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

[g5000]

If he had wanted to, Obama has had military tanks and helicopters and all kinds of other wonderful toys at his disposal for quite some time now, and yet he has never blown up Americans on US soil.

So this whole bizarre dystopian fantasy falls on its face.

YEAH...BUT...BUT...DRONEZ!!!!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If he had wanted to, Obama has had military tanks and helicopters and all kinds of other wonderful toys at his disposal for quite some time now, and yet he has never blown up Americans on US soil.

So this whole bizarre dystopian fantasy falls on its face.

YEAH...BUT...BUT...DRONEZ!!!!

You're the only one fixating on drones, and now you're actively deflecting from the actual question. The question was not: Has this happened? The question was: Do you believe you have the authority to do this? The answer to the actual question was clearly yes.

 

[g5000]

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.

I'm not misreading Rand Paul at all. If he had meant lethal force alone, he would have asked about lethal force alone. But he specifically asked the question in the frame of drone strikes.

He asked a stupid question and got a common sense answer.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

I'm not misreading Rand Paul at all. If he had meant lethal force alone, he would have asked about lethal force alone. But he specifically asked the question in the frame of drone strikes.

Anyone who can read can see that Rand's question was in regards to "lethal force," and that drones were merely a single example of what would constitute lethal force.

From Holder's letter to Rand, where he restates Rand's query:

On February 20, 2013, you wrote to John Brennan requesting additional information
concerning the Administration's views about whether "the President has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial."

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

 

[g5000]

If he had wanted to, Obama has had military tanks and helicopters and all kinds of other wonderful toys at his disposal for quite some time now, and yet he has never blown up Americans on US soil.

So this whole bizarre dystopian fantasy falls on its face.

YEAH...BUT...BUT...DRONEZ!!!!

You're the only one fixating on drones, and now you're actively deflecting from the actual question. The question was not: Has this happened? The question was: Do you believe you have the authority to do this? The answer to the actual question was clearly yes.

No, Rand fixated on drones, not me. Read his question.

What answer did you expect with respect to the use of military lethal force in the US?

"Um, no. We cannot imagine any situation where it would make sense to use military force inside our borders. Nope. We're absolutely stumped on that one."



Is that the answer you wanted? Are you really that retarded? Of course there are situations which could occur in which military force would be needed inside our borders!

He asked a stupid question, and got a common sense answer. And now you fools are running with it and leaping to all kinds of sinister conclusions even though the fact that Obama has never used military force in the US is staring you right in the face.

 

[g5000]

And here comes the, "I wouldn't put it past 'em yet!" response...

 

[Mr. H.]

Billions of bullets purchased.
Thousands of anti-civilian vehicles purchased.
Drones, drones, drones.
Now this...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If he had wanted to, Obama has had military tanks and helicopters and all kinds of other wonderful toys at his disposal for quite some time now, and yet he has never blown up Americans on US soil.

So this whole bizarre dystopian fantasy falls on its face.

YEAH...BUT...BUT...DRONEZ!!!!

You're the only one fixating on drones, and now you're actively deflecting from the actual question. The question was not: Has this happened? The question was: Do you believe you have the authority to do this? The answer to the actual question was clearly yes.

No, Rand fixated on drones, not me. Read his question.

What answer did you expect with respect to the use of military lethal force in the US?

"Um, no. We cannot imagine any situation where it would make sense to use military force inside our borders. Nope. We're absolutely stumped on that one."



Is that the answer you wanted? Are you really that retarded? Of course there are situations which could occur in which military force would be needed inside our borders!

He asked a stupid question, and got a common sense answer. And now you fools are running with it and leaping to all kinds of sinister conclusions even though the fact that Obama has never used military force in the US is staring you right in the face.

You're once again misstating the question. The question is in regards to lethal force on U.S. citizens.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Ruby Ridge ring any bells? That you trust the Justice Department to use drone missiles on US soil is appalling. The President already murdered a father and son US Citizens with absolutely NO INPUT from their right to trials.

 

[g5000]

You're the only one fixating on drones, and now you're actively deflecting from the actual question. The question was not: Has this happened? The question was: Do you believe you have the authority to do this? The answer to the actual question was clearly yes.

No, Rand fixated on drones, not me. Read his question.

What answer did you expect with respect to the use of military lethal force in the US?

"Um, no. We cannot imagine any situation where it would make sense to use military force inside our borders. Nope. We're absolutely stumped on that one."



Is that the answer you wanted? Are you really that retarded? Of course there are situations which could occur in which military force would be needed inside our borders!

He asked a stupid question, and got a common sense answer. And now you fools are running with it and leaping to all kinds of sinister conclusions even though the fact that Obama has never used military force in the US is staring you right in the face.

You're once again misstating the question. The question is in regards to lethal force on U.S. citizens.

Did you expect the answer to be no? Did you expect the government to say there is no possible situation which could ever require the use of military lethal force on US soil? Are you actually that retarded?

You are once again avoiding answering these questions.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Obama already used lethal force against 2 US citizens with out resorting to ANY legal procedures. One was a 16 year old boy.

 

[g5000]

Ruby Ridge ring any bells? That you trust the Justice Department to use drone missiles on US soil is appalling. The President already murdered a father and son US Citizens with absolutely NO INPUT from their right to trials.

Were the father and son on US soil?

Um...no. They weren't. Not even in a cabin in the woods.

They were in Al Qaeda controlled territory on the other side of the world.

Does the phrase "apples and oranges" mean anything to you?

 

[g5000]

RetiredGySgt, Kevin_Kennedy:

Do you believe there is no situation which could ever possibly arise in which US military lethal force would be needed on US soil?

Simple question. Yes or no.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No, Rand fixated on drones, not me. Read his question.

What answer did you expect with respect to the use of military lethal force in the US?

"Um, no. We cannot imagine any situation where it would make sense to use military force inside our borders. Nope. We're absolutely stumped on that one."



Is that the answer you wanted? Are you really that retarded? Of course there are situations which could occur in which military force would be needed inside our borders!

He asked a stupid question, and got a common sense answer. And now you fools are running with it and leaping to all kinds of sinister conclusions even though the fact that Obama has never used military force in the US is staring you right in the face.

You're once again misstating the question. The question is in regards to lethal force on U.S. citizens.

Did you expect the answer to be no? Did you expect the government to say there is no possible situation which could ever require the use of military lethal force on US soil? Are you actually that retarded?

You are once again avoiding answering these questions.

Well have you changed your position and are now in agreement that Holder was clearly saying that yes the administration feels it has the power to use lethal force against U.S. citizens within the United States without a trial? You denied that at first, and are still being cagey about it.

The answer as to whether I expected him to answer that the administration does not have this power is no. It was obvious from the leaked white papers that they believed they had the authority to target U.S. citizens for lethal force in the United States without a trial from the language there. This simply makes it more explicit.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ruby Ridge ring any bells? That you trust the Justice Department to use drone missiles on US soil is appalling. The President already murdered a father and son US Citizens with absolutely NO INPUT from their right to trials.

Were the father and son on US soil?

Um...no. They weren't. Not even in a cabin in the woods.

They were in Al Qaeda controlled territory on the other side of the world.

Does the phrase "apples and oranges" mean anything to you?

You prove just how fucking stupid you are every time you open your mouth. Neither oif the victims murdered on "foreign soil" broke any US laws. Neither was charged with a crime, neither was processed via their rights under the Constitution. No trial was held, no charges even filed. One was a 16 year old boy with absolutely no history of any kind that would justify murdering him. The father was never accused of actually doing anything other then moral support for AQ. No missions were credited to him, no planning, nothing.

Legally the Government had no authority to target him and murder him with out first accusing him and charging him with a crime. He was not an armed combatant on a field of battle either.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

RetiredGySgt, Kevin_Kennedy:

Do you believe there is no situation which could ever possibly arise in which US military lethal force would be needed on US soil?

Simple question. Yes or no.

That is not the question we are raising nor the point of this article. Holder has just supported the claim by the President that he can murder American citizens on American soil with out due process, with out police action, without any of the required Constitutional protections provided to an accused.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

RetiredGySgt, Kevin_Kennedy:

Do you believe there is no situation which could ever possibly arise in which US military lethal force would be needed on US soil?

Simple question. Yes or no.

Your simple question is irrelevant to the actual topic, but I'll play along. No, I don't believe there is no situation in which a military response would not be required on U.S. soil. Who knows, perhaps Canada will want to enslave Americans one day.

Regardless, a better question to ask, which would actually be relevant to this discussion, is whether RGS or myself believe that any administration should have the power to use lethal force against a U.S. citizen within the United States without a trial.

My answer would be a resounding no.

 

[Desperado]

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?

no, that ain't a bitch, that is the way it is supposed to be.

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 was created to impart a clear divide between police and military authority on US soil. This act outlaws or directly prohibits US Military actions in any domestic law enforcement missions. So by law, the guy in the cabin is safe from a military drone strike, but not safe from domestic law enforcement authorities.

 

[g5000]

You're once again misstating the question. The question is in regards to lethal force on U.S. citizens.

Did you expect the answer to be no? Did you expect the government to say there is no possible situation which could ever require the use of military lethal force on US soil? Are you actually that retarded?

You are once again avoiding answering these questions.

Well have you changed your position and are now in agreement that Holder was clearly saying that yes the administration feels it has the power to use lethal force against U.S. citizens within the United States without a trial? You denied that at first, and are still being cagey about it.

Wow. Look at you adding things which aren't there. The question was not about killing people without a trial, dumbass.

The question was whether the US could ever use military lethal force on US soil. The response plainly said there are times when that would be an obvious need, and examples were given, none of which were executions without trial.

I said Rand Paul asked a stupid question and got a common sense answer. Several times.

The answer as to whether I expected him to answer that the administration does not have this power is no. It was obvious from the leaked white papers that they believed they had the authority to target U.S. citizens for lethal force in the United States without a trial from the language there. This simply makes it more explicit.

Speaking of being cagey, you still won't answer my question:

Do you believe there is no situation which could ever possibly arise in which US military lethal force would be needed on US soil?

 

[g5000]

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?

no, that ain't a bitch, that is the way it is supposed to be.

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 was created to impart a clear divide between police and military authority on US soil. This act outlaws or directly prohibits US Military actions in any domestic law enforcement missions. So by law, the guy in the cabin is safe from a military drone strike, but not safe from domestic law enforcement authorities.

Exactly. Which is exactly what Holder said.

And the examples Holder gave about military actions were not law enforcement actions, now were they? These guys in this topic have just been conjuring up their own little executions on US soil which were not in the response.

Do you believe there is no situation which could ever possibly arise in which US military lethal force would be needed on US soil?