Holder finally admits it, drone strikes on US soil can be legal

[Genx87]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/eric-...ricans-on-u.s.-soil-are-legal/article/2523319

“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.”

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.

Sure it is hypothetical. But if these warmongers are acknowledging it then it has been discussed and sure they would use it.

Time finally admit this admin is out of control for the die hards?

 

[Double Trouble]

I don't see this as "the admin is out of control", I don't think it was any different for the prior administration.

What bothers me about this train of thought is that the guys in power always assume that those in power will use the powers granted them only for the right reason. History shows us otherwise.

I think the president deserves a lot of leeway in dealing with the bad guys, but I'm not comfortable with the lack of judicial oversight and lack of transparency.

 

[UberNeuman]

I don't see this as "the admin is out of control", I don't think it was any different for the prior administration.

What bothers me about this train of thought is that the guys in power always assume that those in power will use the powers granted them only for the right reason. History shows us otherwise.

I think the president deserves a lot of leeway in dealing with the bad guys, but I'm not comfortable with the lack of judicial oversight and lack of transparency.

Absolutely in agreement with you. I mailed my Congress-critter with such a sentiment...

\if any President undertakes such an action such as a drone-strike on U.S. soil - they'd better ready to justify it...

 

[cubby1223]

\if any President undertakes such an action such as a drone-strike on U.S. soil - they'd better ready to justify it...

...or stall just long enough until the next welfare check is needed.

I don't see much stopping a President from striking this own country.

 

[UberNeuman]

...or stall just long enough until the next welfare check is needed.

I don't see much stopping a President from striking this own country.

Have you wrote to your congressperson about this issue?

\it's a yes or no kind of question....
\\yes - I have or no I haven't...

 

[cubby1223]

Have you wrote to your congressperson about this issue?

\it's a yes or no kind of question....
\\yes - I have or no I haven't...

What can I say? I'm quite pessimistic when it comes to government. I don't even bother to vote

Whatever is going to happen will happen regardless of my input.

 

[Agent11]

Yea that is not a healthy viewpoint. Research your candidates, vote and call and write them. It is your right to make yourself a huge pain in their ass.

 

[Anarchist420]

This is why the executive power must be abolished and replaced with nothing. Obama is everything the Anti-Federalists feared.

 

[davmat787]

Perhaps my imagination is lacking, but why would a drone be preferable to a manned aircraft in taking out a target on US soil? We already own the airspace, and have dozens of bases around the country. I guess if the military needed the loiter capability in waiting for a target to appear a drone would be preferable.

Anyone have ideas why a drone would be needed in US airspace in the first place to take out a known target?

 

[UberNeuman]

Perhaps my imagination is lacking, but why would a drone be preferable to a manned aircraft in taking out a target on US soil? We already own the airspace, and have dozens of bases around the country. I guess if the military needed the loiter capability in waiting for a target to appear a drone would be preferable.

Anyone have ideas why a drone would be needed in US airspace in the first place to take out a known target?

Mostly silent and quick. The prep time to send a drone out should be faster than a dispatch from an airbase....

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Perhaps my imagination is lacking, but why would a drone be preferable to a manned aircraft in taking out a target on US soil? We already own the airspace, and have dozens of bases around the country. I guess if the military needed the loiter capability in waiting for a target to appear a drone would be preferable.

Anyone have ideas why a drone would be needed in US airspace in the first place to take out a known target?

A person in front of a computer screen in a military facility somewhere pushing a button like it's a video game is much less attached to the situation than a pilot with complete control of the situation in the air.

A guy in front of a screen is much more likely to follow orders to kill fellow citizens.

Psychological detachment is the issue.

 

[Zorba]

Time finally admit this admin is out of control for the die hards?

This one and the one before it. This just reminds me of the torture memos. I don't understand how an administration can just right a memo and then say "See it is legal" and the "Oh by the way, no one has legal standing to sue us so we can never be questioned on this."

It would just be really nice if the republicans were as concerned about our loss of liberty to the fight on terrorism when Bush was in office as the now claim to be. And it would be just as nice if democrats were as concerned about our loss liberty due to fight against terrorism now as they were when Bush was in office. But as long as it is my guy doing it, it must be great.

 

[werepossum]

Perhaps my imagination is lacking, but why would a drone be preferable to a manned aircraft in taking out a target on US soil? We already own the airspace, and have dozens of bases around the country. I guess if the military needed the loiter capability in waiting for a target to appear a drone would be preferable.

Anyone have ideas why a drone would be needed in US airspace in the first place to take out a known target?

Because the CIA doesn't operate actual strike aircraft?

Actually, MMM makes a very good point about drone pilots being more likely to carry out such an order. Personally, I think unless it's a shooting situation beyond the capability of LEOs, no such strike should be carried out in any country where we have reasonable accommodation in extradition, much less on American soil.

Still, I can't get too excited. It bothers me that anyone even thought to ask the question, but maybe it's like the military studying and planning for every possibility, no matter how remote.

 

[sourn]

Ya, because the government will use drones to take out people. O wait even they're not that stupid. Why use a drone which WILL get noticed or silently go in and take out the trash. Use some common sense, which do you think they're gonna do?

If a drone strike ever happens on US soil we will end up knowing about it, and they're gonna make damn sure it was justifiable it's simply to hard to hide. You don't think terrorist know when they get hit by a drone (well obviously the ones that get hit don't lol).

For the nut jobs out there in fear of full government control (full take over, shredded the constitution, etc). It's still probably not gonna be the damn drones you got to worry about.

Don't get me wrong this government makes me sick to my stomach. There maybe maybe one decent politician in it, but I seriously doubt even that. Both sides are corrupted and only in it for themselves. But come on.. Get real, they still got to keep up the farce that they care about us.

 

[Kadarin]

We are now frogs in water that's slowly being heated to boiling. We're starting to hear this talk from the administration now, but in a few years this kind of thing may become commonplace as the word "terrorist" gets constantly redefined. One day, political enemies whose only "crime" is speaking out in favor of the US Constitution will become targets.

This is coming from the powers that be, so it doesn't matter if Obama or Romney had gotten elected.

/tinfoil

 

[blankslate]

Well, you can bet that President Obama is thinking "Thank you President Bush, for this awesome gift..." then tilting a book on a bookshelf in the oval office to go through a secret passage to the uber-cool armed UAV control room. While dubstep is blaring from speakers.

 

[ivwshane]

This one and the one before it. This just reminds me of the torture memos. I don't understand how an administration can just right a memo and then say "See it is legal" and the "Oh by the way, no one has legal standing to sue us so we can never be questioned on this."

It would just be really nice if the republicans were as concerned about our loss of liberty to the fight on terrorism when Bush was in office as the now claim to be. And it would be just as nice if democrats were as concerned about our loss liberty due to fight against terrorism now as they were when Bush was in office. But as long as it is my guy doing it, it must be great.

Democrats are the ones pushing the drone issue. The story itself has been covered by the left for several years, the drone memo was released by left leaning news sources.

Is it the same level of fervor as it was under bush? No, but it is gaining traction. Remember it took about 6 years before the left got to their peak outrage under bush.

 

[michal1980]

democrats:
torture of foreigners = bad
phone taps of foreigners = bad
g.bay prison = bad

drone killing of Americans = good.

 

[rudder]

Scary... If FBI agents can get off after wrecking a $750,000 car in their custody... Citizens will have no recourse if a maverick missile accidentally hits your house instead of your al-Qaeda loving neighbor. And don't think that is impossible.... We hear stories all the time of DEA storm troopers with bad intel attacking the wrong house.

 

[Bowfinger]

I swear some of you get stupider and more hysterical by the day. What Holder said is simply and obviously true, and always has been.

"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."

First, look at what he actually said there. There's not a word about drones; that's just nutter fear mongering. He said there are imaginable cases where the military might be called to use lethal force within the U.S. He didn't specify what form that force might take.

Second, every single one of you can imagine such circumstances, and you're lying if you say otherwise. For example, what if North Korea invaded with an armored attack force? Can you honestly say you'd demand our military sit on its thumbs and do nothing? Let civilian law enforcement handle it so the NK soldiers got due process? If you said yes you're a liar. But, if you said no, that you'd expect the military to act ... congratulations, you and Holder have something in common. You have imagined 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. I guess that means you're out of control too, huh?

Or let's focus on the one scenario Holder mentions, a September 11 style attack. Imagine that we know we have a hijacked jumbo jet that's going to fly into a large building. Can you truly not imagine the military possibly shooting the plane down? Really? You're lying unless you were stranded on a deserted island on 9/11/2001, because that exact possibility was discussed. Once again, you have now imagined 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.

With all due respect guys, you need to pull your heads out of your asses. You really look like idiots when you turn off your brains and dance like good little puppets every time the right wing propaganda machine tells you to dance. Yes, I agree the use of drones within the U.S. is a serious issue, even when used only for surveillance (let alone armed drones). The problem is Holder didn't refer to drones, but you're too wrapped up in knee-jerk outrage to notice. By ignoring what he actually said and going off like fools, you've now undermined the legitimate discussion about abuse of drones. You encourage fence-sitters to dismiss the issue as just another example of crazy Obama haters screeching about everything he does. In short, stop guzzling the propaganda and start thinking for yourselves.

 

[Genx87]

I swear some of you get stupider and more hysterical by the day. What Holder said is simply and obviously true, and always has been.
First, look at what he actually said there. There's not a word about drones; that's just nutter fear mongering. He said there are imaginable cases where the military might be called to use lethal force within the U.S. He didn't specify what form that force might take.

Really? This was right after your quote and was included in my OP

“has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial.”

Second, every single one of you can imagine such circumstances, and you're lying if you say otherwise. For example, what if North Korea invaded with an armored attack force? Can you honestly say you'd demand our military sit on its thumbs and do nothing? Let civilian law enforcement handle it so the NK soldiers got due process? If you said yes you're a liar. But, if you said no, that you'd expect the military to act ... congratulations, you and Holder have something in common. You have imagined 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. I guess that means you're out of control too, huh?

You arent even trying to address what he said. He specifically said US citizens on US soil. Not a foreign military invasion force.

Or let's focus on the one scenario Holder mentions, a September 11 style attack. Imagine that we know we have a hijacked jumbo jet that's going to fly into a large building. Can you truly not imagine the military possibly shooting the plane down? Really? You're lying unless you were stranded on a deserted island on 9/11/2001, because that exact possibility was discussed. Once again, you have now imagined 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.

This one is more plausible but I dont think that is where we are headed given this admins desire to hit American citizens without trial. And their extremely vague legal explanation as to why.

 

[zsdersw]

democrats:
torture of foreigners = bad
phone taps of foreigners = bad
g.bay prison = bad

drone killing of Americans = good.

You're such a tool. Take your mouth off of Republican cocks for a second and join the rest of us in the real world.

 

[Bowfinger]

Really? This was right after your quote and was included in my OP

L2read, FFS. Those are Rand Paul's words, not Holder's.

You arent even trying to address what he said. He specifically said US citizens on US soil. Not a foreign military invasion force.

Ditto. Once again, Paul's words.

This one is more plausible but I dont think that is where we are headed given this admins desire to hit American citizens without trial. And their extremely vague legal explanation as to why.

Your speculation is irrelevant here. The article is about what Holder actually said, then twisting it into something else entirely. That's my point. You rely on nutter media sources that are focused on keeping the outrage fueled, not on accurately reporting news, and you uncritically swallow every word they spew. Get out of the fscking bubble. Learn to think for yourself.

 

[Genx87]

Ahh yes, good catch. I posted it late and read it too quickly. Ill take my beating for over reacting.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Yes. And the guy behind the screen may not have taken the same oath of service (to support, protect, defend the constitution...) as they guy flying the F-xx.

A person in front of a computer screen in a military facility somewhere pushing a button like it's a video game is much less attached to the situation than a pilot with complete control of the situation in the air.

A guy in front of a screen is much more likely to follow orders to kill fellow citizens.

Psychological detachment is the issue.