“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?’” Holder wrote. “The answer to that question is no.”
Well thank God for small favors. The Obama administration, after being hounded for more than a year by the only handful of federal-level politicians who apparently even give a crap anymore about minor matters such as constitutional freedoms, has finally acknowledged (albeit only so as to ease the appointment of a new Head Spook to the CIA) that a predator drone program does in fact exist, and it would be illegal under the Constitution to blow away, say, an American citizen swimming in his pool in Sunnyslope, Ariz., with said unmanned remote-control missile. Unless, you may note, he is “engaged in combat,” whatever the legal definition of that “is.”
Evidently, however, the Constitution no longer applies to American citizens abroad, engaged in combat or not, as President Obama and his Judge Jury And Executioner Committee have amply proven. Even if they are, say, 16 years old.
Meanwhile, although you may not see it in American newspapers since they long ago laid off most of the troublemakers in the investigative portions of their newsrooms, there’s this. Read it and weep.
If you step away from the computer screen and just concentrate real hard on digging the holes and planting the fruit trees, your stomach doesn’t usually hurt as much.