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.
Yeah, actually we are.
"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"?
Intimate threat, justifiable.
Son of a Muslim radical we killed last week, no history of violence, no history of spewing propaganda, no intimate threat, no due process, and an American citizen.......Justifiable? Or murder?
Yeah, actually we are.
We're talking about American citizens within the borders of the United States who have had no trial. Not terrorists.
Yeah, actually we are.
We're talking about American citizens within the borders of the United States who have had no trial. Not terrorists.
In the case of an aircraft user as a missile, the Americans are on board. Do you order the plane shot down or not?
We're talking about American citizens within the borders of the United States who have had no trial. Not terrorists.
In the case of an aircraft user as a missile, the Americans are on board. Do you order the plane shot down or not?
This not an applicable scenario either.
In the case of an aircraft user as a missile, the Americans are on board. Do you order the plane shot down or not?
This not an applicable scenario either.
Americans were the hijackers then? Would you rather a President not order the strike? I think only under such extreme circumstances would the president, any president, do such a thing. Paul knows this. He's just a glory hound.
This not an applicable scenario either.
Americans were the hijackers then? Would you rather a President not order the strike? I think only under such extreme circumstances would the president, any president, do such a thing. Paul knows this. He's just a glory hound.
I reject your hijackers premise out of hand. It has nothing to do with the question Rand is asking.
Americans were the hijackers then? Would you rather a President not order the strike? I think only under such extreme circumstances would the president, any president, do such a thing. Paul knows this. He's just a glory hound.
I reject your hijackers premise out of hand. It has nothing to do with the question Rand is asking.
I believe it is possibly one of the "extraordinary circumstances" the AG was referring to.
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?
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 folks that died in the Whiskey Rebellion and the Civil War didn't get any.
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?
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?
Do you believe that the government could not have used lethal force against Timothy McVeigh, in that truck, on his way to the federal building,
had they known its contents and his intent?
Obama Administration Says President Can Use Lethal Force Against Americans on US Soil | Mother Jones
Who needs due process anyways?
Do you believe that the government could not have used lethal force against Timothy McVeigh, in that truck, on his way to the federal building,
had they known its contents and his intent?
Another example that doesn't apply to Rand's question.
Do you believe that the government could not have used lethal force against Timothy McVeigh, in that truck, on his way to the federal building,
had they known its contents and his intent?
Another example that doesn't apply to Rand's question.
Were they not all "extraordinary circumstance" example of when a President could use lethal force against American citizens on US soil? So the question has been answered. Rand is just grandstanding.
Another example that doesn't apply to Rand's question.
Were they not all "extraordinary circumstance" example of when a President could use lethal force against American citizens on US soil? So the question has been answered. Rand is just grandstanding.
No, it hasn't, because the question is not in regards to so-called extraordinary circumstances.
In the case of an aircraft user as a missile, the Americans are on board. Do you order the plane shot down or not?
This not an applicable scenario either.
Americans were the hijackers then? Would you rather a President not order the strike? I think only under such extreme circumstances would the president, any president, do such a thing. Paul knows this. He's just a glory hound.
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?
Do you believe that the government could not have used lethal force against Timothy McVeigh, in that truck, on his way to the federal building,
had they known its contents and his intent?
"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"?
Intimate threat, justifiable.
Son of a Muslim radical we killed last week, no history of violence, no history of spewing propaganda, no intimate threat, no due process, and an American citizen.......Justifiable? Or murder?
Last week? Link?
