AG Holder Finds President can Kill US Citizens on US Soil

[NotNow]

Where is this administration headed? 

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/05/holder-drone-strike-against-americans-in-the-u-s-possible/


Holder: Drone strike against Americans in the U.S. possible
Attorney General Eric Holder Tuesday stopped short of entirely ruling out a drone strike against an American citizen on U.S. soilâ€"without trial.

Holder’s comment came in a letter to Sen. Rand Paul. Paul had sent a letter to President Obama’s CIA director nominee John Brennan asking for the administration’s views on the president’s power to authorize lethal force.

In the letter, Holder said “It is possible I suppose to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. “

In a separate letter, Brennan told Paul that the CIA has no such authority.

The nomination passed its first hurdle Tuesday with the Senate intelligence committee voting to approve the nomination in a 12-3 vote. Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia said he voted against the nomination because of inconsistencies in Brennan's testimony.

Earlier in the day, the White House agreed to provide legal documents written by Justice Department officials explaining the legal rationale for  targeting Americans overseas who are involved in terror-related activities that threatened America or American interests.

[I-10east]

To me the whole purpose of drone strikes is to attack a threat that's in hostile territory, ya know somewhere that's unfriendly to the US. What purpose does it serve to use an armed drone within your own country, land that you have access to anyway? I don't care what they say concerning drone strikes in the US, it's all far fetched 'legal gibberish'. Could they? Yeah. Will they? No. We have all kind of resources that we can use (FBI etc) before using a freaking high profile armed drone to get someone in the states. This is one of the many silly political things (on both sides of the aisle) that people get worked on so much, like... Obama will take your guns away, over my cold dead hands!!!... Global warming...the Benghazi incident...High capacity magazines etc etc etc.

[NotNow]

Where is this administration headed? 

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/05/holder-drone-strike-against-americans-in-the-u-s-possible/


Holder: Drone strike against Americans in the U.S. possible
Attorney General Eric Holder Tuesday stopped short of entirely ruling out a drone strike against an American citizen on U.S. soil—without trial.

Holder’s comment came in a letter to Sen. Rand Paul. Paul had sent a letter to President Obama’s CIA director nominee John Brennan asking for the administration’s views on the president’s power to authorize lethal force.

In the letter, Holder said “It is possible I suppose to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. “

In a separate letter, Brennan told Paul that the CIA has no such authority.

The nomination passed its first hurdle Tuesday with the Senate intelligence committee voting to approve the nomination in a 12-3 vote. Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia said he voted against the nomination because of inconsistencies in Brennan's testimony.

Earlier in the day, the White House agreed to provide legal documents written by Justice Department officials explaining the legal rationale for  targeting Americans overseas who are involved in terror-related activities that threatened America or American interests.

you believed in this kind of thing six years ago, not now.

Have you changed your mind now that a democrat is president?

You either really lack comprehension skills or you say things that are not true.  Hmmm.   I supported (and still support) the use of intelligence to locate and kill our enemies overseas.   Using "drones", "bombs", or "bullets" is the same thing.  I have always understood that and I support the President's use of drones in Asia, just as I supported the previous President.  I believe the current President's practice of "personally" picking targets is a mistaken practice, but how he runs his administration is up to him.  I have never, and would never, support any assassination of a US citizen on US soil (or anywhere in the world) unless they posed an immediate danger to human life.

It is you, StephenDare!, who has changed your stated opinions with the political winds.  You now accept Gitmo.  You accept targeted assassination  of enemy forces via bombing.  You have made no statements against this idea that Americans can be assassinated by the government on US soil.  Not a peep from you about the failure of Obama appointee's to pay their income taxes, not a word about (illegally) shipping weapons to drug cartels, silence from you about the bombing campaign in Libya.  While you called the previous President a "war criminal" for bombing and invading a country, you have been quite accepting of the current President invading Pakistan and killing several foriegn nationals there.  Is President Obama a "war criminal" because he ordered the killing of a 16 year old American boy?   As a matter of fact, all you seem to have focused on is 90% income tax rates (for certain people) and your personal belief that no one "needs" anything more than a "six shooter" for self defense. 

I'm not surprised.  I have always known you are a partisan drone.   I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy.

[Adam W]

In the letter, Holder said “It is possible I suppose to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. “

That makes perfect sense. Especially when you consider that all enlistees in the US military take an oath promising to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

If, for example, a commercial airliner were hijacked and being flown towards a very large, occupied skyscraper in a major US city. Should the President order the Air Force (or similar) to shoot it down to save thousands of lives?

I'd think so.

[JeffreyS]

Holder's statement constitutes a legal opinion based on the laws as they are now not a policy decision that he's making.

[sandyshoes]

Hmmmmm...any chance the drone could be bribed to take out the incestuous, drug-smokin', drama-lovin' hillbilly neighbors down the street?  It's a circus out there every night (and day).   

[Adam W]

Holder's statement constitutes a legal opinion based on the laws as they are now not a policy decision that he's making.

Exactly.

[NotNow]

In fact, I am standing by my previous statements.  You can make up all kinds of things, but the facts are:

President Obama has maintained the prison in Cuba.
President Obama has invaded at least two countries militarily and killed people in those countries.
President Obama had argued for and successfully extended the Patriot Act.
President Obama has PERSONALLY approved and assigned assassinations by drone. Including at least two American citizens one of which was sixteen years old.
President Obama, in addition to the drone strikes, has approved bombing raids that have resulted in exactly the types of casualties that the previous administration did.  The only difference now is that the Obama administration counts any male aged 16-65 that dies in these incidents as a "combatant". 

Your memory, as always, is not as accurate as it should be.  Your position on these issues speaks for itself.   You are simply a Democrat shill. 

For the rest of you, I am glad that Mr. Holder clarified his position.  Perhaps a more detailed analysis of the authority of the President is called for.  I would be interested in hearing your positions on the stated issues.  Do you still oppose the policies of President Bush that President Obama has continued or even expanded?  How do YOU compare waterboarding two or three of the worst individuals to assassinating ? (an unknown number), at least two of which were Americans and one was a juvenile?  My position hasn't changed, StephenDare! (despite dancing around) has changed his spots (other than it is STILL Bush's fault).  What say you?

[NotNow]

In fact, I am standing by my previous statements.  You can make up all kinds of things, but the facts are:

President Obama has maintained the prison in Cuba.
President Obama has invaded at least two countries militarily and killed people in those countries.
President Obama had argued for and successfully extended the Patriot Act.
President Obama has PERSONALLY approved and assigned assassinations by drone. Including at least two American citizens one of which was sixteen years old.
President Obama, in addition to the drone strikes, has approved bombing raids that have resulted in exactly the types of casualties that the previous administration did.  The only difference now is that the Obama administration counts any male aged 16-65 that dies in these incidents as a "combatant". 

Your memory, as always, is not as accurate as it should be.  Your position on these issues speaks for itself.   You are simply a Democrat shill. 

For the rest of you, I am glad that Mr. Holder clarified his position.  Perhaps a more detailed analysis of the authority of the President is called for.  I would be interested in hearing your positions on the stated issues.  Do you still oppose the policies of President Bush that President Obama has continued or even expanded?  How do YOU compare waterboarding two or three of the worst individuals to assassinating (an unknown number), at least two of which were Americans and one was a juvenile?  My position hasn't changed, StephenDare! (despite dancing around) has changed his spots (other than is is STILL Bush's fault).  What say you?

Notnow.  Did the US torture anyone under the Bush Administration during the Iraq War?

Yes.  A very limited number normally under very restricted conditions. 

Do you still support the PATRIOT ACT as it was introduced by Republican Congresses and pushed by the Bush Administration?

I did, and I still do support provisions of the PATRIOT ACT.  In a time of war, I fully expect the Executive branch to utilize the powers of the office to protect the country.  As the "war on terror" is denied or withdrawn from by the current administrtion (not knocking Obama for it, it's just what he is doing), then a return to "peacetime" should allow the PATRIOT ACT to expire.

Did Obama, on the first month of his presidency radically revise the PATRIOT Act?

No.  The PATRIOT ACT has never been "radically" revised.  President Obama used an "autopen" (for some reason) to reauthorize the PATRIOT ACT on May 26, 2011.  The PATRIOT ACT has been revised almost constantly since its inception.  Changes have been relatively minor.

Do you and Bridge Troll still support crushing the testicles of a prisoners child in order to extract information from them?  Have you changed your mind?  If so, what caused it?

I don't know what you are talking about.  Could you point me to a conversation where I supported this act? 

Easy questions.  Can you answer them?

I can.

I am against torture or the practice of execution without due process. 

So you oppose the practice of assassinating terrorist by ANY means that the Obama Administration currently uses.  Is the Presidents behavior criminal?  In your opinion, is it more acceptable to you that a terrorist is killed, rather than captured and waterboarded?   The terrorist will continue to live after the waterboarding.  Do you support the Bush administrations method of waterboarding or the Obama administrations method of assassination?

I am for the restoration of Habeus Corpus, which you and Bridge Troll argued against,

Once any emergency has passed, as stated in Article 1, Section 9 the privilege of writ of habeus corpus should return to normal.

I believe that our rights are universal, not limited to american citizens, as you have claimed.

I also believe in universal human rights.  I believe that a wartime battlefield is not the place to look for careful application of human rights.

Nothing has changed my mind, and I can call something wrong no matter who is in office.

But you won't say it directly.  You called Bush a monkey, a criminal and a murderer.  Even though you hace ceded that Obama is carrying out the same policies, even beyond by selected, targeted assassination, you just can't bring yourself to say outright that he is wrong (in your opinion) much less call him the same names.  That, StephenDare!, is hypocrisy.

Don't bother answering though.  Your words are your condemner.

My words reflect the truth.  President Obama is prosecuting the war in Afghanistan utilizing the weapons that reach our enemy.  I support him in that effort, just as I supported President Bush on the same subject.  Just as I did not always agree with the Bush administration, I do not always agree with the Obama administration.  But I am consistent in my views.  You have exposed yourself for what you are....again.

[NotNow]

I have not removed a thing from this forum.  Don't try to imply that I did.  What has happened here (again) is that you have made statements that are not true.  There are many, many things that you do not understand.  Your lack of experience in several areas if forgivable.  Your insistence on misrepresenting the facts in these areas is not.

Once again, you have shown us something about yourself.  Hmm.

[NotNow]

And the targeted assassinations of the Obama administration, personally picked and directed by the President, has gone on for going into his second term now.  You still have not spoken out against it.  In fact, like the vast majority of Democrats, you have simply ignored it.  You called (some still call) President Bush a "war criminal", yet now so many Democrats have come to see that simply killing these guys avoids that whole little "torture" problem.  Of course, that information stream is gone as well.  But I can't blame Obama for wanting to avoid that trap.  With your vast non-experience, how would you advise the President to prosecute the war in Afghanistan?  Assuming you still don't want to hurt or kill anyone.

[NotNow]

A conversation requires both parties to participate.  Answer my questions, just as I have answered yours.  Don't ask me what they were, if you need to review the previous posts please do so.  You seem to enjoy the role of interrogator, don't you?

[Adam W]

And the targeted assassinations of the Obama administration, personally picked and directed by the President, has gone on for going into his second term now. 

Minor quibble: the President may sign off on these, but you (and I) had no way of knowing if he personally picks and directs these. It's highly unlikely he does.

[NotNow]

I'll repeat my question:

With your vast non-experience, how would you advise the President to prosecute the war in Afghanistan?  Assuming you still don't want to hurt or kill anyone.

[peestandingup]

I believe Stephen & Notnow are both actually on the same sides, but are in fact way too apologetic for their parties they believe in so strongly. Sure, there's varying degrees of which turd stinks less (which is what you guys are always arguing about), but ultimately both Presidents aren't that different.

If Obama was so interested in "walking back" things like the Patriot Act, NDAA & things of that sort, he sure has a funny way of going about it.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/president-obama-congress-passes-bill-extend-patriot-act-sen-rand-paul-delay-article-1.144631

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/01/02/president-obama-signed-the-national-defense-authorization-act-now-what/

http://www.businessinsider.com/unbelievable-obama-administration-has-already-appealed-ndaa-ruling-2012-9

http://www.salon.com/2010/09/08/obama_138/

Like I said, both sides quibbling with each other is mostly a distraction & does nothing. Everyone, on both sides, have to come to the realization that most of these people aren't here for you, the country & its leaders no longer work for you, aren't your buddies, and are mostly interested in keeping it business as usual. That means war, that means fighting "terror", spying, taking away more of your rights, letting big business write the laws, keeping the rackets going, etc. So on his one hand while Obama is finding ways of stroking the base by talking about equal rights for gays in an inaugural speech, he's punching everyone in the metaphorical dick with the other hand. Men, women, gays, straights, white, black & brown.

Is there any doubt of this that's actually based in reality, and not just what someone "says" they may or may not do? I'd love to see it.