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

[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.

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?

That wasn't the exactly question was it?

The 1 page reply consicely shattered the nearly incompetent, yet emotionally charged question, from the Senator.

 

[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.

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?

That wasn't the exactly question was it?

The 1 page reply consicely shattered the nearly incompetent, yet emotionally charged question, from the Senator.

Yes, actually, that was the question.

And if the reply was so clear and concise, then why do the people who agree with Holder on this issue disagree over what he said?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Yes it does. Why won't you answer it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

Can I play too? Should we have used the predator against Rodman when he went to visit with our enemy in North Korea??? After all Rodman did spew some anti-American rhetoric.

You're an idiot. Was your answer yes or no? Why are you assholes afraid to simply answer the question? I've never seen so many rightwing pussies in one gathering as there are on this forum.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"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?

That wasn't the exactly question was it?

The 1 page reply consicely shattered the nearly incompetent, yet emotionally charged question, from the Senator.

That was the question, "Does the President have the power to authorize lethal force." Read the second sentence of that letter you are so fond of.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

He answered the question. That some anti-American nut cases like you want to wallow in denial about it doesn't alter the fact.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

this isn't about due process no matter how many times alarmists say so

 

[AmericanFirst]

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?

Obamaturd and his fellow commie bastaards care less about due process.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

Of course it has the right. Is the question whether the authority has been put to paper?

 

[AmericanFirst]

this isn't about due process no matter how many times alarmists say so

Wrong asshole.

 

[AmericanFirst]

"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?

Of course it has the right. Is the question whether the authority has been put to paper?

No, it doesn't, commie bastard.

 

[NYcarbineer]

this isn't about due process no matter how many times alarmists say so

Due process only means you have the right to the process you're due. If you're flying a hijacked plane towards the White House,

how much process you're 'due' is rather miniscule.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

Of course it has the right. Is the question whether the authority has been put to paper?

No, it doesn't, commie bastard.

You don't think the government could use a drone as deadly force against an American whose actions justified the use of deadly force?

 

[NYcarbineer]

If Americans had been flying the planes on 9/11,

you people are saying we would have had no right to shoot them down.

 

[BlindBoo]

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?

That wasn't the exactly question was it?

The 1 page reply consicely shattered the nearly incompetent, yet emotionally charged question, from the Senator.

Yes, actually, that was the question.

And if the reply was so clear and concise, then why do the people who agree with Holder on this issue disagree over what he said?

It wasn't exclusively about drones, it was about the legality of using lethal force on US citizens on US soil without a trial. The answer was no, unless of a war or war like condition existed in the US. Then he probably would have the authority to use lethal force on US citizens on US soil acting as an agent of a foriegn or domestic enemy engaged in the war or war like activity.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Yes it does. Why won't you answer it?

I don't need to answer it because it doesn't apply. Rand is talking about noncombatants, or people otherwise not presently engaged in criminal activity, and whether or not they can be targeted for lethal force. He is not talking about people, such as Timothy McVeigh in your example, that are presently engaged in criminal activity.

 

[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?

He answered the question. That some anti-American nut cases like you want to wallow in denial about it doesn't alter the fact.

Ahh yes, the ol' anti-American stupidity.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

That wasn't the exactly question was it?

The 1 page reply consicely shattered the nearly incompetent, yet emotionally charged question, from the Senator.

Yes, actually, that was the question.

And if the reply was so clear and concise, then why do the people who agree with Holder on this issue disagree over what he said?

It wasn't exclusively about drones, it was about the legality of using lethal force on US citizens on US soil without a trial. The answer was no, unless of a war or war like condition existed in the US. Then he probably would have the authority to use lethal force on US citizens on US soil acting as an agent of a foriegn or domestic enemy engaged in the war or war like activity.

If the answer was no, then why didn't the administration simply say that rather than spend weeks deflecting?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

Yeah, NO SHIT SHERLOCK

We kinda already fucking knew that.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Yeah, NO SHIT SHERLOCK

We kinda already fucking knew that.

Another person with no knowledge of the actual issue.