Actually it´s quite simple to know when all these troubling questions about drone strikes will be answered and when the MSM and massive public protests will be launched against the President...When there´s a Republican President again.

NY Slimes Op Ed hitting Holder AND Obama!!! I´m surprised, but in the long term the Grey Lady (who if human and in Obamacare would be given a pill to ease her pain instead of treatment) will still endorse any democrat whatever their transgressions and public "transparency".

Omana? Is that his driver?

Maybe ´engaged in combat´ is exactly like ´shooting skeet.´

With his propensity for lying does it matter what he says? There´s this little thing about lying to infidels. If he wants to drop a drone bomb on your head, he´ll do it, and the media will cover for him and his ratings will go up, cause you see, it can´t be his fault. That drone took off all by itself, nobody knows why. Sad state we are in.

Just like the drone that magically landed itself perfectly in Iran who knows what they´re likely to do...in this administration!

If they are:

1. an opposition group like the TEA Party...

2. Objecting to Obama´s little power grabs by fiat...

3. carrying some kind of weapon...

... Then they are ´in combat´!!

FIRE!!

"Not engaged in combat" means not engaged in opposing the Obie narrative.

Good grief. Obama declared war on us that day just prior to the 2008 election when he said ´We are five days away from fundamentally transforming this nation´´.

You don´t have a desire to transform ANYTHING ´fundamentally´ if you love it. Fundamental means from the foundation, or the Founders perhaps? He was then and remains today, this minute, determined to remake this country into his vision and version of utopia, of ´fairness for all.´ And because he sees this as a war between himself and his followers, and the rest of us, we therefore are the enemy. We are ALL considered enemies, and probably enemy combatants as well. If we post here or elsewhere, if we put things up on Facebook or out in the Twitterverse, or we forward emails around to our friends, we are engaging in progressive-style combat.

Because this is what THEY do. They consider themselves warriors, foot soldiers, in their war against us, the bourgeois.

OF COURSE we are their enemies! We should not be so stupid as to wait for him to define the term. He would only define it HIS WAY, which is to obfuscate, blur, and outright LIE.

IT´S WHAT THEY DO.

#7 and #9 beat me to it. Basically, what #7 said!

The NYT asks the wrong question here:

But is it well past time for the United States government to specify, precisely, its views on whom it thinks it can kill in the struggle against Al Qaeda and other terrorist forces? The answer is yes.

"...in the struggle against Al Qaeda and other terrorist forces" can mean survivalists, Tea Party activists and anyone who doesn´t go along with them.

This is dangerous.

I posted this reply on Mar 7.
Article: "Obama administration responds to Paul on drones"...

You have to parse every syllable with these shysters. "engaged in combat"

Combat
1. To oppose in battle; fight against.
2. To oppose vigorously; struggle against.

So it all depends on the use of the term combat. Combat: Struggling against. Wouldn´t combat be applicable to people vigorously opposing the President´s policies then? If so, we´re right back where we were.

1. Rapidly expanding use of all levels of drones

2. Rapidly expanding # of command & control points

3. =

4. There´s going to be hideous mistakes

Feinstein? Feinstein?

What are we waiting for? Impeach the SOB.

Simple, he would consider anyone protecting their rights to be terrorists and a target.

The American Citizens need to practice their ´bird hunting´ skills, it´s as simple as that!

There are many questions to be asked and most should be aimed at Nappy and the DHS . Put all the loose threads together and a very disturbing pattern emerges . The government is not arming itself in prep for a foreign invasion , but a civil uprising . She has purchased as much ammo as possible , light armored vehicles , and they tried to sneak drones into the air . ElPresidente´ can now jail anyone he wishes without so much as a trial . They are spying on the internet and e-mails . These are FACTS , not right -wing- kookery . Stand in line all day for ammo all day if you have to .

From the NYT?!?!? I have been wondering this ever since Sir Eric of Holder put forth his assurances to Sen. Paul on the drone issue. Thank you for asking, NYT!

#12, we all know what we posted the other day when this first came up. The definition of "engaged in combat" needs to be answered in full and without purpose of evasion.

The response from Holder was obviously written by an evasive lawyer who was told to come up with wording that skirted the issue and gave them an out when the need to kill civilians by drones came up. You can bet that this administration will never give a straight answer to anything to do with protecting the American People from the evil actions of this obama administration.

So, the way I see it is if a group were to get togather and begin training for the next revolution, which I don´t know if any law forbids that, then Obozo could claim that they are "terriosts" and send in the armed drones to eliminate them. Am I correct? Are we, as American citizens, starting to be denied the right to peacefully assemble? Training for combat is still peaceful, isn´t it? If my assment of the past 4+ years is any good, Obozo gets to define pretty much whatever he wants to. And the MSM backs him up.

Be careful Poster 14, you are beginning to fit the profile of a combatant.

All those middle-aged "Patriots" running around with their ARs wearing their cammies in the woods of Idaho and Georgia better keep one eye fixed on the sky above. Obama and Holder and Big Sis would splatter your butts with a Hellfire missile in a heartbeat and not lose a second of sleep over it. If returning GIs are considered possible terrorists by DHS...?

Sorry for the second post, but I can´t resist pointing out the utter absurdity of the liberal defenders of the Obama/Holder Doctrine of Unlimited Right to Kill by Drone.

In the case of killing a US citizen who is a suspected terrorist while he is in the US, the obvious question is why would this even be considered? If the drone can spot him, authorities can be notified and they can either arrest him or (on the same drone-presumption of guilt and presidential authority) kill him with a bullet rather than with a messy and expensive missile.

So in essence, the current "liberal" view is that the President can create a kill list of presumed terrorists, and without warrant/arrest/trial can send "something/someone" to kill the suspect on the spot. Pretty amazing new liberal position.

f

I hereby call for a ban on assault drones and the high capacity rocket and missile launchers they use.

If they want to take out a terrorist, buy a shotgun. A double barreled shotgun. Just stand on the porch and fire two shots into the air.

America has some RC enthusiasts. Some HAM guys too. I bet if we really try, we could muster an air wing of our own. Maybe we should be stocking up on servos and xmit boxes.

I recl in the late 90s thereabouts, the LAPD was using a then-new infra-red scope or scanner. I do not know the protoclo but they´d drive dn the street and see if any of the houses had a big heat signature. this bright heat revelation would indicate the big draw-down of electricity. The could compare it to reg houses heat.
So either raids were done or the infrared infor was key part of a warrant, and the judges said no on the infra-red being shined on houses as there was no probable cause. A house was just sitting there and there was no criminal activity visible. All this should available in the news articles of the time
So this NO from the court on Infra-red scanning can be applied to drone use too.
There is no probable cause to photo or view Americans doing and living their lives. No Probable cause, no judicial orders, no drones.