Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
Speaking of being cagey, you still won't answer my question: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.
Do you believe there is no situation which could ever possibly arise in which US military lethal force would be needed on US soil?
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."
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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
It is completely relevant because that is the question Holder was answering.
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.
That is the irrelevant question because it has nothing to do with Holder's letter.
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.
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?
Really, it wasn't? Eric Holder seemed to think it was.
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
That's a direct quote from Eric Holder directly quoting Rand Paul's question. Note the use of the phrases "lethal force," "U.S. citizen" and "without trial" in Rand's question.
The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront.
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?
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?
If you really want to go out on a limb, sure there are isolated cases.
For instance, on 9/11, If the Air Force had shot down United Flight 93 near Shanksville, Pennsylvania that would have been acceptable military action. For the most part, absolutely not.
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.
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.
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?
Rand Paul seems to be unaware that the Obama Administration has been using domestic law enforcement and the courts to bring suspected terrorists and all kinds of other bad guys to trial on US soil for some time now.
He seems to think drones mean the Obama Administration will now forego all that nonsense and wants to know if this means they can now decide to start killing Americans without trial.
Obama could have been offing bad guys with tanks and helicopters and shit, but for some strange reason, he hasn't. But what about with drones, man? What about drones!
Holder was like, "Uh, what?"
I can only imagine how retarded he must think Rand Paul is for even asking that question.
But Holder has to answer the Senator. I can only imagine how he must have anguished how not to sound like he was spanking Rand Paul, and how hard he must have worked to respond diplomatically.
First draft:
"You want to know if we are allowed to kill people with drones without trial on US soil? Are you fucking stupid?"
Second draft:
"You want to know if we are authorized to kill American citizens with military force on US soil without trial. After six weeks of investigation, we have concluded this letter from you was genuine and not some kind of hoax."
Yes, the president does have the authority to use military force against American citizens on US soilbut 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 Statesnor 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 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?
That wouldnt meet the criteria outlined in the AGs letter, which you clearly havent read in its entirety and in context.
And there would be due process, administrative rather then judicial; the 5th Amendment doesnt require the latter.
Rand Paul seems to be unaware that the Obama Administration has been using domestic law enforcement and the courts to bring suspected terrorists and all kinds of other bad guys to trial on US soil for some time now.
He seems to think drones mean the Obama Administration will now forego all that nonsense and wants to know if this means they can now decide to start killing Americans without trial.
Obama could have been offing bad guys with tanks and helicopters and shit, but for some strange reason, he hasn't. But what about with drones, man? What about drones!
Holder was like, "Uh, what?"
I can only imagine how retarded he must think Rand Paul is for even asking that question.
But Holder has to answer the Senator. I can only imagine how he must have anguished how not to sound like he was spanking Rand Paul, and how hard he must have worked to respond diplomatically.
First draft:
"You want to know if we are allowed to kill people with drones without trial on US soil? Are you fucking stupid?"
Second draft:
"You want to know if we are authorized to kill American citizens with military force on US soil without trial. After six weeks of investigation, we have concluded this letter from you was genuine and not some kind of hoax."
What kind of a raging idiot are you? Yes, Obama most certainly has been killing people with drones all around the world. This country used to have rules against assassinations. Obama is now embracing the practice with abandon - including the assassination of US Citizens who are nothing more than children eating lunch. Sen Paul was asking Holder if Obama thinks he can do that here on US soil as well.
The answer was "Yes."
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.
Obama Administration Says President Can Use Lethal Force Against Americans on US Soil | Mother JonesYes, the president does have the authority to use military force against American citizens on US soilbut 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 Statesnor 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.
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.
Rand Paul seems to be unaware that the Obama Administration has been using domestic law enforcement and the courts to bring suspected terrorists and all kinds of other bad guys to trial on US soil for some time now.
He seems to think drones mean the Obama Administration will now forego all that nonsense and wants to know if this means they can now decide to start killing Americans without trial.
Obama could have been offing bad guys with tanks and helicopters and shit, but for some strange reason, he hasn't. But what about with drones, man? What about drones!
Holder was like, "Uh, what?"
I can only imagine how retarded he must think Rand Paul is for even asking that question.
But Holder has to answer the Senator. I can only imagine how he must have anguished how not to sound like he was spanking Rand Paul, and how hard he must have worked to respond diplomatically.
First draft:
"You want to know if we are allowed to kill people with drones without trial on US soil? Are you fucking stupid?"
Second draft:
"You want to know if we are authorized to kill American citizens with military force on US soil without trial. After six weeks of investigation, we have concluded this letter from you was genuine and not some kind of hoax."
What kind of a raging idiot are you? Yes, Obama most certainly has been killing people with drones all around the world. This country used to have rules against assassinations. Obama is now embracing the practice with abandon - including the assassination of US Citizens who are nothing more than children eating lunch. Sen Paul was asking Holder if Obama thinks he can do that here on US soil as well.
The answer was "Yes."
The answer was, "You are an idiot for even asking."
Gosh, four years may have gone by and all these bad guys have been arrested and tried without being kilt furst, but we better ask the AG if he knows he can't just kill people without trial in the US. He might not know that!
Rand Paul seems to be unaware that the Obama Administration has been using domestic law enforcement and the courts to bring suspected terrorists and all kinds of other bad guys to trial on US soil for some time now.
He seems to think drones mean the Obama Administration will now forego all that nonsense and wants to know if this means they can now decide to start killing Americans without trial.
Obama could have been offing bad guys with tanks and helicopters and shit, but for some strange reason, he hasn't. But what about with drones, man? What about drones!
Holder was like, "Uh, what?"
I can only imagine how retarded he must think Rand Paul is for even asking that question.
But Holder has to answer the Senator. I can only imagine how he must have anguished how not to sound like he was spanking Rand Paul, and how hard he must have worked to respond diplomatically.
First draft:
"You want to know if we are allowed to kill people with drones without trial on US soil? Are you fucking stupid?"
Second draft:
"You want to know if we are authorized to kill American citizens with military force on US soil without trial. After six weeks of investigation, we have concluded this letter from you was genuine and not some kind of hoax."
Rand Paul seems to be unaware that the Obama Administration has been using domestic law enforcement and the courts to bring suspected terrorists and all kinds of other bad guys to trial on US soil for some time now.
He seems to think drones mean the Obama Administration will now forego all that nonsense and wants to know if this means they can now decide to start killing Americans without trial.
Obama could have been offing bad guys with tanks and helicopters and shit, but for some strange reason, he hasn't. But what about with drones, man? What about drones!
Holder was like, "Uh, what?"
I can only imagine how retarded he must think Rand Paul is for even asking that question.
But Holder has to answer the Senator. I can only imagine how he must have anguished how not to sound like he was spanking Rand Paul, and how hard he must have worked to respond diplomatically.
First draft:
"You want to know if we are allowed to kill people with drones without trial on US soil? Are you fucking stupid?"
Second draft:
"You want to know if we are authorized to kill American citizens with military force on US soil without trial. After six weeks of investigation, we have concluded this letter from you was genuine and not some kind of hoax."
What kind of a raging idiot are you? Yes, Obama most certainly has been killing people with drones all around the world. This country used to have rules against assassinations. Obama is now embracing the practice with abandon - including the assassination of US Citizens who are nothing more than children eating lunch. Sen Paul was asking Holder if Obama thinks he can do that here on US soil as well.
The answer was "Yes."
The answer was, "You are an idiot for even asking."
Gosh, four years may have gone by and all these bad guys have been arrested and tried without being kilt furst, but we better ask the AG if he knows he can't just kill people without trial in the US. He might not know that!
"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."
