The True Meaning Behind Holder’s Response to Rand Paul

Paul Joseph Watson
March 8, 2013

Although it was heralded as a clear signal that the Obama administration has been forced to acknowledge that it cannot drone strike Americans on U.S. soil, Eric Holder’s response to Rand Paul only serves to re-affirm the government’s existing position.

Responding to the Kentucky Senator’s near 13 hour filibuster, Attorney General Holder sent a letter to Paul’s office which stated, “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.”

The key to this is the phrase “engaged in combat.” What does the administration consider to represent an act of “combat.”

In the case of American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, killed by a targeted drone strike in 2011, being “engaged in combat” amounted to little more than creating propaganda videos in support of terrorists. Awlaki never committed an act of violent terrorism, he was merely accused of communicating with terrorists and giving lectures in support of Al-Qaeda. Awlaki’s guilt was never proven in court because he was never afforded a trial.

Given that the Department of Defense now considers the act of protest to be a form of “low-level terrorism,” how far removed is criticizing U.S. foreign policy and hegemonic domination from the views which Awlaki was summarily executed for advocating?

The federal government has defined a laundry list of banal behaviors and political activities as potential terrorism, from paying for a cup of coffee with cash to buying storable food in bulk. The definition of a potential terrorist – and remember the government only has to accuse someone of being a terrorist as a pre-cursor to killing them with a drone strike – has been watered down to such an extent that the Department of Homeland Security now considers Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority,” and “reverent of individual liberty” as potential terrorists.

Awlaki’s son, 16-year-old Abdel al-Awlaki, an American citizen, was killed by a drone strike a few weeks after his father’s death as he traveled to a family barbeque in Yemen. Abdel’s act of “combat” against the United States amounted to little more than sharing the surname of his father. The U.S. government later erroneously claimed that Abdel’ was a “military-age male” in his 20′s in an attempt to justify his execution.


“What Holder is saying, in substantive terms, is that the President does have the supposed authority to use a drone to kill an American who is engaged in “combat,” whether here or abroad,” writes William Grigg.

“Combat” can consist of expressing support for Muslims mounting armed resistance against U.S. military aggression, which was the supposed crime committed by Anwar al-Awlaki, or sharing the surname and DNA of a known enemy of the state, which was the offense committed by Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdel. Under the rules of engagement used by the Obama Regime in Pakistan, Yemen, and Afghanistan, any “military-age” male found within a targeted “kill zone” is likewise designated a “combatant,” albeit usually after the fact. This is a murderous application of the “Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy,” and it will be used when — not if — Obama or a successor starts conducting domestic drone-killing operations.”

Furthermore, as the Washington Post reported yesterday, the Obama administration is now preparing to extend the legal basis for its drone strikes to target people who have no direct connection to actual terrorists.

“Officials said legal advisers at the White House, the State Department, the Pentagon and intelligence agencies are now weighing whether the law can be stretched to cover what one former official called “associates of associates,” reports the Post.

This could mean that Americans who unknowingly communicate with somebody who communicates with somebody else the government accuses of being a terrorist could become a target for a drone strike.

The report quotes a “person who participated in the administration’s deliberations on the issue,” who warns that expanding the definition would be “a major interpretive leap” that could eliminate the need for a link between the targeted organization and core al-Qaeda.”

“You can’t end the war if you keep adding people to the enemy who are not actually part of the original enemy,” the individual added.

This again underscores how the term “engaged in combat,” used by Holder in his response to Rand Paul, has been broadened to such a degree that it could feasibly apply to huge numbers of Americans who have absolutely no connection to terrorism whatsoever.


Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for and Prison He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.


One thought on “The True Meaning Behind Holder’s Response to Rand Paul

  1. Have you ever asked, “How did torture become legal?”

    After reading Frederic Bastiat’s classic ‘The Law’ I now understand the purpose of the law is not to mandate justice, but rather it is to prevent injustice (to protect you life, liberty, and property). When the Law is used to “bring justice” it does so with the only means available to the State (i.e, force, or threat of violence). For example: one day you have no health insurance, then the law is written to help you, and guess what? Now you are being forced to do that which the State says is good for you (you MUST buy insurance) under threats by IRA agents with guns of heavy fines and/or jail time. In such a way, the Law has been twisted so that it stripes you of the very thing it should protect: your life, liberty and property.

    Here is the crux of the matter. Under common law (THE LAW) there is no crime if there is no victim, but under statutory codes and rules coercion is codified. In this twisted use of LAW, placing an individual under duress is no longer a crime, it is actually viewed as a means to achieve justice. Heavy fines (or taxes) can be used as leverage, to force the victim to act in the desired way, but it does not end there. When the State replaces THE LAW with statutory codes and rules AT THAT POINT any means necessarily to gain your “voluntarily compliance” can and will be employed. This coercion may involve the actual infliction of physical pain/injury or psychological harm in order to enhance the credibility of a threat. Why? So that the threat of further harm may lead to the cooperation or obedience of the person being coerced.

    Torture is one of the most extreme examples of coercion and we all know this country no longer rules out this method of coercion for enemies of the State, but how did illegal torture become lawful enhanced interrogation? How did American go from thinking torture is anathema to our values to where we are today? The answer is right before you. It is the logical consequence of turning THE LAW into some thing it should never be, namely a means of coercion. In this way, well-meaning (but misguided) liberals and progressives attempt to FORCE justice on others against their will. This is the very definition of tyranny and it always leads to out-of-control despotic government.

    When torture has become legal, you know the LAW has become a tyranny. Where will it lead us? Well, to answer that, look at the current debate over whether or not the President can legally kill (i.e., assassinate) American citizens with a drone strike on US soil (thus disregarding their constitutional right to a jury trail). This is what making torture legal has lead us too. Daphne Eviatar, a senior counsel at Human Rights First, said: “It’s hard to see how authorities could not be in a position to arrest someone yet be able to kill them.” And yet this is exactly what Eric Holder claims the right to do (and continues to maintain even if he is cleaver enough to hide it behind misleading legal terms).

    Many have said this is just history repeating itself, while that is true, the problem we face this time is global governance. Unlike past generations, we are faced with the prospect of a world-wide tyranny in which individual rights are no longer protected or even recognized. If America is lost to this so-called “the New World Order” what hope is there for the future of humanity? Under international LAW we expect one thing: global tyranny.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s