Holder: Yes, Obama can kill American Citizens on American soil with no trial...

Damocles

Damocles

Accedo!
Staff member
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...ill-americans-u-soil-213059085--politics.html

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.”

More at link...
 
Howey said:
You gotta love how after the if's, and's, but's, maybe's andthree paragraphs of Holder telling Paul it will never, ever happen, Paul has to selective quote the last paragraph.

Here's the letter (pdf)

http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/BrennanHolderResponse.pdf
Click to expand...


No, the correct answer should have been "No, the President is not allowed to use drones to kill American citizens on our soil".

The nonsense about what they "intend" to do, or what they "hope" will never happen is wasted space. Every US citizen has a right to a trial.
 
WinterBorn said:
No, the correct answer should have been "No, the President is not allowed to use drones to kill American citizens on our soil".

The nonsense about what they "intend" to do, or what they "hope" will never happen is wasted space. Every US citizen has a right to a trial.
Click to expand...

Saying that Obama will NEVER do that, would be like him saying that he would NEVER raise taxes on the middle class.
 
Damocles said:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...ill-americans-u-soil-213059085--politics.html

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.”

More at link...
Click to expand...
And so what? Much ado about nothing. The President it our nations chief Law Enforcement officer. Just as a police officer has the right and duty to take the life of someone who is immenantly threatening the lives of innocents the President has the same responsibility and duty. If some nut job is imminently going to kill a large number of innocent people and the President gives the order to take out said nutjob with a drone strike then he is simply doing his duty as a law enforcement officer. I don't get what you're trying to accomplish Damo by posting someone elses strawman?
 
WinterBorn said:
No, the correct answer should have been "No, the President is not allowed to use drones to kill American citizens on our soil".

The nonsense about what they "intend" to do, or what they "hope" will never happen is wasted space. Every US citizen has a right to a trial.
Click to expand...
No they don't. If I have a gun pointed to your head with the hammer drawn back and the safety off and it looks eminently like I'm going to pop a cap in your head, then a police officer has the right to shoot my ass dead to protect you (or other innocents) with out giving me the benefit of a trial. Under similiar such circumstances the President, as our nations chief law enforcement officer can do the same thing to protect the lives of innocents from violent acts of criminals. Abviously this is a very conditional power but one that nearly all law enforcement officers have.
 
WinterBorn said:
No, the correct answer should have been "No, the President is not allowed to use drones to kill American citizens on our soil".

The nonsense about what they "intend" to do, or what they "hope" will never happen is wasted space. Every US citizen has a right to a trial.
Click to expand...

Governors have called out the national guard, cities use their police forces, to quelsh rioting. I believe, if necessary, the President would use drones.

This is the reason I don't like this technology. It could be used against us.
 
Rana said:
Governors have called out the national guard, cities use their police forces, to quelsh rioting. I believe, if necessary, the President would use drones.

This is the reason I don't like this technology. It could be used against us.
Click to expand...
Well certainly such powers must have extreme limits but there is a time and a place for them too. That's why the OP is a strawman.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
No they don't. If I have a gun pointed to your head with the hammer drawn back and the safety off and it looks eminently like I'm going to pop a cap in your head, then a police officer has the right to shoot my ass dead to protect you (or other innocents) with out giving me the benefit of a trial. Under similiar such circumstances the President, as our nations chief law enforcement officer can do the same thing to protect the lives of innocents from violent acts of criminals. Abviously this is a very conditional power but one that nearly all law enforcement officers have.
Click to expand...

False comparison.
 
Howey said:
You gotta love how after the if's, and's, but's, maybe's andthree paragraphs of Holder telling Paul it will never, ever happen, Paul has to selective quote the last paragraph.

Here's the letter (pdf)

http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/BrennanHolderResponse.pdf
Click to expand...

It won't happen right until it's convenient. They express that they are legally allowed to blow up americans, but they promise not to do it...

Isn't that the same promise the rest of the world has that we won't nuke them?

America is great at promises. Fulfilling them is a bit harder.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
And so what? Much ado about nothing. The President it our nations chief Law Enforcement officer. Just as a police officer has the right and duty to take the life of someone who is immenantly threatening the lives of innocents the President has the same responsibility and duty. If some nut job is imminently going to kill a large number of innocent people and the President gives the order to take out said nutjob with a drone strike then he is simply doing his duty as a law enforcement officer. I don't get what you're trying to accomplish Damo by posting someone elses strawman?
Click to expand...

Due process!
 
Mott the Hoople said:
No they don't. If I have a gun pointed to your head with the hammer drawn back and the safety off and it looks eminently like I'm going to pop a cap in your head, then a police officer has the right to shoot my ass dead to protect you (or other innocents) with out giving me the benefit of a trial. Under similiar such circumstances the President, as our nations chief law enforcement officer can do the same thing to protect the lives of innocents from violent acts of criminals. Abviously this is a very conditional power but one that nearly all law enforcement officers have.
Click to expand...

I wonder if the drone will pause to try to talk you out of it.......
 
I don't understand how the use of drones is relevant to the basic question. Either the President has the authority to authorize the use of deadly force against American citizens on U.S. soil (or in U.S. airspace, presumably) or he doesn't. The weapon he uses to carry out that authority, assuming he has it, is irrelevant.

I don't see how it's any better (or worse) for the President to have the authority to use drones, or guns, or missiles, or dogs, or bees, or dogs with bees in their mouths and when they bark they shoot bees at you.
 
Damocles said:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...ill-americans-u-soil-213059085--politics.html

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.”

More at link...
Click to expand...

I would have to question him about what circumstances. It is not necessarly a change in the law at all... The FBI, a branch of the Executive Branch has always had the authority to use deadly force in self defense or the defense of others.
 
Rune said:
False comparison.
Click to expand...

How so? Its an exact comparison. If someone has a gun to my head, if the FBI is around (drone or not) I hope they will use deadly force. If a drone is the most effective way to do it... GOOD.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top