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

[BucEyedPea]

Whoa!

“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.”

[Rand] 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.

I like the response by Clarity2016 to this:
"I have a feeling a large majority of Americans would support a Constitutional Amendment outlawing the use of drone strikes on American soil against our citizenry. Why don't we just pass that so that there isn't any ambiguity for Mr. Holder?"

Sounds like a good idea.

[BucEyedPea]

Pelosi: Obama can keep drone strikes against Americans a secret

http://washingtonexaminer.com/articl...808?slideout=1

[BucEyedPea]

The Obama govt is a govt against the people. He's preparing to slaughter us should we fight his tyranny.

[listopencil]

Has Holder ever taken a position on an issue that was opposed to the POTUS?

[Brock]

Does the president have the authority to utilize military force within the borders of the United States against US citizens? I believe so, but I haven't studied on it. If so, what difference does it make if drones are used?

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Brock

Does the president have the authority to utilize military force within the borders of the United States against US citizens? I believe so, but I haven't studied on it. If so, what difference does it make if drones are used?

I believe this issue relates the idea of due process being denied. How do we know if the person is really guilty too. Only place I can see is if others are in imminent danger, but this should be a matter for local police.

[Tangeuray]

Targeted killings: OK if Obama does it?
Salon exclusive: Study finds "liberals" more likely to favor targeted killings once they know it’s Obama's policy

Cant link article...

[KC Dan]

http://www.salon.com/2013/02/19/targ...obama_does_it/

[Brock]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

I believe this issue relates the idea of due process being denied. How do we know if the person is really guilty too. Only place I can see is if others are in imminent danger, but this should be a matter for local police.

Right. I understand your objection to military force in these instances, but again, drone strikes are no more egregious than a helicopter or jet strike.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by Brock

Right. I understand your objection to military force in these instances, but again, drone strikes are no more egregious than a helicopter or jet strike.

It makes a difference to me when considering the role of each of those three options. I could see a jet going after someone who is in a vehicle and is trying to commit an act of domestic terrorism. Maybe it's a group of terrorists in a plane trying to pull something and shooting down the plane is the only option. I could see a helicopter being used in more of a fixed position or against a ground threat. Maybe the guy(s) have commandeered military vehicle(s) from a depot and are heading to a population center/high profile target with it. I realize that there are many types of UAV's available, but I tend to think of drones as hunter/killers good for recon and small/single target missions. My impression is that drones function more like a telepresence assassin.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Brock

Does the president have the authority to utilize military force within the borders of the United States against US citizens? I believe so, but I haven't studied on it. If so, what difference does it make if drones are used?

This is nothing new.

If you are getting ready to kill a bunch of Americans and they kill you before you kill innocent Americans. Thats a good outcome.

Both George W. and Obama have publicly stated they would authorize the military shooting down a civilian airliner filled with Americans if the plane is hijacked and heading towards a population zone.

And if I was on that hijacked plane, I'd want them to shoot it down also. We are probably dead already. Why risk the terrorists using us all as a missile to take out more on the ground?

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Brock

Right. I understand your objection to military force in these instances, but again, drone strikes are no more egregious than a helicopter or jet strike.

No it's not military force I object to, it's the lack of due process or no trial before losing one's life. This is the danger. However, I would think drones are easier to use. Have you seen all the little small ones they even have? One that looks like a bird perched on a wire...and the poof you're dead.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

No it's not military force I object to, it's the lack of due process.

Either way.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

This is nothing new.

If you are getting ready to kill a bunch of Americans and they kill you before you kill innocent Americans. Thats a good outcome.

Both George W. and Obama have publicly stated they would authorize the military shooting down a civilian airliner filled with Americans if the plane is hijacked and heading towards a population zone.

And if I was on that hijacked plane, I'd want them to shoot it down also. We are probably dead already. Why risk the terrorists using us all as a missile to take out more on the ground?

Only problem is there's really not a lot of terrorism in America. Terrorism is being used as scare tactics. Then the other thing to consider, is who DHS is labeling as terrorists. Napolitano consider them to be members of the Tea Party, Patriot movement, Constitutionalists and Paul supporters. This viewpoint is NO different than calling insurgents trying to get rid of an occupier a terrorist. I mean this is what our first revolutionaries were.

Between this and the gun issue...we are treading in dangerous territory.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Brock

Either way.

Well, I need to clarify that...I am opposed to use of the military for police work. Just not for other things. My overriding concern is due process because we have to rely on the govt being the judge, jury and executioner here. Also, until 9/11, terrorism by our own government was treated as a crime with a long history of treating it that way.