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

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Of course it does. The answer is no, unless some extraordinary circumstance arises, like the ones pointed out by the good folks here.

So then why won't they explicitly say no? Why does it have to be assumed? Why do they deflect and answer questions nobody asked?

 

[Freewill]

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."

Maybe Paul asked because Obama has already killed Americans with drones???

 

[Freewill]

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?

They are correct. The precedent was established in the Civil War. If someone is killing Americans, and threatoning many more, and cannot be taken out in any other manner, the drones are perfectly legal. I do not see this ever happening, but under extreme circumstances, it would be justified. In fact, were the President not to order the strike under certain circumstances, the 'Conservatives' would be the first to condemn the President.

The civil war comparison is bogus. First of all the states left the Union. Second, had they not attacked Fort Sumpter there would never have been a civil war. They were an intimate threat.

 

[Freewill]

Predator Drone Strikes: 50 Civilians Are Killed For Every 1 Terrorist, and the CIA Only Wants to Up Drone Warfare

 

[BlindBoo]

No, it hasn't, because the question is not in regards to so-called extraordinary circumstances.

Of course it does. The answer is no, unless some extraordinary circumstance arises, like the ones pointed out by the good folks here.

So then why won't they explicitly say no? Why does it have to be assumed? Why do they deflect and answer questions nobody asked?

"As members of this administration have previously indicated, the US Governement has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so."

Very first sentence in his reply to the question posed by Sen Paul.

http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/BrennanHolderResponse.pdf

Can't get much clearer than that.

 

[Big Black Dog]

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

What else would you expect a dictator's spokesperson to say?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Of course it does. The answer is no, unless some extraordinary circumstance arises, like the ones pointed out by the good folks here.

So then why won't they explicitly say no? Why does it have to be assumed? Why do they deflect and answer questions nobody asked?

"As members of this administration have previously indicated, the US Governement has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so."

Very first sentence in his reply to the question posed by Sen Paul.

http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/BrennanHolderResponse.pdf

Can't get much clearer than that.

Yes, you could. That's a completely different question than the one asked by Rand. Rand did not ask whether they had done this, but whether or not they believe they have the authority to do so.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Very true.

 

[BlindBoo]

So then why won't they explicitly say no? Why does it have to be assumed? Why do they deflect and answer questions nobody asked?

"As members of this administration have previously indicated, the US Governement has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so."

Very first sentence in his reply to the question posed by Sen Paul.

http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/BrennanHolderResponse.pdf

Can't get much clearer than that.

Yes, you could. That's a completely different question than the one asked by Rand. Rand did not ask whether they had done this, but whether or not they believe they have the authority to do so.

And thus Sen. Paul is grandstanding (and throwing red meat to the mad dogs) because everyone knows that under special circumstances such as the dire situations described in the third paragraph, a President does have that constitutional authority.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"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"?

Why do we have an drone armed with air to air missiles flying over Chicago?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We are taking about Al Qaida terrorists.

I agree with Obama on this.

Haven't been paying attention, have you?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

"As members of this administration have previously indicated, the US Governement has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so."

Very first sentence in his reply to the question posed by Sen Paul.

http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/BrennanHolderResponse.pdf

Can't get much clearer than that.

Yes, you could. That's a completely different question than the one asked by Rand. Rand did not ask whether they had done this, but whether or not they believe they have the authority to do so.

And thus Sen. Paul is grandstanding (and throwing red meat to the mad dogs) because everyone knows that under special circumstances such as the dire situations described in the third paragraph, a President does have that constitutional authority.

Then why not come right out and say it? Why all the obfuscation?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ah the teaparty. Paul asks the CiA if they're planning drone strikes on americans in america. Brennan responds with the not exactlty earth shaking answer, that Paul apparantly missed while stoned in college, the CIA is not legally allowed to undertake domestic operations, and his question would be more appropriately addressed by the DOJ ... which, not shockingly, overseas the FBI.

Holder says, if we are certain an american is attemtign to attack other americans, we'll kill him if we can't arrest him.

I DON'T KNOW ABOUT U GUYS, BUT i'M SHOCKED.

What shocks me is how ignorant you can remain when every news outlet in the country is pointing out that no one actually answer the question.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

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?

You think the feds should have used a hellfire missile to blow up a truck full of explosives?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Of course it does. The answer is no, unless some extraordinary circumstance arises, like the ones pointed out by the good folks here.

Why not say that?

 

[BlindBoo]

"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"?

Why do we have an drone armed with air to air missiles flying over Chicago?

It just happened to be there at the right time at the right place. It was on it's secret mission patrolling the boarder trying to stop Canada from smuggling in all that Cannabis product.

Gummy Bears anyone?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Of course it does. The answer is no, unless some extraordinary circumstance arises, like the ones pointed out by the good folks here.

So then why won't they explicitly say no? Why does it have to be assumed? Why do they deflect and answer questions nobody asked?

"As members of this administration have previously indicated, the US Governement has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so."

Very first sentence in his reply to the question posed by Sen Paul.

http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/BrennanHolderResponse.pdf

Can't get much clearer than that.

How does that answer the question that was asked, which was does the government have the authority to use drones to kill American citizens on American soil?

 

[ClosedCaption]

So then why won't they explicitly say no? Why does it have to be assumed? Why do they deflect and answer questions nobody asked?

"As members of this administration have previously indicated, the US Governement has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so."

Very first sentence in his reply to the question posed by Sen Paul.

http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/BrennanHolderResponse.pdf

Can't get much clearer than that.

How does that answer the question that was asked, which was does the government have the authority to use drones to kill American citizens on American soil?

I say no, but I rather perplexed what everyone was thinking was going to happen when GWB was declaring ppl to be terrorist without a trial and killing them. I guess everyone (shortsighted) thought those rules of no trial needed or required were only for people outside of the US border. Thats funny...Jose Padilla anyone?

PS...Funny..but in the sad, told you so, sorta way

 

[BlindBoo]

Yes, you could. That's a completely different question than the one asked by Rand. Rand did not ask whether they had done this, but whether or not they believe they have the authority to do so.

And thus Sen. Paul is grandstanding (and throwing red meat to the mad dogs) because everyone knows that under special circumstances such as the dire situations described in the third paragraph, a President does have that constitutional authority.

Then why not come right out and say it? Why all the obfuscation?

He did, in a clear 1 page letter. 3 sentences in paragraph 3.

If that's obfustication then I'd like to see the AG's concise version.

Why does the Senator pretend he hasn't recieved an answer yet?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And thus Sen. Paul is grandstanding (and throwing red meat to the mad dogs) because everyone knows that under special circumstances such as the dire situations described in the third paragraph, a President does have that constitutional authority.

Then why not come right out and say it? Why all the obfuscation?

He did, in a clear 1 page letter. 3 sentences in paragraph 3.

If that's obfustication then I'd like to see the AG's concise version.

Why does the Senator pretend he hasn't recieved an answer yet?

Well it's funny, because some people who agree with you that Rand is merely grandstanding for one reason or another, would argue that in that very same letter Holder clearly answers that no, they don't have that authority or that the answer is so obviously no that he merely smacked down the question and answered more relevant ones.

So you say that it obviously says yes, others say that it obviously says no. Do you not maybe see why that's a problem?