Obama Administration Says It Can Kill Americans on US Soil

[T-Rexx]

Without trial or due process of law.

So said Eric Holder in a letter to Rand Paul today.

But only in "extraordinary circumstance," (which, apparently, is at the president's discretion).


http://m.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/...an-use-lethal-force-against-americans-us-soil

 

[Just_Believe18]

Um... don't law enforcement officers already do this?

Imminent threat to the life of the police officer or civilian in the vicinity, not to the drone.

There is no justification for the President to authorize lethal force on an American citizen on U.S. soil without due process of law. The fact that both the President and Eric Holder are being evasive about this is inexcusable.

 

[rareboy]

^ Same would hold.

If a terrorist presented an imminent threat to the safety of others, the Feds would take them out.

The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront. 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.

The letter concludes, "were such an emergency to arise, I would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the president of the scope of his authority."

I'm failing to understand the outrage.

 

[White Eagle]

This is some of the worst quirkiness on JUB I've ever seen.

Good, then it wasn't my PC or system.
I think these extraordinary circumstances have already happened, as stated above, and is quite OK by me.

 

[tigerfan482]

Did anyone read the same letter I did? There is nothing in there saying it is ok for the President to kill Americans on American soil. There is something in there that says that there could conceivably be a situation that happens that may allow the President to use drones on American soil, but that any situation in which it could be considered would have to be reviewed for an AG opinion. Also, the letter, while mentioning drones as an example, actually asked the question about using lethal force against Americans on American soil.

This is indeed just faux outrage.

 

[T-Rexx]

Imminent threat to the life of the police officer or civilian in the vicinity, not to the drone.

There is no justification for the President to authorize lethal force on an American citizen on U.S. soil without due process of law. The fact that both the President and Eric Holder are being evasive about this is inexcusable.

I agree.

Everyone here is "justifying" this treason by claiming it would only be invoked at the point that some terrorist was about to squeeze the trigger of a gun that had some innocent person in its sights. But the question that Rand Paul asked was about drones, and that is not how drones work. They don't circle until someone's life is imminently threatened, then attack at the last minute.

It is inexcusable that the administration (or anyone) would attempt to pursue with intent to kill an American citizen (however dangerous) without due process of law. Eric Holder is no better in this opinion than was Alberto Gonzales on just about everything. And if Obama supports this nonsense, he is no better a defender of the constitution than was George W. Bush (who infamously imprisoned people "forever" without charge or trial - just because he decided they were dangerous).

 

[tigerfan482]

I agree.

Everyone here is "justifying" this treason by claiming it would only be invoked at the point that some terrorist was about to squeeze the trigger of a gun that had some innocent person in its sights. But the question that Rand Paul asked was about drones, and that is not how drones work. They don't circle until someone's life is imminently threatened, then attack at the last minute.

It is inexcusable that the administration (or anyone) would attempt to pursue with intent to kill an American citizen (however dangerous) without due process of law. Eric Holder is no better in this opinion than was Alberto Gonzales on just about everything. And if Obama supports this nonsense, he is no better than George W. Bush on this same issue (who infamously imprisoned people "forever" without charge or trial - just because he decided they were dangerous).

What treason? There is nothing authorized in this letter. There is no legal opinion in this letter. There is none of what you are saying in this letter. This letter accomplished EXACTLY what Paul wanted it to. It's causing paranoid people to read into it. The words in the letter speak for themselves. Anything else you read into it is nothing but your personal biases being applied to try and change the meaning of what was said.

Here is the full letter.

 

[Durango95]

I'm okay with this. For everyone saying this is just fine and there is no civil rights infringement just remember this when your guy isn't in in charge.

 

[maxpowr9]

^ Same would hold.

If a terrorist presented an imminent threat to the safety of others, the Feds would take them out.



I'm failing to understand the outrage.

Yeah, it seems the hippies are out tonight. I don't see the outrage in this either.

 

[T-Rexx]

What treason?

Holder is attempting to subvert the constitution by claiming dictatorial powers not granted to the executive. His opinion is that the administration can kill any citizen at any time at its own whim.

American citizens are protected from their government by rights which no president may violate.

There is nothing authorized in this letter. There is no legal opinion in this letter. There is none of what you are saying in this letter.

It is the highest law enforcement official in the nation, claiming that the administration is free to ignore the constitution. Presumably, since they believe the constitution does not apply to them, they intend to ignore it.

This letter accomplished EXACTLY what Paul wanted it to. It's causing paranoid people to read into it.

First, it doesn't matter what Paul wanted the letter to do. It doesn't matter how badly he wanted America to panic, or how irresponsibly he may be acting.

Holder's words are themselves more than reason enough to panic anyone who cares about America. He is talking treason. Obama needs to fire him immediately, and issue a retraction to this nonsense.

 

[tigerfan482]

Holder is attempting to subvert the constitution by claiming dictatorial powers not granted to the executive. His opinion is that the administration can kill any citizen at any time at its own whim.

American citizens are protected from their government by rights which no president may violate.

It is the highest law enforcement official in the nation, claiming that the administration is free to ignore the constitution. Presumably, since they believe the constitution does not apply to them, they intend to ignore it.

First, it doesn't matter what Paul wanted the letter to do. It doesn't matter how badly he wanted America to panic, or how irresponsibly he may be acting.

Holder's words are themselves more than reason enough to panic anyone who cares about America. He is talking treason. Obama needs to fire him immediately, and issue a retraction to this nonsense.

Where? Where do this letter say any of this? Please provide a quote.

 

[opinterph]

It is inexcusable that the administration (or anyone) would attempt to pursue with intent to kill an American citizen (however dangerous) without due process of law.

What if the citizen has become part of what may reasonably be assumed to constitute a hostile missile?

When the country was attacked on the morning Sept. 11, 2001, Mr. Bush was in Florida and Vice President Cheney was in a command bunker beneath the White House. Asked whether the military should shoot down an apparently hijacked plane, Mr. Cheney authorized them to do so …

In Memoir, Bush Addresses 9/11 Policy Controversies (NYT, November 5, 2010)

 

[T-Rexx]

What if the citizen has become part of what may reasonably be assumed to constitute a hostile missile?

Again, you pose the issue of imminent threat to justify the hunting down and execution of American citizens on American soil.

Drones are not used to attack incoming missiles. They are used to kill people who have been tracked to a particular location over a period of time, as a result of intelligence.

The point is that no president is free to hunt down Americans on American soil without due process of law. Holder's examples of Pearl Harbor and 9/11 to support his opinion that drone use to kill Americans is okay is nonsense. No drone could ever have done a thing in either of those situations. That's not how drones work.

 

[opinterph]

Again, you pose the issue of imminent threat to justify the hunting down and execution of American citizens on American soil.

Well, sorry to be redundant. However, we should not assume that today’s drone technology will not be replaced with newer devices featuring greater capabilities. In any event, the question being posed is essentially a constitutional issue that is not necessarily dependent upon the mechanics of the intervention, but rather the authority to take action with intent to kill citizens within the nation’s borders. In the case of 9/11 persons on the aircraft would have been “collateral damage,” but in other “ticking bomb” situations a citizen could conceivably be the primary target and I suppose that is what causes you concern.

 

[tigerfan482]

Well, sorry to be redundant. However, we should not assume that today’s drone technology will not be replaced with newer devices featuring greater capabilities. In any event, the question being posed is essentially a constitutional issue that is not necessarily dependent upon the mechanics of the intervention, but rather the authority to take action with intent to kill citizens within the nation’s borders. In the case of 9/11 persons on the aircraft would have been “collateral damage,” but in other “ticking bomb” situations a citizen could conceivably be the primary target and I suppose that is what causes you concern.

This is exactly right.

The letter to the AG, while mentioning drones as an example, asked the question of the use of lethal force against US citizens in America, not just limited to drones. Further, despite the best efforts of some on here, the letter was not a legal opinion nor was it a statement of policy. It was a response to a question.

 

[xbuzzerx]

^ Same would hold.

If a terrorist presented an imminent threat to the safety of others, the Feds would take them out.



I'm failing to understand the outrage.

I'd agree. The outrage over this seems to amount to being similar to saying that if we'd known with detail in advance what the 9/11 hijacked planes were going to do, we should still be duty bound to try to ask them to land and face arrest rather than take military action.

 

[chuck10x]

Rand Paul posed a hypothetical question, Could the President use drones to kill an american citizen on U.S. soil?
Holder replied yes in certain circumstances.
That is a dangerous first step that cannot be reversed once it happens, and in the years to come.
Many consider Bush a war criminal, Obama has kept and expanded on Bushes policys that many hate including myself.
The next President will not give up the power Obama leaves him or (her) and more than likely expand them even further.
Policies put in place under Obama will be given to the future Presidents, Will you excuse them when they are used?

 

[maxpowr9]

This is exactly right.

The letter to the AG, while mentioning drones as an example, asked the question of the use of lethal force against US citizens in America, not just limited to drones.

At this point, I'm just gonna assume that T-Rexx is trolling. If you have committed no heinous crimes, what is there to fear?

 

[tigerfan482]

Ok. Here goes:

Dear Senator Paul:

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."

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 question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one
we hope no President will ever have to confront. 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 of a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7,
1941, and September 11,2001.

Were such an emergency to arise, I would examine the particular facts and circumstances
before advising the President on the scope of his authority.

Sincerely,

Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Attorney General

Unfortunately, while the response to Senator Paul was published, I am having a difficult time finding the letter that Senator Paul sent and what his verbiage was in said letter. However, as you can see in the response, there was a question about using lethal force, with drones being given as an example, against US citizens in the United States. If you read further, you will see that the AG said there is no intention to carry out drone strikes in the US and it hasn't happened in the past. He goes on to say that they look to law enforcement to handle those situations. The last bit of the letter goes on to say that there could possibly be some scenario in the future of an extraordinary scope that may allow the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the US (note that it was lethal force and not drone strikes) and that any such circumstance would have to be investigated by the AG at the time to have a legal opinion issued. Since no administration would ever say there will absolutely never be any case ever that will require the military using lethal force within the United States, I think this response said exactly what it was supposed to. It's not policy to target Americans in America, but if an extraordinary situation ever occurred in the future that may warrant or require such use of force, they reserve the right to apply the facts of the situation to the Constitutional powers granted to the government to make a legal opinion.

So, in summary, this letter does not authorize strikes on Americans in the United States. It specifically states the opposite and says it's not the practice or intention to do so and that any circumstance that may warrant it would have to be reviewed by the AG and have a legal opinion issued. This is no different that what the current practice is and what it has been for decades spanning multiple administrations.

 

[JB3]

^ Same would hold.

If a terrorist presented an imminent threat to the safety of others, the Feds would take them out.



I'm failing to understand the outrage.

The feds wouldn't take them out, they would arrest them.

- - - Updated - - -

^ Same would hold.

If a terrorist presented an imminent threat to the safety of others, the Feds would take them out.



I'm failing to understand the outrage.

The feds wouldn't take them out, they would arrest them.