Eric Holder: Drone strikes against Americans on U.S. soil are legal

[Soul Crusher]

Eric Holder: Drone strikes against Americans on U.S. soil are legal

March 5, 2013 | 4:09 pm | Modified: March 5, 2013 at 5:00 pm
100Comments


Joel Gehrke

Commentary Writer
The Washington Examiner
✉ Email AuthorE@JoelmentumDJoel on FB


Attorney General Eric Holder can imagine a scenario in which it would be constitutional to carry out a drone strike against an American on American soil, he wrote in a letter to Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.
 
“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,” Holder replied in a letter yesterday to Paul’s question about whether Obama “has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial.”
 
Paul condemned the idea. “The U.S. Attorney General’s refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening – it is an affront the Constitutional due process rights of all Americans,” he said in a statement.
 

Sign Up for the Politics Digest newsletter!

Holder noted that Paul’s question was “entirely hypothetical [and] unlikely to occur,” but cited the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks as the type of incidents that might provoke such a response.
 
“Were such an emergency to arise, I would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the President on the scope of his authority,” he concluded.
 
Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, an attorney and Judiciary Committee member, told The Washington Examiner last month that the drone policy so far outlined by the administration is too vague.
 
“That has the potential to swallow the rule,” Lee said after the drone program white paper was leaked. “If you’re going to regard somebody as presenting an imminent threat of an attack on the U.S. simply because you have concluded that they are an ‘operational leader’ or they are involved in planning an attack in one way or another, you find yourself giving way to much discretion to the government.”
 
Lee said that the White House should release the formal legal analysis underpinning the drone program. “We know that in some instances where the government has released its legal analysis, it gets it wrong,” he said.

[GigantorX]

Just remember, folks:

-The enemy is everywhere.
-The enemy is everyone.
-The battlefield is defined as the planet Earth.
-No evidence is needed.
-There is no accountability.
-No due process necessary.

The above isn't a grand conspiracy. It's already been said many, many times by administration officials.

[24KT]

Eric Holder: Drone strikes against Americans on U.S. soil are legal

You might want to take the SIM card out of your cell phone, and leave your bank cards at Straw Man's place.
...either that, or buy yourself a $1.50 floor mat. 

“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,” Holder replied in a letter yesterday to Paul’s question about whether Obama “has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial.”
 
Paul condemned the idea. “The U.S. Attorney General’s refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening – it is an affront the Constitutional due process rights of all Americans,” he said in a statement.

...but according to OzmO, Americans haven't lost any rights in the past 10 years.
 

Holder noted that Paul’s question was “entirely hypothetical [and] unlikely to occur,” but cited the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks as the type of incidents that might provoke such a response.
 
“Were such an emergency to arise, I would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the President on the scope of his authority,” he concluded.
 
Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, an attorney and Judiciary Committee member, told The Washington Examiner last month that the drone policy so far outlined by the administration is too vague.
 
“That has the potential to swallow the rule,” Lee said after the drone program white paper was leaked. “If you’re going to regard somebody as presenting an imminent threat of an attack on the U.S. simply because you have concluded that they are an ‘operational leader’ or they are involved in planning an attack in one way or another, you find yourself giving way to much discretion to the government.”
 
Lee said that the White House should release the formal legal analysis underpinning the drone program. “We know that in some instances where the government has released its legal analysis, it gets it wrong,” he said.

Now the debate is not whether or not to kill Americans, ...but rather HOW to kill Americans.

Wow, what has your nation come to?

I remember when Bush brought this in, ...and the Bush supporters thought it was a great idea that a handful of men had the power to declare someone an enemy combatant, and order their death. Now that this power is in the hands of a Democratic administration, these former supporters don't like it too much, ...and the Democratic supporters are a little quiet on the subject. hmmm... I wonder if they will find their voices only when the next Republican resides in the White House.

[Soul Crusher]

Holder: Obama could order lethal force in U.S.
 


63

91
 
By JOSH GERSTEIN |
3/5/13 4:59 PM EST


President Barack Obama could order the use of deadly force against an American inside the United States, Attorney General Eric Holder said in a letter to Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) released Tuesday.
 
Paul and other senators had asked various administration officials whether deadly drones strikes like the ones the U.S. carries out in Pakistan, Yemen and other foreign countries could ever be used in the U.S. Paul said he would seek to block the confirmation of John Brennan as Central Intelligence Agency director if the question was not answered. (Brennan's nomination was endorsed by the Senate Intelligence Committee Tuesday afternoon in a 12-3 vote.)
 
In the one-page letter dated Monday, Holder said: "The U.S. government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so." The attorney general argued that law enforcement is best suited to resolve such threats "in this country."
 
However, Holder says that in situations akin to the 1941 assault on Pearl Harbor or the September 11, 2001 attacks, the president might have to order the use of deadly force in the U.S.
 
"The question you have posed is entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no President will ever have to confront," Holder wrote. "It is possible, I supposed, 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 concievably 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."
 
Paul said in a statement that he was deeply disturbed by Holder's views.
 
"The U.S. Attorney General’s refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening – it is an affront the Constitutional due process rights of all Americans,” Paul said.
 
Police, of course, regularly and lawfully use deadly force inside the U.S. in cases where criminals are presenting a imminent threat to others. They can also use lethal force under the so-called "fleeing felon" rule to stop a dangerous individuals.
 
However, the Obama Administration has claimed authority to use armed drones abroad under a more relaxed standard of imminence, embracing situations where an individual has organized terrorist attacks in the past and has not renounced such activity. In addition, the administration has carried out so-called "signature strikes," where a group of suspected terrorists is attacked based on their pattern of activity even though the U.S. lacks specific intelligence about their identities.
 

[CichirelloMagnet]

Just remember, folks:

-The enemy is everywhere.
-The enemy is everyone.
-The battlefield is defined as the planet Earth.
-No evidence is needed.
-There is no accountability.
-No due process necessary.

The above isn't a grand conspiracy. It's already been said many, many times by administration officials.

This has been true of the US over the last one hundred plus years of foreign policy. But specifically, since the end of the Cold War.

[240 is Back]

what if they start putting RFID chips in floor mats?

[Soul Crusher]

ts.
Drone Strikes On American Soil Are Legal?
 Political Realities ^ | 03/06/13 | LD Jackson

Posted on Wednesday, March 06, 2013 7:42:51 AM by LD Jackson

Just in case you've been sleeping for the past four years, let me bring you up to date. President Barack Obama needs a new nickname. Maybe we should start calling him "President Drone Strike". You see, drone strikes have evolved to be his weapon of choice against terrorism, at least on the days when he will passably admit we really are fighting a war against terrorism. Because of his propensity to use drone strikes, they are evolving again, within his administration. If you do not believe me, just ask Attorney General Eric Holder. Hat tip to Republican Redefined. This comes as the United States Senate is considering the confirmation of John Brennan to be the Director of the CIA. Leave it to Senator Rand Paul to ask the hard questions.

(The Examiner) Attorney General Eric Holder can imagine a scenario in which it would be constitutional to carry out a drone strike against an American on American soil, he wrote in a letter to Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.
“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,” Holder replied in a letter yesterday to Paul’s question about whether Obama “has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial.”
I can just hear the liberals complaining about how conservatives are judging the letter from Eric Holder. I've heard the complaint that the only argument we have against some of the liberal policies is the "slippery slope" argument. That isn't really true, as we have the facts on our side, but if there ever was a real slippery slope, this is it.
Stop and think about the implications of what Eric Holder wrote in his letter. Yes, it is a hypothetical question, but the idea that he, and by extension the entire Obama administration, even believe it is legal to bypass the constitutional requirements of due process is a scary thought. Remember how this administration has classified some right-wing conservative groups as possible threats? Remember how they have warned about possible attacks from those groups? Remember how the media and this administration have done their best to tie every tragic shooting to the Tea Party, Sarah Palin, or any other conservative group they could think of?

With the thought in our minds that the Obama administration believes it is hypothetically legal to bypass the Constitution and authorize lethal force, be it a drone strike or any other military force, against American citizens on American soil, consider this. Is that a direction we should be going in America? Do we really want a government that is willing to use lethal force against us, the citizens of America? If so, consider where that direction will lead us. Consider what is at the bottom of this very slippery slope.

Call me an alarmist, if you must. Tell me I am crying wolf, even though the wolf is not at the door. But when our government has already strayed far away from its constitutional foundations, what are we expected to think. If Eric Holder is willing to make a statement such as this in a public letter, I can not help but wonder what other plans he and his boss have for American citizens that they haven't made public yet. This is one slippery slope I wish we were not traveling, but here we are. We would do well to consider the possibilities of what may be in store for those of us who disagree with President Obama and his view of how the federal government should work.

[Soul Crusher]

..

Holder: Yep, Obama could kill Americans on U.S. soil

.

.




 
.
 .By Olivier Knox, Yahoo! News | The Ticket – 15 hrs ago.. .
.


Email
Share26266

29



Print
... .



 .
.
 
A Draganflyer X6, six-rotor remote controlled helicopter which can fly up to 20 mph and travel up to a quarter …President Barack Obama has the legal authority to unleash deadly force—such as drone strikes—against Americans on U.S. soil without first putting them on trial, Attorney General Eric Holder wrote in a letter released Tuesday.
 
But Holder, writing to Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, underlined that Obama “has no intention” of targeting his fellow citizens with unmanned aerial vehicles and would do so only if facing “an extraordinary circumstance.”
 
Paul had asked the Obama administration on Feb. 20 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." On Tuesday, he denounced Holder's response as “frightening” and “an affront to the Constitutional due process rights of all Americans.”
 
“The U.S. government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so,” Holder assured Paul in the March 4, 2013 letter. The attorney general also underlined that “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.”
 
Holder added: “The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no President will ever have to confront."
 
But "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," Holder said. "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 Pearl Harbor or 9/11.
 
“Were such an emergency to arise, I would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the President on the scope of this authority,” said Holder.
 
Paul, whose office released the letter, denounced the attorney general’s comments.
 
"The U.S. Attorney General's refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening—it is an affront the Constitutional due process rights of all Americans," the senator said in a statement.
 
The exchange came as the White House agreed to give Senate Intelligence Committee members access to all of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel opinions justifying Obama's expanded campaign of targeted assassination of suspected terrorists overseas, including American citizens. Some lawmakers had warned they would try to block top Obama counterterrorism adviser John Brennan's nomination to head the CIA unless they were able to see the memos.
 
A few hours after the White House agreed to share the information, the committee approved Brennan 12-3, setting the stage for a full Senate vote.
 
Obama's drone war—relatively popular at home, reviled across the Muslim world—has drawn fresh scrutiny ever since NBC News obtained and published a Justice Department memo that lays out the legal justification behind it. The White House has defended the policy as “necessary,” “ethical” and “wise.” But civil liberties champions have sharply criticized it.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/holder-yep-obama-could-kill-americans-u-soil-213059085--politics.html

[Soul Crusher]

[ Invalid YouTube link ]

[Jack T. Cross]

I remember when Bush brought this in, ...and the Bush supporters thought it was a great idea that a handful of men had the power to declare someone an enemy combatant, and order their death. Now that this power is in the hands of a Democratic administration, these former supporters don't like it too much, ...and the Democratic supporters are a little quiet on the subject. hmmm... I wonder if they will find their voices only when the next Republican resides in the White House.

Good points, as usual, 24KT.

Seems to me, since 'left' and 'right' each can lead to fascism, the two sides can be placed into full opposition mode, as media does so well, and they will act exactly as a ratchet.  They will drive themselves toward their shared conclusion.

[Jack T. Cross]

Just remember, folks:

-The enemy is everywhere.
-The enemy is everyone.
-The battlefield is defined as the planet Earth.
-No evidence is needed.
-There is no accountability.
-No due process necessary.

The above isn't a grand conspiracy. It's already been said many, many times by administration officials.

Q.F.T.

There it is, folks.

[Jack T. Cross]

So we have the dishonest, leading the stupid, victimizing the innocent.

[Pray_4_War]

What could go wrong?

[rachaelsnav]

Just because Barry supports George Busch's policies doesn't make those policies right, it just makes Barry a George Busch clone.  And last I looked George hasent been around in 4 years, why does he have anything to do with the argument at this point?

[Skip8282]

If the Bush Administration had of made that claim there would be another million man march.

That's just unfucking real.

If this is the slippery slope for allowing the drone strikes on American terrorist overseas, then we need to stop it immediately.



Love to see where Andre is on this.

[GigantorX]

If the Bush Administration had of made that claim there would be another million man march.

That's just unfucking real.

If this is the slippery slope for allowing the drone strikes on American terrorist overseas, then we need to stop it immediately.



Love to see where Andre is on this.

Yep. It is the harbinger for strikes on U.S. soil.

If you are the President/Administration and you need to call in the Dept. of Justice, the Att. General and various other legal scholars to draw up some shady, meandering, criss-crossing legal brief that is  vague, opaque, devoid of detail and utterly broad so that you can stretch the definition of legal just enough to cover your ass and make whatever program you're planning "legal"......well, that program  is illegal.