Obama Administration Says President Can Use Lethal Force Against Americans on US Soil

[green for victory]

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/03/obama-admin-says-it-can-use-lethal-force-against-americans-us-soil

Yes, the president does have the authority to use military force against American citizens on US soil—but only in "an extraordinary circumstance," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a letter to Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) Tuesday.

"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," Paul said Tuesday. "It is an affront the constitutional due process rights of all Americans."

Last month, Paul threatened to filibuster the nomination of John Brennan, Obama's pick to head the CIA, "until he answers the question of whether or not the President can kill American citizens through the drone strike program on U.S. soil." Tuesday, Brennan told Paul that "the agency I have been nominated to lead does not conduct lethal operations inside the United States—nor does it have any authority to do so." Brennan said that the Justice Department would answer Paul's question about whether Americans could be targeted for lethal strikes on US soil.

Holder's answer was more detailed, however, stating that under certain circumstances, the president would have the authority to order lethal attacks on American citizens. The two possible examples of such "extraordinary" circumstances were the attack on Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 terrorist attacks. An American president order the use of lethal military force inside the US is "entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront," Holder wrote. Here's the bulk of the letter:-->>MORE>>

[Buffalo Bull]

1. Obama should rethink

The use of deadly force with officers or civilians in immediate danger is one thing. The use of deadly force with no police officer or civilian in danger; No warrant or process, no attempt to capture by conventional means....
A solid and legal process needs to be spelled out now, one that could withstand W. because in three years there going to be another election

[jberryhill]

67. "with no police officer or civilian in danger"

Where does it say that? It refers to things like catastrophic attacks, Pearl Harbor etc. There were quite a few folks in imminent danger during those events.

[Buffalo Bull]

212. Pearl Harbor?

So They are justifying the conclusion that it is legal to use drones against United States citizens, with the thought that drones would be use full during a catastrophic attack.
It is absurd to use Pearl Harbor as your example. Lets not limit our disasters to attacks form an enemy, lets include Hurricane Katrina or the San Francisco earthquake.

Do tell us how many Americans FDR would have fired a drone at?
How many drones would W. used against Katrina?

[jberryhill]

214. No, I am not justifying any conclusion

I am pointing out the irrational insertion of a phrase nowhere in sight in the original.

[Buffalo Bull]

216. mea culpa

the wording was inept and it did not fit very well.
The threshold for use is so ill defined that it isn't clear that it would be reserved only for situation when US citizens, govt officials are in imminent danger. A prophylactic strike isn't ruled out. Rand Paul was even worse in his use of the language than I when he used Jane Fonda as a potential target.

I also participate in topix forum which is 75% GOP they are having a ball with this one.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. Only an extraordinary circumstance

That we couldn't tell you about.

But trust us, it will be really, really extraordinary.

Courts suck.

[Bolo Boffin]

4. Except that Holder does tell you about three concrete examples.

The Civil War, Pearl Harbor, and 9/11.

[HereSince1628]

7. Are we not as a nation STILL engaged in responding to 9/11? I think we are.

I find no comfort at all in support for John Yoo's contention that due process doesn't apply to presidential orders.

[MannyGoldstein]

9. But he won't be able to tell us, or a court, why it's been done

The victim will suddenly turn to Freedom Mist, and we'll be told he or she was a really important terra-ist who was so dangerous that we couldn't ask the courts to weigh in on the matter.

[green for victory]

16. "Freedom Mist" That would be funny if it wasn't so sad n/t

[randome]

119. It's still kind of funny.

[SammyWinstonJack]

168. US democracy=Freedom Mist or vice versa.

[ProSense]

13. Exactly.

<...>

Holder's answer was more detailed, however, stating that under certain circumstances, the president would have the authority to order lethal attacks on American citizens. The two possible examples of such "extraordinary" circumstances were the attack on Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 terrorist attacks. An American president order the use of lethal military force inside the US is "entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront," Holder wrote. Here's the bulk of the letter:

As members of this administration have previously indicated, the US government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so. As a policy matter moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat. We have a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad. Hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts.

The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront. 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. For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.

- more -

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/03/obama-admin-says-it-can-use-lethal-force-against-americans-us-soil

Senator Wyden made that point in a recent statement.

“As I and ten other senators told the President yesterday, if individual Americans choose to take up arms against the United States, there will clearly be some circumstances in which the President has the authority to use lethal force against those Americans, just as President Lincoln had the authority to use force against the Confederate Army during the Civil War. At the same time, it is vitally important for Congress and the American public to have a full understanding of how the executive branch interprets this authority, so that Congress and the public can decide whether the President’s power to deliberately kill American citizens is subject to appropriate limitations and safeguards. Every American has the right to know when their government believes that it is allowed to kill them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022320280

This is not new, and no one is advocating the use of lethal force on American soil, but if this shuts Rand Paul up, I'm all for it.

It's sickening that assholes like Rand Paul get to demagogue these issues. He doesn't give a fuck about people and their lives.

Making hundreds of thousands hungry or homeless: 'Brutal' or 'a pittance'?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022457325

[jberryhill]

82. Yes, but...

He should just come out and say:

"We will only use them if Pearl Harbor is attacked by Japanese or terrorists start flying planes into buildings."

That will safely rule out their indiscriminate use against anything else, and we'll be all set.

How fucking stupid do some people expect others to be?

[G_j]

125. Who knows?

lets just trust them.,.,

[jberryhill]

130. Could I ask you one question?

Do you know that the president has had, for decades, the unilateral sole and unquestioned ability to launch our entire nuclear weapons arsenal, possibly leading to the general uninhabitability of the entire surface of the planet and the extinction of the human species?

How have you managed to get along with this knowledge?

[G_j]

139. I wasn't thrilled. nt

[jberryhill]

143. "Wasn't"?

It's still true. It remains true for every president.

Unfortunately, it is our responsibility to elect people who will wield insanely destructive power responsibly - i.e. not at all in the case of nuclear weapons.

Given the personal power that a president has, completely under the relevant law, to unleash hellfire across the entire surface of the planet, there is a core level at which, yes, you had better make darn sure it is a person of sound judgment.

[treestar]

179. So it would not be an attack "on Americans"

but an attempt at defense of American soil, making the wording of the headlines entirely disingenuous.

[HiPointDem]

24. and i don't recall the us government assassinating anybody at will in any of those either.

[WinkyDink]

189. And just whom does AG Holder think should/could have been so targeted in those events?

[Bolo Boffin]

206. Jesus Christ, why don't you and Ted Cruz go ask him? n/t

[jberryhill]

78. Oh, definitely, there should be a list

How do you make a list of things constituting a catastrophic attack along the lines of Pearl Harbor, etc.?

Your objection is a classic lawyer game.

I was writing a lease for an internet domain name a while back, and the basic idea is that if the guy using the domain name was engaged in child pornography, spam, spreading viruses and other unlawful acts, then the owner had the right to shut the domain name off and thus turn off the website, in order to protect himself from liability for whatever nasty crap the lessee might do.

The guy kept taking out "other unlawful acts", asking "what 'other unlawful acts'", as if there was some kind of definitive list of "illegal crap you can do on the internet".

Eventually, I had to tell the client that it seemed to me that the guy seemed as if he'd come up with a new way to commit some sort of crime on the internet, because that is the point of trying to limit things like that to a specific defined set of crimes - i.e. to get the green light to commit one not on the list.

The government is never going to categorically rule out the use of any weapon that might be necessary for a compelling and as-yet unanticipated imminent threat. The problem with "unanticipated imminent threats" toward which the weapon might be well suited is that they are just that - unanticipated imminent threats.

So then the game becomes, "They won't tell us what they would use it for". It's such a damned stupid game.

[MannyGoldstein]

196. In your case, what's illegal is (or should be) subject to some sort of judicial review

The White House is claiming that the Judiciary has zero right to review. Without warning, you can become Freedom Mist, and nobody will ever know why, nor will there be any means for your next of kin to right the wrong. In fact, your 16-year-old son could become Freedom Mist too.

That's the problem. No check or balance.

[jberryhill]

197. No it's not

If someone wants to rent your car, and you find out they are hauling drugs across the border with it, the point is to get that car back BEFORE it gets impounded.

This kind of provision is common in lease contracts, because the owner can lose the rented asset if it gets to the point where they get caught.

[MannyGoldstein]

198. But the renting party can go to court and show that what they were doing was not illegal

then you're on the hook. Unless they've signed a dumb contract.

In the case of a lease, a landlord can order a tenant out immediately if she has solid evidence that something illegal is going on. Try that without solid evidence, and you'll be in a world of civil and/or legal pain.

The estates of Freedom Mistees, and for that matter law enforcement officials, have no ability to mitigate a wrong after the fact. Zero accountability. No check or balance.

[Marr]

191. It's worth noting that this is the same team that recently redefined "imminent attack"

to mean, 'something that we think might be done someday, even if we have no evidence whatsoever that the individual in question has ever even thought about it'.

"Extraordinary circumstance" could be applied to just about anything.

[GRENADE]

3. absolutely

ludicrous, what country is this again?

[WillyT]

5. Yep... K & R !!!

[WillyT]

11. And HERE... Is The Actual Letter (.pdf file):

Link: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/A_U.S.%20news/US-news-PDFs/BrennanHolderResponse.pdf

[Fire Walk With Me]

21. Thank you... n/t

[WillyT]

150. You Are Quite Welcome !!!

[struggle4progress]

199. "... We have a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals

located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad. Hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts. The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront. 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 ... I would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the President on the scope of his authority ..."

Holder makes no claims one way or the other, except to say in some "hypothetical, unlikely to occur" event he "would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the President"

[LiberalEsto]

6. This scares the crap out of me

Just picture the next repug president using this lethal force against us.
Anything they don't like will become an "extraordinary circumstance".

[SidDithers]

8. Fuck Rand Paul...nt

Sid

[MannyGoldstein]

10. Yeah! The President should be free to explodify anyone he wants.

Even Republican Presidents need this important tool.

[SidDithers]

12. Third Party Manny strikes again...nt

Sid

[geek tragedy]

18. Should Lincoln have been impeached for ordering the US army

to shoot at American citizens at Gettysburg?

[MannyGoldstein]

23. They were actively engaged in a capital criminal act.

So I'd have to go with "no".

You?

[geek tragedy]

25. So, how are you disagreeing with Eric Holder then? nt

[MannyGoldstein]

42. The President has reserved the right to kill anyone who he just kinda suspects might do something

The Confederacy was more than a hunch.

[geek tragedy]

44. Manny, maybe you should read the letter instead of Rand Paul's press release

before making that accusation.

[MannyGoldstein]

48. I did.

Where does the letter contradict me?

I hope to God it does.

Rand Paul is generally a looney. Probably by dumb luck, he's right on this one.

[geek tragedy]

141. Here's what Holder wrote:

the US government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so. As a policy matter moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat. We have a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad. Hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts.

[MannyGoldstein]

142. Good! And *who* determines when "well-established law enforcement authorities"

are the way to go?

[geek tragedy]

144. he's stating that law enforcement *IS* the better way of dealing with it.

Note the following two sentences.

[MannyGoldstein]

146. I understand. But what's the answer to my question? nt

[geek tragedy]

148. I don't follow you. Holder is stating that the admin has decided

that law enforcement is the absolutely superior and proper way to go, explicitly rejecting the use of the military to disrupt terror plots.

[MannyGoldstein]

164. So terror plots will only ever be disrupted by law enforcement, working with the courts?

That's good to know.

But I don't think that's what Holder said. He said that they'll use traditional law enforcement mechanisms, unless they decide not to.

[geek tragedy]

167. Holder won't be in office past January 19, 2017.

What Holder didn't answer was the "could you have blown away al Awlaki if he were in the Utah desert?" question.

Unfortunately, Rand Paul was too stupid to ask that question.

[ProSense]

20. "Not to excuse it, but in the context of a world war, it's somewhat more forgivable to me."

You said it yourself:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2461402
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2462288

[SidDithers]

32. Exactly...

Manny is very selective about who is allowed to violate the civil rights of Americans.

Sid

[MannyGoldstein]

33. Terra! Terra! Everywhere! Terra!

Every phone call might be TERRA! Every email! Every gathering! Every letter!

Terra!

Terra!

War!

Terra!

[ProSense]

43. Holder's comments are nothing like the dramatic and hyperbolic spin.

"Not to excuse it, but in the context of a world war, it's somewhat more forgivable to me."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2462288

[MannyGoldstein]

52. Are we at war? nt

[ProSense]

64. Wait,

"Are we at war?"

...did Holder mention anything about being at war?

<...>

Holder's answer was more detailed, however, stating that under certain circumstances, the president would have the authority to order lethal attacks on American citizens. The two possible examples of such "extraordinary" circumstances were the attack on Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 terrorist attacks. An American president order the use of lethal military force inside the US is "entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront," Holder wrote. Here's the bulk of the letter:

As members of this administration have previously indicated, the US government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so. As a policy matter moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat. We have a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad. Hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts.

The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront. 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. For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.

- more -

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/03/obama-admin-says-it-can-use-lethal-force-against-americans-us-soil

"Not to excuse it, but in the context of a world war, it's somewhat more forgivable to me."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2461402
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2462288

[MannyGoldstein]

147. Um... I thought *you* mentioned war?

And I thought there was a point to your mentioning it?

[whatchamacallit]

14. Amazing, at first glance I thought this to be parody of people like you

Then I saw it was you!

[Cha]

58. Fuck Rand Paul.

[whatchamacallit]

70. I agree

he's a douchebag, but even though it doesn't matter to people like you, the inquiry is valid, and the answer is unacceptable.

[Cha]

89. No, the answer is not "unacceptable".. it's perfectly reasonable

that there might be extraordinary circumstances in which it might be necessary.

[whatchamacallit]

103. Well that's good enough for me

*Bleat*

[enlightenment]

138. Made me laugh.

Unexpected in this pretty awful thread.
Thanks.

[Logical]

154. LOL, like cops only shoot people under extreme cases!

[Logical]

153. The "blind" support is strong in this one!! n-t

[WinkyDink]

190. He's right on this issue.

[Marr]

192. ", he said, shaking his fist defiantly in his comfortable room in Canada.

[SidDithers]

193. ...

Sid

[geek tragedy]

15. Holder's response is entirely right on all points, and those hyperventilating

about it really should think about why it was unconstitutional for Lincoln to order US troops to shoot at the confederate army.

Or why it would be unconstitutional to order the air force plane filled with explosives headed for the Empire State building.

It goes without saying that the US armed services can be used to defend the US if it's under armed attack.

[green for victory]

17. "under armed attack"- missed that part. Where? n/t

[geek tragedy]

22. Did you miss the examples cited by Holder? 9/11 and Pearl Harbor,

What do those events have in common?

[demwing]

136. Well, for one, neither were caused by Americans

So what the hell kind of examples are they to justify killing Americans?

[geek tragedy]

140. Shooting down the hijacked planes would have meant the US

military killing everyone on board those planes, correct?

[demwing]

161. Unavoidable civilian casualties is not the issue

Nor does it seem to be a limit set by Holder. However, if that were the only instance where lethal force might be used, then state it explicitly.

We're talking about, on the other hand, is targeting Americans. Not the same thing at all.

BTW, tell me why the President would use a drone against a passenger plane, rather than using a jet fighter?

[geek tragedy]

162. Unavoidable civilian casualties? That would have involved shooting a missile

directly at the people in the plane and intentionally causing their deaths.

That is most certainly the use of lethal force against US citizens, on US soil (in US airspace has same legal meaning) without a trial.

To put a very slight twist on it--what if an American was flying the plane?

The question was not whether he could use a drone, it was whether he could use lethal force.

Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.

[Mutiny In Heaven]

35. Look at the examples Holder gave

It's not fucking rocket science.

[demwing]

134. well it's not fucking explicit either

Don't you think there should be clearly defined rules for the extra-judicial killing of Americans , as opposed to a few vague examples?

[jberryhill]

145. Because that is not a do-able task

List every emergency in which you would, oh, evacuate your dwelling. Be specific.

[HiPointDem]

27. key words: "under armed attack". not the power that is being claimed.

[geek tragedy]

31. What power is being claimed? Did you even read the letter? nt

[HiPointDem]

54. yes. i did. and the wording is broad & misleading.

For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.

Of course, presidents & police departments already have the power to use force against imminent attack or threat of harm to others, and always have.

so what's he really talking about here?

about taking people out *before the event*, without trial.

fuck that.

fascism.

[geek tragedy]

62. You are making a factual misrepresentation.

Holder's letter does not refer to "taking people out before the fact."

Holder's letter refers explicitly to situations that you just conceded were constitutional.

Your need to be outraged is getting ahead of your need to be correct.

[HiPointDem]

85. it's not *explicit* at all.

"the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001."


"to protect the homeland" & "in the circumstances like" leave lots of wiggle room.

and again, if that's all he means, why does holder announce this as though it were some new thing, never done before?

"The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront."

[geek tragedy]

87. Because he was answering a direct question from Rand Paul.

Rand Paul asked him if it would ever be legal for the president to order the use of lethal force against American citizens on US soil without a trial.

It was a stupid ass question.

[jberryhill]

88. Okay, so

What language would you use to get rid of that "wiggle room" and still encompass extraordinary catastrophic aggressive action of some kind designed to cause mass casualties without immediate intervention?

[HiPointDem]

105. in this context, which is the ongoing use of *preemptive* force, on the basis of secret evidence,

against people who haven't had any due process --

If I wanted to rule out that kind of thing in the US, I would have said:

"The president has no constitutional authority to order preemptive strikes on american citizens without trial."

[jberryhill]

109. Ah okay

So you want a list of circumstances in which lethal force would not be used, so that it can be used in all other circumstances.

However, given the lack of such attacks in the US, it would seem that such events have never transpired, despite your characterization of the use of drone strikes abroad.

[HiPointDem]

114. "lethal force" is also too broad a term, because it's *targeted assassinations* that's going on.

*targeted assassinations* against specific people the us has deemed to be its official enemies.

and there seems to be a deliberate attempt to blur that distinction and roll everything together with use of lethal force during times of uprising, rebellion, civil war, and actual war.

but that's not what's going on here. The US is targeting specific individuals and killing them by remote control.

[jberryhill]

115. Missed the point

I'll try again.

Is it your contention that these targeted assassinations have been happening in the United States against US citizens?

Because, if not, then it is plainly apparent that the "extraordinary circumstances" which you and others wish to interpret as "on a whim" have apparently never occurred within the United States, as Holder is not asserting some "new" power. Hence, it would appear they are considerably more extraordinary than you want me to believe they are.

[HiPointDem]

123. the special circumstances that holder mentions clearly *have* happened before, as he lists 3

such situations.

but in those situations we did not use preemptive targeted assassinations -- even though it's clear that in all three the US had knowledge of leaders that *could have been* taken out.

[jberryhill]

131. Actually, we did try to use preemptive targeted assasination against Bin Laden

Bill Clinton targeted Bin Laden specifically with cruise missiles.

[HiPointDem]

172. not targeted at bin laden, but at supposed 'terrorist bases' in afghanistan and sudan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_missile_strikes_on_Afghanistan_and_Sudan_%28August_1998%29

and same difference; i don't believe those strikes were legal either.

[geek tragedy]

170. Blame Rand Paul for the use of the term "lethal force." nt

[Fire Walk With Me]

19. "And so it begins..."

[geek tragedy]

28. Began 200 years ago with the Whiskey Rebellion. nt

[HiPointDem]

36. i don't recall the US preemptively killing the leaders of the whiskey rebellion either.

[geek tragedy]

39. I don't recall this letter claiming the authority to do that. I've read it--have you?

You're being trolled by Rand Paul.

[HiPointDem]

61. if this letter were *not* claiming that by implication, there would be no controversy. presidents

& police *have always had* the power to use force where there was an *ongoing attack* -- on the country or on just one person.

what they haven't had is the power to assassinate people *before* they attack, preemptively.

so if holder is only claiming the power to kill during an attack, there's nothing new here.

so which is it?

the letter is worded so that one may read anything into it one likes.

[geek tragedy]

66. There's nothing new here. You're being trolled by Rand Paul.

Holder is stating the obvious, in response to a question from Rand Paul.

[SidDithers]

73. Fucking nailed it. "You're being trolled by Rand Paul"...

Sid

[HiPointDem]

91. then it seems it's holder who's being 'trolled' by paul, not me. the wonder is that he does not

recognize it & gives paul an answer that presumes some new power:

"The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront."

but of course, the president has always had the power to order use of lethal force to stop ongoing attack, civil war, rebellion, etc.

what's going on today is preemptive; that's the context for all this.

[whatchamacallit]

26. Fuck it, I'm moving to a country that doesn't need to kill it's citizens to protect them.

We're slipping down the rabbit hole at light speed.

[geek tragedy]

34. Yeah, fuck that Abraham Lincoln!

[Mutiny In Heaven]

38. He should have had his soldiers link arms and sing

Wonder how President JeffDa would've replied...

[whatchamacallit]

49. We're not fighting each other aka Civil War

and why would we need to kill Americans during foreign attacks like Pearl Harbor or 9/11? Why do we need this... now?

[geek tragedy]

55. Ummm, who was on board those airplanes?

Shooting down the planes headed for the WTC would have meant killing the American passengers.

[whatchamacallit]

68. So it's not about declaring Americans enemy combatants

it about being able to dust innocent Americans if we have to? Guess you'd have been fine giving up your family for the cause, right?

[geek tragedy]

72. If it meant saving 3000 other human beings, I would have

accepted it.

Not like the people on those planes were going to survive anyways.

But, if your position is that the President would be obligated to let those planes hit the office buildings and massacre thousands, you should own that position.

[whatchamacallit]

80. Well

Last edited Tue Mar 5, 2013, 11:16 PM - Edit history (1)

since no one could know the intent of the pilots, and they'd have to be shot down well before impact, guess you'd just have to trust the government knew what it was doing. Did Holder use your example? I think your scenario is not the reason for this power.

[geek tragedy]

92. He specifically cited Pearl Harbor and 9/11.

What, pray tell, did you think he meant?

[whatchamacallit]

100. Well he was intelligent enough not to say

"we need the ability to kill innocent Americans", if that's what he meant. But you go ahead and say stupid stuff for him if you like.

[geek tragedy]

101. Yeah, I'll go ahead and stick to what he said.

Because sticking to what he said is stupid, because it's not paranoid, or something.

[green for victory]

46. Please let me know when you find a country that will let me immigrate

I've had it and I'm outta here first chance. Mexico doesn't want me, and Canada says I don't have enough money or a job.

I'm packed though.

[Cha]

65. Adios.

[G_j]

29. why is it Rand Paul asking this?

any Democrats?

[napoleon_in_rags]

63. Its good politics.

A lot of this legal mess comes from the Bush admin, but its left over. But anything that makes Obama look all powerful, like a dictator, helps Republicans right now with this sequester business and all the rest.. It makes it look like the current policies are purely Obama's ideas, not a product of a congress unwilling to compromise. Plus members of the base are ill-equipped to defend, because we were screaming about this stuff when Bush was doing it.

At the end of the day the best defence really is to clean up and clarify these laws, but we the base can't do it because it involves so much classified stuff, it has to come from the top. So all we can do is what we're doing, expressing horror to hope the higher ups will do something to clear up the lines.

[woo me with science]

30. GOOD FUCKING GOD.

HAVE WE HAD ENOUGH YET?!

[green for victory]

37. Nope not even close- look upthread n/t

[SidDithers]

45. court jester, Gravel Democrat...nt

Sid

[green for victory]

50. Forum tourettes syndrome?

Just blurt out stuff eh?

King Midas! Gravel Roads!

LOL You're a laugh riot.

[SidDithers]

56. Oh, I'm sure you know exactly what those names mean...nt

Sid

[green for victory]

83. You are quite sure of lots of things. n/t

[SidDithers]

86. Yup. Some things I'm completely sure of...nt

Sid

[Octafish]

210. What's wrong with being a ''Gravel Democrat''?

As a Senator, Mike Gravel helped make the Pentagon Papers public.

He talked about it on DemocracyNow.org:

How the Pentagon Papers Came to be Published by the Beacon Press

http://www.democracynow.org/2007/7/2/how_the_pentagon_papers_came_to

We need more such people -- brave people who demand the TRUTH. You know, Democrats.

[SidDithers]

211. Nothing wrong with being a Gravel Democrat...nt

Sid

[woo me with science]

176. Same familiar names. Same shameless "arguments."

We have reached the point where the trashing of our fundamental American values and our Constitution have become so egregious and outrageous that they are not even remotely defensible anymore. The attempted apologism for them comes across like dystopian language from Orwell.

Our problem is that the same oligarchs who have used their fortunes to buy both parties of our government, also own and control our media. We are relentlessly propagandized, down to discussion boards on the internet.

People are certainly waking up. The question is, will enough of us wake up in time for it to do any good against the authoritarian state the corporatists are building.

[SidDithers]

40. Speculative outrage is the best outrage...nt

Sid

[Cha]

60. Knee Jerk is neck and neck.

[MadHound]

41. Occupy, I hope you're paying attention.

In fact given the recent penchant by both the Bush and Obama administration to declare certain protest groups to be terrorists, there are a lot of people who could be targeted.

Of course the defenders of this are out in force on this thread, never mind the precedent this sets, never mind that this is power that will one day pass into the hands of Republican president. Nope, because it is Obama who is shredding the Constitution, it's all good.

Should we start a pool on how long a drone is used to take out a US citizen on US soil? A pool on how long before a child, or other innocent, is killed as collateral damage?

[ProSense]

47. More fact-free bullshit. n/t

[MadHound]

53. So you're comfy with this power being in the hands of, oh, say Jeb Bush?

How about in the hands of Paul Ryan, or Marco Rubio?

[ProSense]

71. First

"So you're comfy with this power being in the hands of, oh, say Jeb Bush? How about in the hands of Paul Ryan, or Marco Rubio?"

...none of them will ever be President. Still, what exactly don't you understand about a power afforded Presidents when Holder points to the Civil War as an example?

How many Republican Presidents have we had since then?

[MadHound]

77. OK, are you comfortable with this power in the hands of any Republican in the future?

Would you have been comfortable with this power in the hands of Bushboy? Answer the question, stop dancing around it.

[ProSense]

84. I am

"OK, are you comfortable with this power in the hands of any Republican in the future?"

..."comfortable" with the Constitution. Are you?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2463478

[MadHound]

94. LOL! Don't have the courage to answer the question.

Please, when a future Republican president abuses this power, don't you be the first one in to express outrage. You will have no right to do so.

[ProSense]

98. Courage: I'm comfortable with all President's exercising the Constitutional powers Holder cited.

Now, will you come out of denial and stop claiming the Constitution is "unconstitutional"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2463451

Senator Wyden made Holder's point in a recent statement.

“As I and ten other senators told the President yesterday, if individual Americans choose to take up arms against the United States, there will clearly be some circumstances in which the President has the authority to use lethal force against those Americans, just as President Lincoln had the authority to use force against the Confederate Army during the Civil War. At the same time, it is vitally important for Congress and the American public to have a full understanding of how the executive branch interprets this authority, so that Congress and the public can decide whether the President’s power to deliberately kill American citizens is subject to appropriate limitations and safeguards. Every American has the right to know when their government believes that it is allowed to kill them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022320280

[MadHound]

104. So you're comfy with Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, or Paul Ryan having this power? Yes or no, no dancing.

n/t

[ProSense]

113. They'll never be elected President,

"So you're comfy with Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, or Paul Ryan having this power? Yes or no, no dancing."

...but if this country elects them, then yes. Do you think a President's Constitutional powers only applies to some Presidents?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2463549

[MadHound]

121. Well thank you, you finally gave a straight answer,

You are in favor of a Republican president having the unconstitutional power to kill a US citizen on US soil without due process.

Thank you.

[ProSense]

124. Like I said

"You are in favor of a Republican president having the unconstitutional power to kill a US citizen on US soil without due process. "

...you clearly have no idea about a President's Constitutional authority.

Senator Wyden made Holder's point in a recent statement.

“As I and ten other senators told the President yesterday, if individual Americans choose to take up arms against the United States, there will clearly be some circumstances in which the President has the authority to use lethal force against those Americans, just as President Lincoln had the authority to use force against the Confederate Army during the Civil War. At the same time, it is vitally important for Congress and the American public to have a full understanding of how the executive branch interprets this authority, so that Congress and the public can decide whether the President’s power to deliberately kill American citizens is subject to appropriate limitations and safeguards. Every American has the right to know when their government believes that it is allowed to kill them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022320280

[MadHound]

129. Like I said,

You are in favor of a Republican president having the unconstitutional power to kill a US citizen on US soil without due process.

Oh, and the opinion of eleven senators isn't worth a damn Constitutionally speaking. The only opinion that will ultimately matter is that of the Supreme Court, or perhaps even more so, the American public.

[ProSense]

132. Clearly

"You are in favor of a Republican president having the unconstitutional power to kill a US citizen on US soil without due process. "

...you've run out of logic and now making shit up is all you have.

[MadHound]

135. Oh, so now you're going back on your answer above,

And stating that you're not in favor of a Republican president having these unconstitutional powers? Which is it?

[jberryhill]

137. I'm not in favor of a Republican president being elected in the first place

But that's just me.

[HiPointDem]

173. "Every American has the right to know when their government is allowed to kill them."

lolololol

[roxy1234]

106. No republican will ever

be president in the future. Get on with the program MORAN.

[Logical]

156. LOL, I was waiting for the White House response! n-t

[ProSense]

158. LOL!

Rand Paul is a troll: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2463654

LOL!

[Logical]

165. We get it Pro, Obama is perfect, Obama never makes mistakes, Blah, Blah, Blah. n-t

[ProSense]

166. No

"We get it Pro, Obama is perfect, Obama never makes mistakes, Blah, Blah, Blah."

...you don't "get it." I said:

Rand Paul is a troll: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2463654

LOL!

[geek tragedy]

51. Please quote the language from Holder's letter you find objectionable.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/609809-holder-response-to-rand-paul.html

Right there.

Please cite the exact language.

[MadHound]

57. I'll ask you the same question I asked ProSense above,

Are you comfortable with this power in the hands of Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio?

[geek tragedy]

59. Yes. Every president in US history has had the power to

use armed force to repel an armed attack against the United States, even if it occurs within the United States.

[MadHound]

69. OMG, so that's how far you'll go to defend this unConstitutional bullshit,

You'll put your trust in Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio.

That would be pretty damn funny if it wasn't so damned sad.

[ProSense]

76. You clearly

"OMG, so that's how far you'll go to defend this unConstitutional bullshit,"

...have no idea about a President's Constitutional authority.

Senator Wyden made Holder's point in a recent statement.

“As I and ten other senators told the President yesterday, if individual Americans choose to take up arms against the United States, there will clearly be some circumstances in which the President has the authority to use lethal force against those Americans, just as President Lincoln had the authority to use force against the Confederate Army during the Civil War. At the same time, it is vitally important for Congress and the American public to have a full understanding of how the executive branch interprets this authority, so that Congress and the public can decide whether the President’s power to deliberately kill American citizens is subject to appropriate limitations and safeguards. Every American has the right to know when their government believes that it is allowed to kill them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022320280

[MadHound]

81. You are making a sad spectacle of yourself trying to defend this unconstitutional act.

You really are.

[ProSense]

90. You make a

"You are making a sad spectacle of yourself trying to defend this unconstitutional act."

...desperate spectacle in denial of the actual Constitutional powers of a President.

Senator Wyden made Holder's point in a recent statement.

“As I and ten other senators told the President yesterday, if individual Americans choose to take up arms against the United States, there will clearly be some circumstances in which the President has the authority to use lethal force against those Americans, just as President Lincoln had the authority to use force against the Confederate Army during the Civil War. At the same time, it is vitally important for Congress and the American public to have a full understanding of how the executive branch interprets this authority, so that Congress and the public can decide whether the President’s power to deliberately kill American citizens is subject to appropriate limitations and safeguards. Every American has the right to know when their government believes that it is allowed to kill them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022320280

Repeating that the Constitution is "unconstitutional" is serious desperation.

[MadHound]

96. Killing a person without due process, simply on the secret orders of a President,

Or "high ranking administration official" is not Constitutional. You know that, somewhere deep down you know that, but you can't admit it because hey, Obama is the one who is shredding the Constitution.

[ProSense]

99. That has nothing to do with Holder's point. n/t

[MadHound]

102. No, it looks like the Constitution is no longer relevant,

And that is the whole point.

[ProSense]

118. Nonsense. n/t

[geek tragedy]

171. So, your position is that the president can never authorize the

use of lethal force against any American citizen on US soil, without a trial, ever.

No matter what the circumstances.

So, when do we impeach Abe Lincoln for ordering Union troops to shoot at the Confederates, who were American citizens on US soil, and who had not gone through a trial?

[MadHound]

177. What part of due process don't you understand?

The South was declared to be in rebellion, and there was an act of Congress backing Lincoln up. Criminals have warrants written for their arrest. A cop can't kill somebody unless they are being threatened.

Under these drone rules, such as we know them, somebody in the administration simply makes the decision to kill them, then unleashes the drones.

That is not due process. That is an execution.

[geek tragedy]

178. Lincoln didn't get Congressional authorization. He relied on a 1792 statute.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/lincolntroops.htm

Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution and the laws, have thought fit to call forth, and hereby do call forth, the militia of the several States of the Union, to the aggregate number of 75,000, in order to suppress said combinations and to cause the laws to be duly executed.

Simple question:

If Flight 93's passengers had not resisted, would George W Bush have had the legal authority to have it shot down on its way to Washington DC, thereby using lethal armed force against a plane full of American citizens within the territory of the US, without a trial?

If you say yes, you're agreeing with Eric Holder.

[MadHound]

180. I just love people who rely on the intertubes to get their history lessons,

For generally those lessons are incomplete at best, and completely wrong at the worst.

Yes, Lincoln did issue a declaration of war against the South, and he then promptly called for a special session of Congress in order to back him up. That Congress, which met on July 4, 1861, joined in the declaration of war, and retroactively approved all actions that Lincoln had taken up until that time, except for Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus.

As far as flight 93 goes, yes, Bush had the Constitutional right to shoot down Flight 93, though I'm sure there would have been some sharp arguments had he done so. His Constitutional basis would have been the president's power to repel attacks, though those attacks have to be actually happening, not something that could possibly happen in the future.

The president does not have the power to kill a US citizen without due process simply because that citizen is planning an attack, or talking about attacking the US. Sadly, that is the power that the president has given unto himself.

[geek tragedy]

181. Eric Holder's letter did not claim or assert the power to kill US citizens on US soil

in order to disrupt terrorist plots or to prevent a future attack.

Rather, he limited the ability to use the military as a response to the circumstances which you just articulated in a very coherent manner. The specific precedents cited were the 9/11 attacks and the Pearl Harbor attack.

You'll note he said under "the circumstances" of such an attack, not in anticipation of one.

This letter dodged the "could you have killed al Awlaki in Idaho" question. It did not answer it in the affirmative.

[MadHound]

183. Took one huge step towards that,

And sets up a huge precedent for future presidents, including Republicans, to follow. Furthermore, he didn't set out all the "circumstances", he simply said "extraordinary circumstances", and gave two examples thereof. However that doesn't mean that there aren't other "extraordinary circumstances" that this or future administrations would consider using drones to kill US citizens on US soil.

Nor did it answer in the negative when it came to the killing of al Awlaki in Idaho question, as you say, it simply dodged. That's not a good sign either.

[geek tragedy]

184. It didn't take any step--it just recited what everyone already agreed upon.

Sure, I would have preferred that he answer that question.

Problem is that Rand Paul was too dumb to ask it and Eric Holder is too smart a lawyer to answer legal questions he isn't asked.

Would a guy flying in an airplane with a suitcase nuke on board qualify as an extraordinary circumstance? Shooting him down with an airplane or a drone would be action taken to prevent a terrorist attack from occurring, not to repel an attack.

The same tension that has existed since we created a standing army will always exist as long as we have a standing military. Letters don't change that basic fact.

Eric Holder's letter to Rand Paul doesn't prevent Obama from doing anything and it certainly wouldn't prevent President Rubio or Jindal from doing anything.

[MadHound]

187. No, it didn't prevent Obama from doing anything, or any future president for that matter,

And that's the whole problem.

[geek tragedy]

188. Do you really think if Obama was going to start murdering people on US soil

he'd say "well, I'd like to rain death and fire on them and I really don't care about the Constitution, but that letter Eric Holder sent Rand Paul has tied my hands."

It's an unsatisfactory, but also inconsequential letter.

[geek tragedy]

169. What part of what Holder wrote offends your understanding

of the constitution?

Not Rand Paul's press release.

Not Adam Serwer's blog post.

What did Eric Holder write that is incorrect?

I can tell you what the answer is: NOTHING.

The catch is that he did not answer the question "would it be legal to do an al awlaki style operation inside the US under any circumstances?"

Why didn't he answer that question?

Because it wasn't asked.

[struggle4progress]

201. Exactly what power do you mean?

[Octafish]

74. Enemies of the State, Beware!

You may be a citizen.
You may be a relative.
You may even be a Democrat.

What's important is the State can take you down.

Without Warning.
In Secret.
Without a Trial.
Without any Record.
Without a Trace.

Democracy. It was a great idea.

[Bolo Boffin]

75. Don't worry, Octafish. From all indications, you'll never make the list. n/t

[Octafish]

93. Knowing you're there to report me makes me feel so much more secure, boloboffin.

How's the dream job going?

[Bolo Boffin]

97. Good Lord, if I had the power to put you on a list like that, I never would.

My report would be "Harmless."

If Adam Gadahn didn't make the drone list, you're a billion miles away from it, Octafish.

[Octafish]

107. I'd sleep better knowing that no one was above the law, including the president, boloboffin.

That's what Democracy is all about.

As for harmless, why do you bother to post a reply to what I write?

[whatchamacallit]

111. You know Octafish

"you're just one of DU's lovable, harmless kooks".

-boloboffin

[Bolo Boffin]

117. You have a citation for that purported quote of mine, whachamacallit?

Of course you do. You wouldn't be manufacturing quotes and attributing them to me as a way to slander me.

[Octafish]

127. It hurts to laugh.

Everybody this side of the Amazing Randi's JREF Forum knows I'm just a kook.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=801819

Now that the BFEE is safely behind bars and the Constitution restored, I no longer feel afraid for the nation when stating my opinions or facts.

[Bolo Boffin]

151. Yes.

I was a member of the Smirking Chimp and Democratic Underground several years before I was a member of the JREF Forums, and I remain a member here and at the Chiimp years after I asked that my membership be turned off.

Years before and years after. An impartial judge would see I was a DU member who went there briefly, not a JREF member who came here.

[Bolo Boffin]

116. As is being pointed out here, Octafish, this power is something Presidents have always had.

Using every tool at their disposal to protect the country under attack. George Washington did it. Obama has the power to do it. That's not "above the law." That's within the law.

My name is Bolo Boffin, Octafish. Do you understand it's rude to mess around with someone's DU handle?

Harmless to America doesn't mean you don't have the power to embarrass yourself. Trying to minimize that embarrassment doesn't mean I'm against you, not at all.

[Octafish]

120. Hadn't noticed that.

When did you change it, bolo boffin?

[Bolo Boffin]

149. Inherent in the commander in chief powers, Octafish

Protecting the country during an invasion or terrorist attack, that sort of thing. Always been part of the job description.

OK, now the capital letters, Octafish. You see how I'm capitalizing your DU name here? Basic respect, the lack of which demonstrates the lack of good faith in a discussion more than anything else. Please demonstrate your good faith in this discussion by using my DU name as it is given.

[Octafish]

207. No, the president does not have an 'inherent' power to execute American citizens at will.

Neither is the president above the law. His drones aren't either, no matter what secret law they twist to justify their unconstitutional actions.

You can't be more undemocratic than to believe in that crapola.

[Bolo Boffin]

208. Who the fuck said "at will"?

Importing what bullshit you want to believe I'm saying: 15 yard penalty.

[Octafish]

209. I did. Because that's what the president does now.

Dunno why, but you must have missed the story:

Terror Tuesdays

[Bolo Boffin]

213. No. He does not. The idea that he does is the most despicable BS you've come up with yet.

There are very specific parameters for these kinds of decisions, and the president makes them with the input of many other people. It's not "at will."

I wonder: since Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are now your partners in perpetuating this foolish, heinous nonsense, am I allowed to make evil implications that you're really just a libertarian Republican the way you and your fellow conspiracy theorists have made evil implications for ten years now that I am in league with the Bush Adminstration because I debunk your 9/11 conspiracy theories? Just wondering.

[Octafish]

215. What a nice thing to say! And what 9/11 conspiracy theories of mine have you debunked, Bolo Boffin?

Last edited Thu Mar 7, 2013, 07:26 PM - Edit history (1)

About the only time I write about 9/11 has to do with what George W Bush knew beforehand. Still, I try to inform DUers, as I do everyone interested in the topic, as to news and analysis the mass media fail to cover.

On occasion, I have also written about the assassinations of President Kennedy, Senator Kennedy and Dr. King. As part of my distaste for secret government, I have written about the Bush Family Evil Empire, BFEE -- shorthand for the traitors, warmongers and greedheads who have driven America into the ground.

Upon your smears and insinuations, I have invited you to point out where I made any errors of fact or in my analysis. Despite what your memory tells you, you have failed to do so. Somehow I believe that should you find something, I'm sure you'll let me know. You're that observant.

[liberal_at_heart]

79. Of course he can. Any president can. Look at what happened at Kent State University.

[HiPointDem]

110. did the president or governor order those shootings? no. they ordered the national guard out,

supposedly to maintain order during a civil uprising, but didn't order preemptive assassination of student leaders or anyone else.

the shootings were apparently the misreading of individual guardsmen.

there's a lot of effort here to blur the line between "targeted assassinations" and general use of force during uprising, rebellion, civil war, or real war.

i wonder why that is.

[jberryhill]

112. Misreading?

A "misreading" of what? The fact that the students were unarmed?

Geez.

[HiPointDem]

122. Was there a "shoot" order from the president, governor, or commander of the unit -- or not?

The official claim has been that there was *not,* that individual guardsmen misread something in the situation and fired without orders.

and if there *was* an order, the general revulsion & cover-up more or less demonstrates that such an act is *not* constitutional and is no precedent for targeted assassinations.

[jberryhill]

128. "misread something in the situation"

WTF could they have possibly "misread", the students were not armed.

It's not as if they were peeking around a corner in an area near armed hostilities with a tubular object:





Now, I have learned on DU for months that these frames are from a video which shows the completely wanton and deliberate murder of unarmed civillians.

But, geez, at least these guys were carrying stuff. The students at Kent State, not so much.

[green for victory]

95. This very thread illustrates the real divide in this country

and the world.

It's not "Liberal" vs "Conservative"- those words don't mean what they once did anyway. Real conservatives don't march around the world dropping freedom bombs and real liberals don't pass laws forcing everyone to buy corporate insurance.

The real battle is between Authoritarians and those that just want to be free to live their lives.

The latter will win, but the battle has just begun. The former has just begun to reveal themselves. And they have no problem with killing to make their point. See: Drone Bombing.

[sagat]

108. It's been said, but...

FUCK Rand Paul.

[n2doc]

126. But of course it will only be used on really, really bad people!

And our Magnificent President would never abuse that power or make a mistake! He Is Infallible! Amen!

[Benton D Struckcheon]

133. This is NOT News People

At all.
George Washington led the militias of a few different states against Shay's rebellion in his first term. It was to demonstrate that the new Federal gov't, unlike the old one under the Articles of Confederation, had the power to call up the militias of several states to march out and put down a rebellion. No lethal force was used at the time, but rest assured it would have been had the rebels not stood down.
Also, the Civil War.

Sheesh.

[limpyhobbler]

152. They should say: "This authority does not apply unless the nation is experiencing an ongoing attack"

I think they might be claiming an overly broad authority. They should narrow it.

For example they could limit it to cases where the "nation is experiencing and ongoing attack", or something like that.

Actually Holder did give examples in the letter. Which is good. But the problem is they don't say examples of when such authority specifically does not apply. They should clearly say this authority only applies in the case of ongoing attack and no other case. For example they should say "This authority does not apply in any case where the nation is not experiencing an ongoing attack."

In other words, for the authority to have limits, we have to be clear on when the authority does not apply.

Realistically I don't expect Obama to do anything to limit the Presidency's power. Congress should pass a law restricting and clarifying the President's authority in these cases. Of course they won't. But good for Rand Paul for at least trying to do some oversight in this area.

[randome]

159. I agree that the authority can be better defined. And have a review process in place.

At the same time, such authority needs to be flexible enough to handle unforeseen circumstances.

But please don't thank Rand Paul for trying to embarrass the administration. He isn't interested in oversight, only scoring political points.

[limpyhobbler]

163. I don't think a review process would really be that good.

First of all it's a (hopefully) very rare event. If they start setting up secret panels to approve domestic executions, I think that's a sign we are headed in the wrong direction.

Since the review process would be secret, it's really just a rubber stamp in my opinion.

I don't think the President should have too much flexibility when it comes to killing Americans.

They seem to be asserting authority without limit. In other words they are asserting that it's the President's call. We should trust his judgement and there shouldn't be a legal limit. Basically they are saying they don't want to put any limits on the authority to kill US citizens in the US because, hey, you never know what may come up, so just give the government unlimited authority to kill anybody based on the President's personal judgement. In my opinion that is too broad.

The executive branch is not likely to limit itself. Either Congress or the courts will have to step in to limit this power. Sadly they probably will not.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

155. Hell, even the Inquisition went to the trouble of holding trials before executions.

Now we can knock 'em off without all the fuss. How very "progressive" and "civilized" we've become.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

157. Nice to see Democrats propagating RAND PAUL'S rhetoric.

Disgusting.

[just1voice]

175. F the lying repugs, this is a real issue with devastating consequences

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/2/11/michael_moore_chris_hedges_on_challenging

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

160. Chief Executive or Chief Executioner?

[just1voice]

174. Ordered assassination of Americans is A-OK with loyalists from both parties

I've just been reading a few such posts. I'm sure the internet warriors would feel different if they had to order the assassination or if they were on the other end of the order. And who's to say who will be assassinated and why, when there's no accountability?

Oh well, torture camp creators aren't held accountable so why should assassins be?

[geek tragedy]

186. No, you're misreading those posts just as you're misreading the Holder letter.

Here is a hint: anyone characterizing Holder's letter as asserting the ability to assassinate is either lying or has not read the letter.

[Nevernose]

182. It's important for the government to be able to murder me

“On the one hand, I get it—it’s important for the government to be able to murder me and any of my friends or family members whenever they please for reputed national security reasons. But on the other hand, it would kind of be nice to stay alive and have, maybe, a trial, actual evidence—stuff like that,” said visibly conflicted 39-year-old Nashua, NH resident Rebecca Sawyer, who, like millions of other Americans, is split over whether secret federal agents should be allowed to target and assassinate her anywhere on U.S. soil. “I wouldn’t mind if federal officials blew up other citizens and claimed it was in the name of my safety. But it’s just that when it comes to me, I guess I’d rather not be slaughtered by my own elected officials on charges that never have to be validated by any accountable authority. This is tough.” While most Americans expressed conflicted feelings regarding the memo, the poll also found that 28 percent of citizens were unequivocally in favor of being obliterated at any point, for any reason, in a massive airstrike.

As usual, the comedians are the ones telling the truth.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/american-citizens-split-on-doj-memo-authorizing-go,31207/

[Jasana]

185. One Crazy Question Here....

Considering this... "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..."

And considering this... "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

How do we petition the government for a redress of grievances and how do we abolish our government if it becomes destructive towards us and refuses to redress our grievances?

How does all that fit into the current administration's scheme of things? Help me. I am neither a lawyer nor a constitutional scholar. I think we have a lot grievances to petition this government with... torture, war criminals, banking criminals, loss of civil rights, warrantless wiretapping and the list seems endless now but I think you get my point.

[G_j]

195. agreed

and I have no answers, and obviously others don't either.

[Buffalo Bull]

205. the libertarians question

Excellent post...
You make the right winged libertarian argument that because we can not trust gov't (Obama) thus we can not trust it with this uncheckable power.
The other side of the same coin is the point that what ever we (Democrats) allow the Obama administration do the next GOP administration (2016?) will also be able to do.

To make a second point about uncheckable gov't power.
Technology, especially these wonderful computers that allow us to work from home, communicate across continents and participate in this forum, as also the greatest constitution shredding device that there is. Everything you are is in a data base some where just waiting. Thus in many potential criminal cases you have already given up your fourth amendment right to be secure in your home from warrant less searches. You've also, De-facto, surrendered you fifth amendment right to be able to avoid testifying against your self. You sixth amendment right to confront your accuser is mute if your accuser is a data base.

[Fire Walk With Me]

194. This should not be allowed to fall off of the first page.

[darkangel218]

200. Im defenetly dissapointed. in most thats happening right now.

I wish Mr Obama will keep his promises to the people.

[ellie]

202. Huh. That's hardly encouraging.

[woo me with science]

203. Kick. Ignoring it does not make it go away.

[FSogol]

204. Unrec. Ridiculous spin doesn't make it true.