Document: Attorney General Eric Holder drone letter to Sen. Rand Paul

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So let me see if I have this straight:

A muslim person you have worked with for 3 years invites you to his wedding.
You will attend because you have no doubt even if the bride's cousin, who is a terrorist will be attending, there won't be a drone strike because you are there.

Is the cousin an American citizen?

 

[Oldguy]

So let me see if I have this straight:

A muslim person you have worked with for 3 years invites you to his wedding.
You will attend because you have no doubt even if the bride's cousin, who is a terrorist will be attending, there won't be a drone strike because you are there.

A Muslim person you have worked with for 3 years invites you to his wedding.

You will attend because you have no doubt even if the bride's cousin, who is a terrorist will be attending.

If you KNOW the bride's cousin is a terrorist, and you KNOW that person will be there....why haven't you reported it? Hell, if you know something like that and DON'T report it, maybe you oughta be the drone's target.

 

[WorldWatcher]

So let me see if I have this straight:

A muslim person you have worked with for 3 years invites you to his wedding.
You will attend because you have no doubt even if the bride's cousin, who is a terrorist will be attending, there won't be a drone strike because you are there.

Is the cousin an American citizen?

The more important question is the wedding in Yeman or in Atlanta. In Yemen I'd probably find a reason to stay away from the wedding, in Atlanta you wouldn't need to worry about it.


>>>>

 

[Interpol]

Rand Paul and some of these teabagger clowns play us for fools. They hope we're stupid and that we don't read.

This filibuster was all about getting the conspiracy fringe and the birthers and the other assorted weirdos all riled up instead of actually questioning the general use of the drone program itself.

It's like I started out agreeing with Rand Paul until it all became this moronic pitch about "The President should not have the authority to drone an American while he's innocently at the coffee shop".

Ridiculous.

The baggers, birthers and other know-nothings go off the rails with their argument the minute you realize they live in a fantasy world where Obama is probably not Christian, probably not American, is a Communist/Socialist, wishes harm to America, and blah blah blah blah...

Major FAIL by Rand Paul on this one. Made himself look so ridiculous when the White House revealed that they had already answered his question with a very clear "No".

Dont need to play you for a fool. You do that on your own.

Tell me, how is encouraging people to ask questions of our government in anyway demonstrating that we want people not to read and that we hope people are stupid? It's quite the opposite. We want people to think, learn, and we want the government to be open to the people. We are educating people to what's going on. Yet, for some reason you want us to be completely silent and not ask questions. How exactly do people learn if they don't ask questions?

and the White House only responded no after the fillibuster. Doesnt look like a fail at all. Looks like the fillibuster accomplished 1/2 of what it was supposed to. (The other half being the Senate resolution that Democrats opposed saying that the President did not have the power to target citizens in the US).

Who said anything about silence?

People should be encouraged to ask questions of our government, but people should not use a sacred tool like the filibuster to take something serious like the drone program and make a farce of our gov't by asking the stupidest shit possible in order to fan the flames of hate by making glib allusions of our President being like Hitler.

That's just hate talk. It's stupid and pointless and it hijacked Rand Paul's filibuster and he did it to himself.

He got a letter from Holder weeks ago that said, "No, the President does not have the authority to drone an unarmed American citizen on U.S. soil".

So what do the haters do? Of course, they ignore that answer and continue to go down the path they've invented in their minds about Obama secretly wanting to kill us in our sleep, just like how these morons made up that Obamacare is all about killing our grandmothers.

It's a privilege and an honor to be able to get to represent us in the federal government. We want important things to be asked and to be hashed over. But when you use your time to grandstand on a soapbox where you make ridiculous claims instead of actually being thoughtful, that's when you lose your argument and your credibility, which Mr. Paul lost yesterday.

Republican senators have come out against Rand Paul today for the very same reasons. He started by making a pretty interesting point about defining what the drone policy should be, and then just took a hard right turn into conspiracy land.

The White House had sent him that well before the filibuster, they simply reiterated that same answer today.

Like everything else, the fucking moronic teabaggers we elected are wasting everyone's time and getting nothing done that is actually real and consequential.

We need smart people in there to be able to ask the right questions about the drone policy, and I'm sorry to say that Rand Paul just should not be the spokesperson for such things, because he came off like a fucking lunatic.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Do cops have a right to kill someone suspected of a crime?

No and neither does Obama

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So let me see if I have this straight:

A muslim person you have worked with for 3 years invites you to his wedding.
You will attend because you have no doubt even if the bride's cousin, who is a terrorist will be attending, there won't be a drone strike because you are there.

Is the cousin an American citizen?

The more important question is the wedding in Yeman or in Atlanta. In Yemen I'd probably find a reason to stay away from the wedding, in Atlanta you wouldn't need to worry about it.


>>>>

Well I think the implication is that it's in the U.S., but I'm not sure you wouldn't need to worry. If the terrorist cousin is not a U.S. citizen, even if it's in Atlanta, I think we don't have enough information to say one way or another.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Rand Paul and some of these teabagger clowns play us for fools. They hope we're stupid and that we don't read.

This filibuster was all about getting the conspiracy fringe and the birthers and the other assorted weirdos all riled up instead of actually questioning the general use of the drone program itself.

It's like I started out agreeing with Rand Paul until it all became this moronic pitch about "The President should not have the authority to drone an American while he's innocently at the coffee shop".

Ridiculous.

The baggers, birthers and other know-nothings go off the rails with their argument the minute you realize they live in a fantasy world where Obama is probably not Christian, probably not American, is a Communist/Socialist, wishes harm to America, and blah blah blah blah...

Major FAIL by Rand Paul on this one. Made himself look so ridiculous when the White House revealed that they had already answered his question with a very clear "No".

Dont need to play you for a fool. You do that on your own.

Tell me, how is encouraging people to ask questions of our government in anyway demonstrating that we want people not to read and that we hope people are stupid? It's quite the opposite. We want people to think, learn, and we want the government to be open to the people. We are educating people to what's going on. Yet, for some reason you want us to be completely silent and not ask questions. How exactly do people learn if they don't ask questions?

and the White House only responded no after the fillibuster. Doesnt look like a fail at all. Looks like the fillibuster accomplished 1/2 of what it was supposed to. (The other half being the Senate resolution that Democrats opposed saying that the President did not have the power to target citizens in the US).

Who said anything about silence?

People should be encouraged to ask questions of our government, but people should not use a sacred tool like the filibuster to take something serious like the drone program and make a farce of our gov't by asking the stupidest shit possible in order to fan the flames of hate by making glib allusions of our President being like Hitler.

That's just hate talk. It's stupid and pointless and it hijacked Rand Paul's filibuster and he did it to himself.

He got a letter from Holder weeks ago that said, "No, the President does not have the authority to drone an unarmed American citizen on U.S. soil".

So what do the haters do? Of course, they ignore that answer and continue to go down the path they've invented in their minds about Obama secretly wanting to kill us in our sleep, just like how these morons made up that Obamacare is all about killing our grandmothers.

It's a privilege and an honor to be able to get to represent us in the federal government. We want important things to be asked and to be hashed over. But when you use your time to grandstand on a soapbox where you make ridiculous claims instead of actually being thoughtful, that's when you lose your argument and your credibility, which Mr. Paul lost yesterday.

Republican senators have come out against Rand Paul today for the very same reasons. He started by making a pretty interesting point about defining what the drone policy should be, and then just took a hard right turn into conspiracy land.

The White House had sent him that well before the filibuster, they simply reiterated that same answer today.

Like everything else, the fucking moronic teabaggers we elected are wasting everyone's time and getting nothing done that is actually real and consequential.

We need smart people in there to be able to ask the right questions about the drone policy, and I'm sorry to say that Rand Paul just should not be the spokesperson for such things, because he came off like a fucking lunatic.

False.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Eric H. Holder, Jr.

Document: Attorney General Eric Holder drone letter to Sen. Rand Paul - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com

Looks like a definitive answer to me, at last. However, this was not an additional question. This was the original question.

So he basically told Rand Paul that no, the president can't do something he never intended to do in the first place.

Note that it doesn't rule out killing an American who's been classified as an enemy combatant.

 

[Katzndogz]

Rand Paul made the regime blink. He held them down until they complied.

Yayyyy Rand Paul.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Eric H. Holder, Jr.

Document: Attorney General Eric Holder drone letter to Sen. Rand Paul - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com

Looks like a definitive answer to me, at last. However, this was not an additional question. This was the original question.

So he basically told Rand Paul that no, the president can't do something he never intended to do in the first place.

Note that it doesn't rule out killing an American who's been classified as an enemy combatant.

So you're saying that if the President declares an American citizen an enemy combatant then he could use lethal force against them within the United States, up to and including drone strikes, without a trial despite this letter?

Oh, and include that this hypothetical person is not an immediate threat, in that they're not presently engaging in violent behavior.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

 

[Sallow]

Would have been nice if Obama would have consulted his AG before insisting he could use drones on US citizens on US soil

That were not involved in terrorism?

When?

 

[Sallow]

Document: Attorney General Eric Holder drone letter to Sen. Rand Paul - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com

Looks like a definitive answer to me, at last. However, this was not an additional question. This was the original question.

So he basically told Rand Paul that no, the president can't do something he never intended to do in the first place.

Note that it doesn't rule out killing an American who's been classified as an enemy combatant.

So you're saying that if the President declares an American citizen an enemy combatant then he could use lethal force against them within the United States, up to and including drone strikes, without a trial despite this letter?

Oh, and include that this hypothetical person is not an immediate threat, in that they're not presently engaging in violent behavior.

Scary..isn't it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Document: Attorney General Eric Holder drone letter to Sen. Rand Paul - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com

Looks like a definitive answer to me, at last. However, this was not an additional question. This was the original question.

So he basically told Rand Paul that no, the president can't do something he never intended to do in the first place.

Note that it doesn't rule out killing an American who's been classified as an enemy combatant.

So you're saying that if the President declares an American citizen an enemy combatant then he could use lethal force against them within the United States, up to and including drone strikes, without a trial despite this letter?

Oh, and include that this hypothetical person is not an immediate threat, in that they're not presently engaging in violent behavior.

Enemy combatants do not have to be 'engaging in violent behaviour' to use your alteration of the atty general's words, in order to targeted for killing.

I used the example of enemy troops asleep in a barracks. Can you bomb the barracks or not?

 

[Avatar4321]

Who said anything about silence?

People should be encouraged to ask questions of our government, but people should not use a sacred tool like the filibuster to take something serious like the drone program and make a farce of our gov't by asking the stupidest shit possible in order to fan the flames of hate by making glib allusions of our President being like Hitler.

That's just hate talk. It's stupid and pointless and it hijacked Rand Paul's filibuster and he did it to himself.

He got a letter from Holder weeks ago that said, "No, the President does not have the authority to drone an unarmed American citizen on U.S. soil".

So what do the haters do? Of course, they ignore that answer and continue to go down the path they've invented in their minds about Obama secretly wanting to kill us in our sleep, just like how these morons made up that Obamacare is all about killing our grandmothers.

It's a privilege and an honor to be able to get to represent us in the federal government. We want important things to be asked and to be hashed over. But when you use your time to grandstand on a soapbox where you make ridiculous claims instead of actually being thoughtful, that's when you lose your argument and your credibility, which Mr. Paul lost yesterday.

Republican senators have come out against Rand Paul today for the very same reasons. He started by making a pretty interesting point about defining what the drone policy should be, and then just took a hard right turn into conspiracy land.

The White House had sent him that well before the filibuster, they simply reiterated that same answer today.

Like everything else, the fucking moronic teabaggers we elected are wasting everyone's time and getting nothing done that is actually real and consequential.

We need smart people in there to be able to ask the right questions about the drone policy, and I'm sorry to say that Rand Paul just should not be the spokesperson for such things, because he came off like a fucking lunatic.

Who's telling us to be silent? Everyone who is upset that we are asking good questions.

There is no conspiracy involved in the question. It's a simple question. Does the President believe he has power to kill US citizens in the US without Due Process when there is no iminent threat?

No conspiracy. No accusations. Just a simple question. One that would not have been needed if the President and his administration hadn't been making statements that made the answer unclear.

This fillibuster has united people from both sides of the aisle. Which is interesting considering how strained relations have been.

So why do you oppose asking questions of the administration and expecting transparency?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So he basically told Rand Paul that no, the president can't do something he never intended to do in the first place.

Note that it doesn't rule out killing an American who's been classified as an enemy combatant.

So you're saying that if the President declares an American citizen an enemy combatant then he could use lethal force against them within the United States, up to and including drone strikes, without a trial despite this letter?

Oh, and include that this hypothetical person is not an immediate threat, in that they're not presently engaging in violent behavior.

Enemy combatants do not have to be 'engaging in violent behaviour' to use your alteration of the atty general's words, in order to targeted for killing.

I used the example of enemy troops asleep in a barracks. Can you bomb the barracks or not?

Are you going to answer the question?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Is the cousin an American citizen?

The more important question is the wedding in Yeman or in Atlanta. In Yemen I'd probably find a reason to stay away from the wedding, in Atlanta you wouldn't need to worry about it.


>>>>

Well I think the implication is that it's in the U.S., but I'm not sure you wouldn't need to worry. If the terrorist cousin is not a U.S. citizen, even if it's in Atlanta, I think we don't have enough information to say one way or another.

I think there are extremists from both side of the isle inflaming a question. The reality is that there needs to be some action by Congress to define the parameters of using military force against US Civilians.

Let's take two examples:

#1 - A known terrorist operative, who is a US Citizen, enters the United States. Hijacks a plan with 10's of thousands of pounds of aviation fuel on board. The intent is to fly the airplane into the t Mercedes-Benz Superdome during the Super Bowl causing 10's of thousands (with 71,000 people in attendance).

#2 - A known terrorist operative, who is a US Citizen, enters the United States. His location is determined to be a hotel in New Orleans.​

Under #1, I think there is no doubt that the President has the authority to order a flight of F-16's into position to take down the airplane with missiles to prevent the loss of live that would result.

Under #2, a law enforcement action to attempt to capture the terrorist alive would be practical and a military option unnecessary.



>>>>

 

[Annie]

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.

Eric H. Holder, Jr.

Document: Attorney General Eric Holder drone letter to Sen. Rand Paul - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com

Looks like a definitive answer to me, at last. However, this was not an additional question. This was the original question.

So he basically told Rand Paul that no, the president can't do something he never intended to do in the first place.

Note that it doesn't rule out killing an American who's been classified as an enemy combatant.

But has ruled out killing American whether classified or not, if not engaged in active combat.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney: President Barack Obama won't use drones against Americans in U.S. - POLITICO.com

President Barack Obama would not use a drone to kill an American on U.S. soil, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Thursday, responding to Sen. Rand Paul's 13-hour filibuster a day earlier on the Senate floor.

"The president has not and would not use drone strikes against American citizens on American soil," Carney said at a press briefing.

Carney said Attorney General Eric Holder sent a letter to Paul Thursday clarifying the administration's stance on the issue, which generated considerable controversy on Twitter Wednesday as Paul's filibuster unfolded.

"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," Carney said, quoting Holder's letter. (POLITICO has posted a copy of the very brief letter here.)

On Monday, Holder sent Paul another letter that was a bit less categorical. In that letter, the attorney general said: "The U.S. government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so." However, Holder went on to say in the Monday letter that under an "extraordinary circumstance" like the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 or the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, the president might need to use lethal force on U.S. soil.

UPDATE (Thursday, 1:45 P.M.): This post has been updated with a link to Holder's new letter and to confirm that Carney's quote from it was a direct one.

 

[SinJinsg]

Rand Paul and some of these teabagger clowns play us for fools. They hope we're stupid and that we don't read.

This filibuster was all about getting the conspiracy fringe and the birthers and the other assorted weirdos all riled up instead of actually questioning the general use of the drone program itself.

It's like I started out agreeing with Rand Paul until it all became this moronic pitch about "The President should not have the authority to drone an American while he's innocently at the coffee shop".

Ridiculous.

The baggers, birthers and other know-nothings go off the rails with their argument the minute you realize they live in a fantasy world where Obama is probably not Christian, probably not American, is a Communist/Socialist, wishes harm to America, and blah blah blah blah...

Major FAIL by Rand Paul on this one. Made himself look so ridiculous when the White House revealed that they had already answered his question with a very clear "No".

Dont need to play you for a fool. You do that on your own.

Tell me, how is encouraging people to ask questions of our government in anyway demonstrating that we want people not to read and that we hope people are stupid? It's quite the opposite. We want people to think, learn, and we want the government to be open to the people. We are educating people to what's going on. Yet, for some reason you want us to be completely silent and not ask questions. How exactly do people learn if they don't ask questions?

and the White House only responded no after the fillibuster. Doesnt look like a fail at all. Looks like the fillibuster accomplished 1/2 of what it was supposed to. (The other half being the Senate resolution that Democrats opposed saying that the President did not have the power to target citizens in the US).

Who said anything about silence?

People should be encouraged to ask questions of our government, but people should not use a sacred tool like the filibuster to take something serious like the drone program and make a farce of our gov't by asking the stupidest shit possible in order to fan the flames of hate by making glib allusions of our President being like Hitler.

That's just hate talk. It's stupid and pointless and it hijacked Rand Paul's filibuster and he did it to himself.

He got a letter from Holder weeks ago that said, "No, the President does not have the authority to drone an unarmed American citizen on U.S. soil".

So what do the haters do? Of course, they ignore that answer and continue to go down the path they've invented in their minds about Obama secretly wanting to kill us in our sleep, just like how these morons made up that Obamacare is all about killing our grandmothers.

It's a privilege and an honor to be able to get to represent us in the federal government. We want important things to be asked and to be hashed over. But when you use your time to grandstand on a soapbox where you make ridiculous claims instead of actually being thoughtful, that's when you lose your argument and your credibility, which Mr. Paul lost yesterday.

Republican senators have come out against Rand Paul today for the very same reasons. He started by making a pretty interesting point about defining what the drone policy should be, and then just took a hard right turn into conspiracy land.

The White House had sent him that well before the filibuster, they simply reiterated that same answer today.

Like everything else, the fucking moronic teabaggers we elected are wasting everyone's time and getting nothing done that is actually real and consequential.

We need smart people in there to be able to ask the right questions about the drone policy, and I'm sorry to say that Rand Paul just should not be the spokesperson for such things, because he came off like a fucking lunatic.

And exactly what is the "conspiracy"? Did you not know that this president has ALREADY murdered a 16 year old boy who was also an American citizen who was doing NOTHING more than just sitting in a cafe eating lunch with his 12 year old cousin.

Perhaps you should go buy a clue before you go off on your ignorant rant. You might just end up sounding like an "f-ing lunatic."

 

[The2ndAmendment]

And exactly what is the "conspiracy"? Did you not know that this president has ALREADY murdered a 16 year old boy who was also an American citizen who was doing NOTHING more than just sitting in a cafe eating lunch with his 12 year old cousin.

Perhaps you should go buy a clue before you go off on your ignorant rant. You might just end up sounding like an "f-ing lunatic."

It should be mentioned that it was also done in direct violation of the Corruption of Blood clause in Article 3, Section 3 of the United States Constitution. Shit, our founding fathers were smart huh?