Obama Administration Says President Can Use Lethal Force Against Americans on US Soil

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yes, the president does have the authority to use military force against American citizens on US soil—but only in "an extraordinary circumstance," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a letter to Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Tuesday.

"The US Attorney General's refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening," Paul said Tuesday. "It is an affront the constitutional due process rights of all Americans."

Last month, Paul threatened to filibuster the nomination of John Brennan, Obama's pick to head the CIA, "until he answers the question of whether or not the president can kill American citizens through the drone strike program on US soil." Tuesday, Brennan told Paul that "the agency I have been nominated to lead does not conduct lethal operations inside the United States—nor does it have any authority to do so." Brennan said that the Justice Department would answer Paul's question about whether Americans could be targeted for lethal strikes on US soil.

Obama Administration Says President Can Use Lethal Force Against Americans on US Soil | Mother Jones

Who needs due process anyways?

 

[g5000]

So no one has ever been shot from a government helicopter before?

If not, is this specifically banned?

If yes, are the police flying around in Apache helicopters?

 

[t_polkow]

Yes, the president does have the authority to use military force against American citizens on US soil—but only in "an extraordinary circumstance," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a letter to Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Tuesday.

"The US Attorney General's refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening," Paul said Tuesday. "It is an affront the constitutional due process rights of all Americans."

Last month, Paul threatened to filibuster the nomination of John Brennan, Obama's pick to head the CIA, "until he answers the question of whether or not the president can kill American citizens through the drone strike program on US soil." Tuesday, Brennan told Paul that "the agency I have been nominated to lead does not conduct lethal operations inside the United States—nor does it have any authority to do so." Brennan said that the Justice Department would answer Paul's question about whether Americans could be targeted for lethal strikes on US soil.

Obama Administration Says President Can Use Lethal Force Against Americans on US Soil | Mother Jones

Who needs due process anyways?

Obama like Bush are cut from the same cloth , it is in their interests to carry out their corporate imperialistic agenda of their masters who they serve

 

[g5000]

Yes, the president does have the authority to use military force against American citizens on US soil—but only in "an extraordinary circumstance," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a letter to Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Tuesday.

"The US Attorney General's refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening," Paul said Tuesday. "It is an affront the constitutional due process rights of all Americans."

Last month, Paul threatened to filibuster the nomination of John Brennan, Obama's pick to head the CIA, "until he answers the question of whether or not the president can kill American citizens through the drone strike program on US soil." Tuesday, Brennan told Paul that "the agency I have been nominated to lead does not conduct lethal operations inside the United States—nor does it have any authority to do so." Brennan said that the Justice Department would answer Paul's question about whether Americans could be targeted for lethal strikes on US soil.

Obama Administration Says President Can Use Lethal Force Against Americans on US Soil | Mother Jones

Who needs due process anyways?

So let's say a bad guy is shooting up a school and the police show up and blow him away. Will you be whining, "Who needs due process anyways?"

You are making some illogical leaps.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So no one has ever been shot from a government helicopter before?

If not, is this specifically banned?

If yes, are the police flying around in Apache helicopters?

What?

 

[g5000]

Yes, the president does have the authority to use military force against American citizens on US soil—but only in "an extraordinary circumstance," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a letter to Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Tuesday.

"The US Attorney General's refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening," Paul said Tuesday. "It is an affront the constitutional due process rights of all Americans."

Last month, Paul threatened to filibuster the nomination of John Brennan, Obama's pick to head the CIA, "until he answers the question of whether or not the president can kill American citizens through the drone strike program on US soil." Tuesday, Brennan told Paul that "the agency I have been nominated to lead does not conduct lethal operations inside the United States—nor does it have any authority to do so." Brennan said that the Justice Department would answer Paul's question about whether Americans could be targeted for lethal strikes on US soil.

Obama Administration Says President Can Use Lethal Force Against Americans on US Soil | Mother Jones

Who needs due process anyways?

Hey dipshit. Read your own link.

Holder said lethal force could be used INSIDE THE UNITED STATES in exigent circumstances. Then he gave specific examples, NEITHER OF WHICH INVOLVED KILLING AMERICANS.

Idiot.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yes, the president does have the authority to use military force against American citizens on US soil—but only in "an extraordinary circumstance," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a letter to Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Tuesday.

"The US Attorney General's refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening," Paul said Tuesday. "It is an affront the constitutional due process rights of all Americans."

Last month, Paul threatened to filibuster the nomination of John Brennan, Obama's pick to head the CIA, "until he answers the question of whether or not the president can kill American citizens through the drone strike program on US soil." Tuesday, Brennan told Paul that "the agency I have been nominated to lead does not conduct lethal operations inside the United States—nor does it have any authority to do so." Brennan said that the Justice Department would answer Paul's question about whether Americans could be targeted for lethal strikes on US soil.

Obama Administration Says President Can Use Lethal Force Against Americans on US Soil | Mother Jones

Who needs due process anyways?

So let's say a bad guy is shooting up a school and the police show up and blow him away. Will you be whining, "Who needs due process anyways?"

You are making some illogical leaps.

So let's say a guy is living in his cabin in the U.S. He's blown up by a drone strike. The President swears he was plotting some 9/11 like catastrophe, but can't provide any evidence on the basis that it would compromise national security. You going to support the President?

 

[g5000]

From Holder's letter:

For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.

Nothing in there about drone strikes against Americans.

Sorry. I know you so wanted that to be in there.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yes, the president does have the authority to use military force against American citizens on US soil—but only in "an extraordinary circumstance," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a letter to Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Tuesday.

"The US Attorney General's refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening," Paul said Tuesday. "It is an affront the constitutional due process rights of all Americans."

Last month, Paul threatened to filibuster the nomination of John Brennan, Obama's pick to head the CIA, "until he answers the question of whether or not the president can kill American citizens through the drone strike program on US soil." Tuesday, Brennan told Paul that "the agency I have been nominated to lead does not conduct lethal operations inside the United States—nor does it have any authority to do so." Brennan said that the Justice Department would answer Paul's question about whether Americans could be targeted for lethal strikes on US soil.

Obama Administration Says President Can Use Lethal Force Against Americans on US Soil | Mother Jones

Who needs due process anyways?

Hey dipshit. Read your own link.

Holder said lethal force could be used INSIDE THE UNITED STATES in exigent circumstances. Then he gave specific examples, NEITHER OF WHICH INVOLVED KILLING AMERICANS.

Idiot.

So you're saying that he was not claiming that the President could use lethal force against Americans within the U.S.?

 

[g5000]

Obama Administration Says President Can Use Lethal Force Against Americans on US Soil | Mother Jones

Who needs due process anyways?

So let's say a bad guy is shooting up a school and the police show up and blow him away. Will you be whining, "Who needs due process anyways?"

You are making some illogical leaps.

So let's say a guy is living in his cabin in the U.S. He's blown up by a drone strike. The President swears he was plotting some 9/11 like catastrophe, but can't provide any evidence on the basis that it would compromise national security. You going to support the President?

While I would really like to help you out with your masturbatory fantasy, there is absolutely nothing in the article or Holder's letter which even approaches this scenario.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So let's say a bad guy is shooting up a school and the police show up and blow him away. Will you be whining, "Who needs due process anyways?"

You are making some illogical leaps.

So let's say a guy is living in his cabin in the U.S. He's blown up by a drone strike. The President swears he was plotting some 9/11 like catastrophe, but can't provide any evidence on the basis that it would compromise national security. You going to support the President?

While I would really like to help you out with your masturbatory fantasy, there is absolutely nothing in the article or Holder's letter which even approaches this scenario.

So you can put up hypothetical scenarios, but I can't?

 

[g5000]

Obama Administration Says President Can Use Lethal Force Against Americans on US Soil | Mother Jones

Who needs due process anyways?

Hey dipshit. Read your own link.

Holder said lethal force could be used INSIDE THE UNITED STATES in exigent circumstances. Then he gave specific examples, NEITHER OF WHICH INVOLVED KILLING AMERICANS.

Idiot.

So you're saying that he was not claiming that the President could use lethal force against Americans within the U.S.?

Here is the exact wording of your claim: " Obama Administration Says President Can Use Lethal Force Against Americans on US Soil"

Please quote the part of the letter which says that.

 

[g5000]

As members of this administration have previously indicated, the US government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so. As a policy matter moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat. We have a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad. Hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts.

Looks like the guy in the cabin is safe from a military drone strike, but not safe from domestic law enforcement authorities.

Ain't that a bitch?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Hey dipshit. Read your own link.

Holder said lethal force could be used INSIDE THE UNITED STATES in exigent circumstances. Then he gave specific examples, NEITHER OF WHICH INVOLVED KILLING AMERICANS.

Idiot.

So you're saying that he was not claiming that the President could use lethal force against Americans within the U.S.?

Here is the exact wording of your claim: " Obama Administration Says President Can Use Lethal Force Against Americans on US Soil"

Please quote the part of the letter which says that.

Actually that would be the title of the article by Adam Serwer. However, the reason one can logically make that conclusion is because in his letter Holder clearly states that Senator Paul's question was whether or not the administration feels it can target a U.S. citizen with lethal force within the United States. Yet nowhere in his letter does he rule this out. Since he clearly understands that Paul was discussing U.S. citizens, and he doesn't rule them out, the only logical conclusion is the one drawn by Serwer.

The full letter:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/609809-holder-response-to-rand-paul.html

 

[g5000]

So you're saying that he was not claiming that the President could use lethal force against Americans within the U.S.?

Here is the exact wording of your claim: " Obama Administration Says President Can Use Lethal Force Against Americans on US Soil"

Please quote the part of the letter which says that.

Actually that would be the title of the article by Adam Serwer. However, the reason one can logically make that conclusion is because in his letter Holder clearly states that Senator Paul's question was whether or not the administration feels it can target a U.S. citizen with lethal force within the United States. Yet nowhere in his letter does he rule this out. Since he clearly understands that Paul was discussing U.S. citizens, and he doesn't rule them out, the only logical conclusion is the one drawn by Serwer.

The full letter:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/609809-holder-response-to-rand-paul.html

Rand Paul's question was based on an illogical premise, that being drones are somehow imbued with a magical property that make the use of military force in the United States more likely.



Notice how the first paragraph reiterates Paul's question. Then the second paragraph says no drone strikes have ever been used in the US.

From that point on, the response addresses "military force" and not drone strikes. And that is because whether Rand Paul asked about drones killing Americans, or Apache helicopters killing Americans, or tanks killing Americans, or nuclear bombs killing Americans, the answer is the same.

Rand Paul is trying to make drones out to be some new special threat to our freedom, when no one has ever explained how that is so. What new threat do drones bring to the table that helicopters do not?

 

[OriginalShroom]

we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat.

There is his out.

All he has to say is that he didn't beleive that local or Federal Law Enforcement could provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat, so he used his drones.. And Oh.. btw, these were American Citizens who were the terrorists.

 

[g5000]

So let's say a guy is living in his cabin in the U.S. He's blown up by a drone strike. The President swears he was plotting some 9/11 like catastrophe, but can't provide any evidence on the basis that it would compromise national security. You going to support the President?

Your illogical leap in the OP was one that assumed Holder's letter means he is saying they can kill Americans without due process. It was a bogus leap not supported by anything in the letter.

The guy shooting up a school example I gave is more in line with the examples Holder gave. When there is an immediate threat, you don't have time to get permission from a judge to kill the bad guys. You are obliged to stop them with lethal force if necessary.

That is all Holder is saying. Common sense shit which does not seem to penetrate some low voltage minds.

So when you come up with the guy in the cabin, you are again making an illogical leap that Holder is saying he would just blow the guy up rather than go to all the trouble of arresting and trying him, even though Holder plainly said that is exactly what he would do. Leave it to the domestic authorities and justice system.

I am sorry I did not take your troll bait.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Here is the exact wording of your claim: " Obama Administration Says President Can Use Lethal Force Against Americans on US Soil"

Please quote the part of the letter which says that.

Actually that would be the title of the article by Adam Serwer. However, the reason one can logically make that conclusion is because in his letter Holder clearly states that Senator Paul's question was whether or not the administration feels it can target a U.S. citizen with lethal force within the United States. Yet nowhere in his letter does he rule this out. Since he clearly understands that Paul was discussing U.S. citizens, and he doesn't rule them out, the only logical conclusion is the one drawn by Serwer.

The full letter:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/609809-holder-response-to-rand-paul.html

Rand Paul's question was based on an illogical premise, that being drones are somehow imbued with a magical property that make the use of military force in the United States more likely.



Notice how the first paragraph reiterates Paul's question. Then the second paragraph says no drone strikes have ever been used in the US.

From that point on, the response addresses "military force" and not drone strikes. And that is because whether Rand Paul asked about drones killing Americans, or Apache helicopters killing Americans, or tanks killing Americans, or nuclear bombs killing Americans, the answer is the same.

Rand Paul is trying to make drones out to be some new special threat to our freedom, when no one has ever explained how that is so. What new threat do drones bring to the table that helicopters do not?

You're misreading Rand. His question is whether or not the administration believes it has the authority to use lethal force against American citizens within the United States. Drones would only be one example of lethal force. As to the fact that lethal force hasn't been used against U.S. citizens within the United States up to this point, that's not an answer to the question. That's a deflection. The fact that Holder then states, "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," without ruling out American citizens makes his intent clear.

 

[g5000]

we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat.

There is his out.

All he has to say is that he didn't beleive that local or Federal Law Enforcement could provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat, so he used his drones.. And Oh.. btw, these were American Citizens who were the terrorists.

Too bad for you he has never actually done so!

Ain't that a bitch?

Again, you fools seem to think a drone has magical properties that make the government blow shit up inside the US more readily than their inventory of tanks and helicopters does.

Since Holder has never blown up a bunch of Americans inside the US, I guess you will have to pack this stupid shit up and try again some other day.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So let's say a guy is living in his cabin in the U.S. He's blown up by a drone strike. The President swears he was plotting some 9/11 like catastrophe, but can't provide any evidence on the basis that it would compromise national security. You going to support the President?

Your illogical leap in the OP was one that assumed Holder's letter means he is saying they can kill Americans without due process. It was a bogus leap not supported by anything in the letter.

The guy shooting up a school example I gave is more in line with the examples Holder gave. When there is an immediate threat, you don't have time to get permission from a judge to kill the bad guys. You are obliged to stop them with lethal force if necessary.

That is all Holder is saying. Common sense shit which does not seem to penetrate some low voltage minds.

So when you come up with the guy in the cabin, you are again making an illogical leap that Holder is saying he would just blow the guy up rather than go to all the trouble of arresting and trying him, even though Holder plainly said that is exactly what he would do. Leave it to the domestic authorities and justice system.

I am sorry I did not take your troll bait.

Granted, the cabin hypothetical may not have been my best effort, though I still think it holds up. The problem with hypotheticals is that they're ever changing, and that makes them essentially useless for any kind of fruitful discussion.