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

[Acid Trip]

Now the US government can kill US citizens, on US soil, without a trial. This is not a dream or a joke and sets a terrible precedent.

Attorney General Eric Holder can imagine a scenario in which it would be constitutional to carry out a drone strike against and 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.

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.

[RBP]

Wow.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Yet waterboarding terrorists is illegal :roll:

[Teh One Who Knocks]

FOX News and The Associated Press


http://i.imgur.com/OWryGTq.jpg

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., is blasting Attorney General Eric Holder's assertion that the government could conceivably use drones against its own citizens in the U.S. as "frightening," saying such an action would violate the Constitution.

Paul was responding to comments by Holder released Tuesday before the Senate Intelligence Committee approved the nomination of John Brennan, President Obama's pick to be his next C.I.A. Director.

Paul said in a statement obtained by Fox News that Holder sent him two letters regarding the constitutionality of the use of legal force such as drones against Americans and on U.S. soil, after Paul petitioned Brennan to speak on the matter.

In the letter, Holder says the U.S. has never carried out a drone strike against one of its citizens on American soil, and calls a situation where such a strike may occur "entirely hypothetical" and "unlikely to occur."

However, Holder does not entirely rule out that such a scenario may occur in the future, and indicates that such a strike would be legal under the Constitution.

“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.

Holder said '"catastrophic" attacks such as the Sept. 11 attacks or the attack on Pearl Harbor are examples of circumstances where the president could conceivably feel such an action is necessary.

Paul says he is not satisfied with the Attorney General's response.

“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.

Paul says he also received a statement from Brennan, who stated that the C.I.A. does not have authority to order such operations be carried out.

Brennan vigorously defended the use of drone strikes during his confirmation hearing. He declined to say whether he believes waterboarding, which simulates drowning, amounted to torture. But he called the practice "reprehensible" and said it should never be done again. Obama ordered waterboarding banned shortly after taking office.

Drone strikes are employed only as a "last resort," Brennan told the committee. But he also said he had no qualms about going after U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in September 2011.

A drone strike in Yemen killed al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, both U.S. citizens. A drone strike two weeks later killed al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son, a Denver native.

[FBD]

ffs it doesnt matter how likely or not it is to occur, unconstitutional is unconstitutional

[perrhaps]

Let me play devil's advocate (no I'm not Eric Holder) for a minute here.

During WWII, if an American resident declared himself to be a Nazi Sympathizer, and detailed plans to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge were found in his house, do you think anyone in the country would have had a problem with him being shot on sight?

Is it the manner of death that upsets folks here?

[FBD]

if he only declared himself to be a nazi sympathizer he would have had more to worry about from the people instead of the police;

was his 4th violated when the plans were discovered? (and would they have just shot him? I mean unless he was already en route to committing the crime. its tough with hypotheticals like this.)

[Teh One Who Knocks]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

[perrhaps]

Thanks, Lance, but I believe that Act can be suspended under either martial law, or during an invasion upon American soil, right?

So, is an American citizen/resident who is a member of Al Qaeda an invader or foreign combatant upon American soil? Also, is he excluded from protections of the Geneva Convention (not that Al Qaeda recognizes it) because he isn't in miltary uniform?

This may be the only time I've agreed with "Fast and Furious" Holder on anything important, but if it's okay to use drones to kill Al Qaeada in Pakistan where thousands of miles away, I don't have a problem killing them the same way if they're on American soil.

[Acid Trip]

Thanks, Lance, but I believe that Act can be suspended under either martial law, or during an invasion upon American soil, right?

So, is an American citizen/resident who is a member of Al Qaeda an invader or foreign combatant upon American soil? Also, is he excluded from protections of the Geneva Convention (not that Al Qaeda recognizes it) because he isn't in miltary uniform?

This may be the only time I've agreed with "Fast and Furious" Holder on anything important, but if it's okay to use drones to kill Al Qaeada in Pakistan where thousands of miles away, I don't have a problem killing them the same way if they're on American soil.

The problem is that any enemy of the government could be labeled a terrorist and killed with a drone. There is no due process where the defendant has a chance to prove they aren't a terrorist.

They may just hate the administration and have a big mouth. Without due process you'd never know.

[redred]

don't break the law ,simple and don't live not door to anyone breaking the law just in case the drone misses

[Teh One Who Knocks]

don't break the law ,simple and don't live not door to anyone breaking the law just in case the drone misses

The people that moved in next to me act very weird....we call them Mole People because they are almost never outside (I've seen them once in the last 4 months) and their blinds are always closed.

[Acid Trip]

The people that moved in next to me act very weird....we call them Mole People because they are almost never outside (I've seen them once in the last 4 months) and their blinds are always closed.

Sounds like tweakers to me. Do you ever see them peeking out the blinds?

Could also be a grow house.

[FBD]

don't break the law ,simple and don't live not door to anyone breaking the law just in case the drone misses

I hate this pissass non-response, as if "the law" is always unequivocally 100% "right/correct" and not some asshole's arbitrary pet crusade.

[redred]

ok i'll reword it , don't make bombs inside your home and put a sign outside saying that your main wish for the year is to kill the government

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Sounds like tweakers to me. Do you ever see them peeking out the blinds?

Could also be a grow house.

Never noticed if they are looking outside or not. Sometimes I have seen them come home from work, but as soon as they are near their house the garage door goes up, they pull in, door goes down. They put their trash out for pick-up in the middle of the night and when it snows, they shovel their driveway in the middle of the night (it isn't done when I go to bed but when I leave for work at 3:30 AM it's done).

[redred]

maybe they work odd shift patterns

[FBD]

ok i'll reword it , don't make bombs inside your home and put a sign outside saying that your main wish for the year is to kill the government

:lol:

[redred]

Better ? :lol: