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.
From Holder's letter:
Nothing in there about drone strikes against Americans.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.
Sorry. I know you so wanted that to be in there.
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.
"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."
Rand Paul has a drone fetish.
And he's an idiot.
Holder ruled out Paul's question as stupid. As if the AG of the United States did not know he can't kill Americans without a trial, which was the premise behind Paul's question.
Holder then had to explain to the fool examples when lethal military force might actually needed inside the US, as a contrast to the lunacy suggested by Paul.
Paul then confabulated the contrast with his retarded question and made the idiotic statement above.
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.
"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."
Rand Paul has a drone fetish.
And he's an idiot.
Holder ruled out Paul's question as stupid. As if the AG of the United States did not know he can't kill Americans without a trial, which was the premise behind Paul's question.
Holder then had to explain to the fool examples when lethal military force might actually needed inside the US, as a contrast to the lunacy suggested by Paul.
Paul then confabulated the contrast with his retarded question and made the idiotic statement above.
Presidents have always had this power to enforce the laws of the United States. Washington was the first president to use armed might in the Whiskey Rebellion and since then various presidents have also used their constitutional obligation of enforcing the laws. Hoover used the same power on the bonus veterans leaving four dead and over a thousand injured. Think of Kent State.
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?
The federal government just took a terrorist to court on US soil today! And he's a US citizen!
They did NOT blow him up with a drone!
DAMMIT!
The federal government just took a terrorist to court on US soil today! And he's a US citizen!
They did NOT blow him up with a drone!
DAMMIT!
The federal government just took a terrorist to court on US soil today! And he's a US citizen!
They did NOT blow him up with a drone!
DAMMIT!
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?
"Mr. President. We have a hikjacked airliner full of passengers apparently headed for the Sears Tower in Chicago at 500 mph. We have a drone in place to shoot it down before it can kill anyone on the ground"
"What is your order"?
"Mr. President. We have a hikjacked airliner full of passengers apparently headed for the Sears Tower in Chicago at 500 mph. We have a drone in place to shoot it down before it can kill anyone on the ground"
"What is your order"?
We are taking about Al Qaida terrorists.
I agree with Obama on this.
Yeah, actually we are.
