as the Sept. 11 attacks or the attack on Pearl Harbor are examples of circumstances where the president could conceivably feel such an action is necessary. Testifying on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, Holder agreed that it would be unconstitutional to use a drone on American soil against a U.S. citizen or a suspected terrorist who did not pose an imminent threat.

Shortly before the vote, Holder sent a terse letter to Paul that read: "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."

As states move forward with gun control and ban guns, any law abiding citizen refusing to give up their gun by law can be labeled an armed anti government terrorist, and an imminent threat.And by resisting to surrender your arms you are now entering into combat on American soil.
You are now legally a drone target.
imminent threat.

edit on 8-3-2013 by OLD HIPPY DUDE because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-3-2013 by OLD HIPPY DUDE because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-3-2013 by OLD HIPPY DUDE because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 12:45 PM
So what you're saying is...

Be totally afraid of The Government! Do what The Government says or get droned! All Hail Obama!


log in