Holder: Drone strike against Americans in the U.S. possible

[Lord Zentei]

Linka

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.

[Lord Zentei]

Filibuster going on for John Brennan for the CIA directorship.

http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/

[Simon_Jester]

It would be nice to think Holder was thinking "if we were invaded, or if a secessionist state militia were marching on Washington a la 1861, it would be appropriate for the armed forces to use lethal force on American soil."

I don't really believe that's all he meant, even if he says so. I'm tired of the mealy-mouthed "we don't want to limit our options" approach.

[Elfdart]

I never thought I'd live to say this, but I'm glad to see Rand Paul and John Cornyn doing their duty in the Senate.

[Flagg]

I never thought I'd live to say this, but I'm glad to see Rand Paul and John Cornyn doing their duty in the Senate.

Running for president?

[Lord Zentei]

I never thought I'd live to say this, but I'm glad to see Rand Paul and John Cornyn doing their duty in the Senate.

Running for president?

If that's the incentive he needs, then that's fine by me, just as long as it gets done.

Besides, he's arguably less bad than many of the other assholes that might be gunning for president instead. At least going by what he's saying in the here and now.*


* And yes, I know that this was also true of Obama five years ago.

[Grumman]

I never thought I'd live to say this, but I'm glad to see Rand Paul and John Cornyn doing their duty in the Senate.

Running for president?

You're probably thinking of Ron Paul.

[Flagg]

I never thought I'd live to say this, but I'm glad to see Rand Paul and John Cornyn doing their duty in the Senate.

Running for president?

You're probably thinking of Ron Paul.

No, Rand Paul is his son and is sooo running in 2016.

[Flagg]

I never thought I'd live to say this, but I'm glad to see Rand Paul and John Cornyn doing their duty in the Senate.

Running for president?

If that's the incentive he needs, then that's fine by me, just as long as it gets done.

Besides, he's arguably less bad than many of the other assholes that might be gunning for president instead. At least going by what he's saying in the here and now.*


* And yes, I know that this was also true of Obama five years ago.

He wants to repeal the Civil Rights act and allow businesses to discriminate by race, so no, he's not better.

[Grumman]

No, Rand Paul is his son and is sooo running in 2016.

My mistake. I hadn't heard he was running next time, so I assumed you were talking about his father.

He wants to repeal the Civil Rights act and allow businesses to discriminate by race, so no, he's not better.

"Wants to allow businesses to refuse service to protected classes" is still better than "wants to indefinitely detain and assassinate US citizens without trial".

[Broomstick]

I read the thread title and thought "well, yeah, eventually other nations will get that capability" but then read the OP and realized that what was meant was the US government vs. US citizens.

Sadly, neither reading surprises me. Saddens, yes, surprises, no.

[Surlethe]

Holder's letter.

I never thought I'd live to say this, but I'm glad to see Rand Paul and John Cornyn doing their duty in the Senate.

For serious. Usually if a Republican says it, I can pretty confidently disagree, but today is one of those days the broken clock is right.

[Thanas]

You do nothing about a president declaring he has unlimited power abroad.

And then people are surprised that next he tries to have the same at home.

BTW, Rand Paul is currently going into the legalities. Good stuff. Never thought I see that extremist be the one who says in public "there are several concerns about the target definitions, rules of engagement, transparency and legal justification of the drone program."

[Gandalf]

No, Rand Paul is his son and is sooo running in 2016.

My mistake. I hadn't heard he was running next time, so I assumed you were talking about his father.

Even if he doesn't expect to get many votes, Rand Paul has to run in order to continue to promote the Ron Paul brand within the party. He doesn't have his father's speaking skills, so he's pretty screwed unless he buys some charisma on the free market.

[Simon_Jester]

Re: Thanas:

Who's surprised?

If that's the incentive he needs, then that's fine by me, just as long as it gets done.

Besides, he's arguably less bad than many of the other assholes that might be gunning for president instead. At least going by what he's saying in the here and now.*

* And yes, I know that this was also true of Obama five years ago.

Obama is also arguably less bad than many of the other assholes that might be gunning for president right now...

[The Romulan Republic]

You do nothing about a president declaring he has unlimited power abroad.

And then people are surprised that next he tries to have the same at home.

BTW, Rand Paul is currently going into the legalities. Good stuff. Never thought I see that extremist be the one who says in public "there are several concerns about the target definitions, rules of engagement, transparency and legal justification of the drone program."

I'm not happy with a lot of what Obama has done, but saying he is trying to have unlimited power is a bit much. He's not Palpatine. You're starting to sound like the wackos who compare him to Hitler and Stalin.

I support criticism of Obama, but I'd like it to be level-headed, factually accurate criticism, not melodrama and exaggeration.

As for the issue of using drones against Americans, I could accept it in certain circumstances if there was a terrorist attack or revolt taking place. I do not support the government blowing up political opponents or using drones as an alternative to putting someone on trial.

[Thanas]

I'm not happy with a lot of what Obama has done, but saying he is trying to have unlimited power is a bit much. He's not Palpatine. You're starting to sound like the wackos who compare him to Hitler and Stalin.

I support criticism of Obama, but I'd like it to be level-headed, factually accurate criticism, not melodrama and exaggeration.

How the fuck is a president claiming he has the power to kill you at any second based on no public evidence, no public decision process and no involvement of anything outside his own branch not claiming the ultimate power a leader can have?

As for the issue of using drones against Americans, I could accept it in certain circumstances if there was a terrorist attack or revolt taking place.

Posse comitatus?

Re: Thanas:

Who's surprised?

If you are not surprised, you should be rioting in the streets. Have some of this thing called "citizen democracy" with "unalienable rights".

[Simon_Jester]

As for the issue of using drones against Americans, I could accept it in certain circumstances if there was a terrorist attack or revolt taking place.

Posse comitatus?

As I said above, if I thought Holder meant "in case of the Mexicans invading, we would be justified in having the armed forces use lethal force," and that was all he meant, that would not be a problem.

Likewise, in the case of a sudden inexplicable repeat of 9/11, I would think it justified to use Air Force planes to shoot down an airliner that was about to be used as an improvised missile. Similar arguments apply in other extreme cases.

This does not equate to putting American citizens on a targeted assassination list, in case you were wondering.

Re: Thanas:

Who's surprised?

If you are not surprised, you should be rioting in the streets. Have some of this thing called "citizen democracy" with "unalienable rights".

Are you now referring to me personally, or we-the-people-of-the-United-States?

[Sea Skimmer]

Posse comitatus?

Yeah that clearly allows for use of force by the US military on US soil in terrorist situations. This whole subject is absurdly more clear cut and legally protected then randomly killing US citizens overseas because they might maybe be plotting some such thing. The focus on drones is just an attempt to make a legal issue emotional. Would it be different if it was a manned jet or a the Swamp Angle bombarding Charleston? Categorically ruling out drone attacks would mean ruling out all situations in which the US military might kill a US citizen which is obvious nonsense.

[The Romulan Republic]

How the fuck is a president claiming he has the power to kill you at any second based on no public evidence, no public decision process and no involvement of anything outside his own branch not claiming the ultimate power a leader can have?

Because their are still major limits on his power. The courts could rule that something is illegal, could they not? Elections still take place, do they not? Obama has done some horrible things, but its silly to exaggerate.

Posse comitatus?

Does Posse Comitatus forbid the United States military to fight against a revolt (which would be idiotic)?

If so, I hope no one tells the secessionists.

If you are not surprised, you should be rioting in the streets. Have some of this thing called "citizen democracy" with "unalienable rights".

Nice to see a moderator advocating violent crimes. Go fuck yourself.

[Thanas]

How the fuck is a president claiming he has the power to kill you at any second based on no public evidence, no public decision process and no involvement of anything outside his own branch not claiming the ultimate power a leader can have?

Because their are still major limits on his power. The courts could rule that something is illegal, could they not? Elections still take place, do they not? Obama has done some horrible things, but its silly to exaggerate.

No actually the courts refused to rule on this because the administration blocked them from having any information.

Does Posse Comitatus forbid the United States military to fight against a revolt (which would be idiotic)?

If so, I hope no one tells the secessionists.

I am sure the designation of terrorist is a legal one so clearly defined. Heck, under the Obama's description anything from "I donated five dollars into a box at the local mosque" over "I wrote some stuff on the internet" to "DIE DIE DIE" falls under it.

Nice to see a moderator advocating violent crimes. Go fuck yourself.

Are you a moron? No, seriously, that is the only response I have to this. You must be a moron. Please be one, so I don't have to think that comment was written by somebody who passed high school and read a book.

[Simon_Jester]

You did just say something that sounded an awful lot like "you should be rioting in the streets." I don't know what dictionary you're using, but "rioting" sounds pretty violent to me.

If you don't want people to accuse you of advocating violence, I suggest you spend a little less time huffing and puffing about how people ought to be getting violent in response to the outrage of the week.

[aerius]

Fine. 1st Amendment. Gather a large group of people and protest the shit out of it.

[The Romulan Republic]

How the fuck is a president claiming he has the power to kill you at any second based on no public evidence, no public decision process and no involvement of anything outside his own branch not claiming the ultimate power a leader can have?

Because their are still major limits on his power. The courts could rule that something is illegal, could they not? Elections still take place, do they not? Obama has done some horrible things, but its silly to exaggerate.

No actually the courts refused to rule on this because the administration blocked them from having any information.

Does Posse Comitatus forbid the United States military to fight against a revolt (which would be idiotic)?

If so, I hope no one tells the secessionists.

I am sure the designation of terrorist is a legal one so clearly defined. Heck, under the Obama's description anything from "I donated five dollars into a box at the local mosque" over "I wrote some stuff on the internet" to "DIE DIE DIE" falls under it.

Nice to see a moderator advocating violent crimes. Go fuck yourself.

Are you a moron? No, seriously, that is the only response I have to this. You must be a moron. Please be one, so I don't have to think that comment was written by somebody who passed high school and read a book.

I am not a moron, but I wonder if you are. Posting "If you are not surprised, you should be rioting in the streets." is offensive and irresponsible at best.

And while the definition of terrorist may be an issue, what about using drones to fight a revolt? You have not addressed this point.

Also, please provide sources for the claim that donating money to a mosque is considered terrorism and for the part about the courts not ruling.

[Thanas]

You did just say something that sounded an awful lot like "you should be rioting in the streets." I don't know what dictionary you're using, but "rioting" sounds pretty violent to me.

If you don't want people to accuse you of advocating violence, I suggest you spend a little less time huffing and puffing about how people ought to be getting violent in response to the outrage of the week.

And I suggest idiots spend a lot less time worrying about some figure of speech and focus on the issue at hand.