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

Jarod said:
False. Government can premeditate the killing of people and does all the time. See the example of the kidnapper with the kid in the hole in Alabama.
Click to expand...

Are you seriously comparing the kidnap case with government killing by drones ?.....I'm glad you're a prosecuter, you're much too stupid to defend anyone.
 
Rand Paul did not ask a stupid hypothetical question. Holder just pretended that he did, dropped the context and evaded the important points so that he could craft a dishonest answer (the same way Cheney did) that satisfies fools like jarod and ditzy.

Yes, yes, we all understand that if an American terrorist has taken your daughter and if the President was in position to kill him with a drone strike without somehow killing your daughter you would want him to act. Now how about answering some of the real questions instead of these bullshit Hollywood scenarios? I thought these Walter Mitty fantasy arguments were trademarked by fat white dudes trying to justify owning a bazooka?

http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/Brennan1.pdf
http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/Brennan2.pdf
http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/Brennan3.pdf
 
Sir Digby Chicken Caesar said:
Rand Paul did not ask a stupid hypothetical question. Holder just pretended that he did, dropped the context and evaded the important points so that he could craft a dishonest answer (the same way Cheney did) that satisfies fools like jarod and ditzy.

Yes, yes, we all understand that if an American terrorist has taken your daughter and if the President was in position to kill him with a drone strike without somehow killing your daughter you would want him to act. Now how about answering some of the real questions instead of these bullshit Hollywood scenarios? I thought these Walter Mitty fantasy arguments were trademarked by fat white dudes trying to justify owning a bazooka?

http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/Brennan1.pdf
http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/Brennan2.pdf
http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/Brennan3.pdf
Click to expand...


The first question in the Brennan2 letter is indeed stupid and hypothetical.
 
Dungheap said:
The first question in the Brennan2 letter is indeed stupid and hypothetical.
Click to expand...

It is not. He asked whether the President has the right to kill a US citizen on US soil. It is not a highly contrived situation like the ones that Holder limited his response too. It was not at all limited to a drone strike. "Such as" indicates an example. All of the other questions asked make it clear that he was trying to gain some greater transparency on the limits and checks on this assumed power. Holder dropped the context to answer in an evasive and manipulative way.

The attacks on Rand Paul are clear and blatant ad hom. They ignore the content and context and instead try to focus attention solely on Rand.
 
Annie said:
Wow, watching this issue across different boards and am simply amazed that the same folks that had problems with drone use in Pakistan mountains under Bush, have evolved to justifying the use of such against Americans on American soil under Obama.
Click to expand...

And the same folks that had NO problems when bush used drones are now against Obama's use of them.
 
Indeed:

http://www.rollcall.com/news/deal_on_drone_documents_opens_path_for_brennan-222847-1.html?pos=oplyh

Before the filibuster:

Deal on Drone Documents Opens Path for Brennan as Panel Backs Nomination

* By Tim Starks
* Roll Call Staff
* March 5, 2013, 3:07 p.m.

The confirmation prospects for John O. Brennan to become CIA director got a boost Tuesday with Senate Intelligence Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein announcing that the administration would supply her panel with additional legal opinions on the targeted killing of U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism overseas. The committee then approved his nomination Tuesday afternoon in a closed 12-3 vote.

Senators on both sides of the aisle had demanded the documents, but the committee had only viewed four of the 11 Office of Legal Counsel memos, and Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., had not ruled out the possibility of putting a hold on Brennan’s nomination until the rest were handed over. Feinstein’s announcement appears to remove that threat to his confirmation.

“I have reached an agreement with the White House to provide the committee access to all OLC opinions related to the targeted killing of Americans in a way that allows members to fulfill their oversight responsibilities,” the California Democrat said in a press release. “I am pleased the administration has made this information available. It is important for the committee to do its work and will pave the way for the confirmation of John Brennan to be CIA director.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Monday that he plans a full Senate vote on Brennan this week.

Wyden, along with fellow Intelligence panel members Mark Udall, D-Colo., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, praised the administration’s decision to share the legal opinions.

“We anticipate supporting the nomination of John Brennan to be Director of the CIA and we appreciate that the executive branch has provided us with the documents needed to consider this nomination,” the trio said Tuesday in a written statement. “Mr. Brennan will be the principled and effective leader that the dedicated men and women of the CIA deserve and we look forward to working with him in his new capacity.”

They also suggested that they would consider legislation related to drone strikes in the future.

“The appropriate next step should be to bring the American people into this debate and for Congress to consider ways to ensure that the President’s sweeping authorities are subject to appropriate limitations, oversight, and safeguards,” they wrote.

The agreement on the drone documents does not clear every barrier to Brennan’s confirmation, however.

Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina have both threatened holds over information related to last year’s terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., has also threatened a hold until the Obama administration answers publicly whether it can conduct drone strikes within the United States.

Paul said Tuesday that he received a useful answer from Brennan.

In a March 5 letter to Paul, Brennan wrote, “I can, however, state unequivocally that the agency I have been nominated to lead, the CIA, does not conduct lethal operations inside the United States — nor does it have any authority to do so.”

Said Paul, “That is the answer I was looking for.”

But Paul added that he had received a more equivocal answer from Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.

“The U.S. government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and have no intention of doing so,” Holder wrote Paul on March 4. But, he added, “It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and the appropriate laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States.” He mentioned the Pearl Harbor and Sept. 11 attacks as possible examples.

Holder “basically said that they don’t intend to do it and they probably won’t do it but he can imagine a circumstance where they might,” Paul said. “My problem is, I don’t know the exact number, but if I had to guess, a significant number of the drone strikes are on people walking down a pathway, people eating dinner, people in a cafe. They may be bad people, but you can’t use that kind of standard in the United States to kill people eating in a cafe in San Francisco because they emailed somebody.”

He added, “That’s not the way we operate, and it disturbs me that the president will not answer unequivocally that he won’t do that and can’t do that and there’s no authority for him to do that with the military of the United States.”

Paul said he is re-evaluating whether or not to place a hold on Brennan.

Either way, the sharing of additional OLC memos should help Brennan’s chances of overcoming a filibuster.

Matt Fuller contributed to this report.
Click to expand...
 
Sir Digby Chicken Caesar said:
It is not. He asked whether the President has the right to kill a US citizen on US soil. It is not a highly contrived situation like the ones that Holder limited his response too. It was not at all limited to a drone strike. "Such as" indicates an example. All of the other questions asked make it clear that he was trying to gain some greater transparency on the limits and checks on this assumed power. Holder dropped the context to answer in an evasive and manipulative way.

The attacks on Rand Paul are clear and blatant ad hom. They ignore the content and context and instead try to focus attention solely on Rand.
Click to expand...


If he wanted a better answer, he should have asked a better question. And I'm not attacking him personally. In fact, I agree with what he's doing. I just think he should have been quite a bit more specific and careful in the wording of his question.
 
Apparently, Holder has issued a second letter that narrows the issue somewhat:

The U.S. government cannot target an American citizen who is not engaged in combat on American soil, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Thursday during his daily press briefing.

Carney said that Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) had on Thursday asked the administration if the president has the authority to use a mechanized drone against an American on U.S. soil who is not engaged in hostile activities. "The answer to that question is no," Carney said, reading from a new a letter from Attorney General Eric Holder addressed to Paul.
Click to expand...

That's a better response to a (slightlky) better question, but there's still a lot that's unknown and that should be openly addressed.


http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/carney-affirms-limits-to-governments-authority-to-use
 
Dungheap said:
If he wanted a better answer, he should have asked a better question. And I'm not attacking him personally. In fact, I agree with what he's doing. I just think he should have been quite a bit more specific and careful in the wording of his question.
Click to expand...

He asked several questions. As you said in another post there is a lot that is unknown and should be addressed. So there are many questions to be asked. Holder chose to limit his response to the one he could answer in the most evasive and manipulative way. Many have attacked Rand based on this strawman tactic but it seems he may be vindicated.
 
Sir Digby Chicken Caesar said:
He asked several questions. As you said in another post there is a lot that is unknown and should be addressed. So there are many questions to be asked. Holder chose to limit his response to the one he could answer in the most evasive and manipulative way. Many have attacked Rand based on this strawman tactic but it seems he may be vindicated.
Click to expand...


Look, I don't want to fight with you over this. My point is simply that Rand Paul should not have given Holder the opportunity to evade the legitimate points he was raising by asking a stupid question.
 
tinfoil said:
Because the person being targeted, presuming they're a US citizen (which is what we're talking about), is afforded due process in this country.
Why can't you follow the thread? All this is upthread already.

This country sucks because people like you are such idiots
Click to expand...


Ok, let me ask you... When the FBI killed the kidnapper in Alabama who held that kid in a hole... was it not premeditated?
 
tinfoil said:
Because the person being targeted, presuming they're a US citizen (which is what we're talking about), is afforded due process in this country.
Why can't you follow the thread? All this is upthread already.

This country sucks because people like you are such idiots
Click to expand...

1) This country does not suck, if you think it does, you are welcome to leave.
2) Are you saying that the Government never kills anyone without due process? Tell that to David Koresh or the guy who kidnapped that kid in Alabama last month, or many many more people who have been killed in the act of injuring people.
 
Jarod said:
IDK, im imagining a senario, so lets pretend the hostages are tied up in a farmhouse that is 100 yards away from the main group of terrorists. All approaches are mined and being guarded by a small group of 3 less intelegent terrorists, who based on intelegence we know will give up once the main group has been destroyed.
Click to expand...

And the only way they can be saved is by bruce willis whose wife is being held by the terrorists.


You could also devise a situation where the only option was a nuclear strike, doesn't make it likely or proof that nuclear strikes are a good idea.
 
Jarod said:
That is not necessarly so. Anyway, even if it were premeditated that does not make it illegal.

The FBI reciently shot and killed that guy who held a kid in a hole in ALABAMA. They planned for the attack, they practiced at a remote site, they targeted the kidnapper. Id say it was premeditated.

Was that unconstitutional? Do you not belive they had the authority to do that?
Click to expand...

Don't address me any more, useful idiot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top