General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBreaking: Attorney General - Obama Can't Order Drone Attack On Americans On US Soil
It took Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) filibustering for 13 straight hours, but the White House has finally clarified that President Barack Obama cannot order a drone strike on an American citizen on American soil. In a curt, forty-three word letter, Attorney General Eric Holder clarified the administration's stance.
"It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: "Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?" Holder wrote. "The answer to that question is no."
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/03/holder-president-cant-order-drone-attack-americans-us-soil
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)to be asked or answered, it's in the Constitution. The President doesn't have the power to randomly assassinate Americans, and didn't claim to.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)That's a cute turn of phrase, but rather dishonest.
Has someone suggested that the issue is about the President picking names off whitepages.com to blow up?
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)or assassinate guys on the FBI most wanted list rather than just arresting them.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)
onenote
(42,694 posts)It seemed pretty clear to those who understood what the Holder letter, combined with the DOJ White Paper, had laid out.
But more clarity is good.
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)
creeksneakers2
(7,473 posts)spread further by left wing kooks.
Bandit
(21,475 posts)He seems to be doing a fair job of killing folks by drone in other countries and it doesn't matter if they are American citizens or not. How can one say they are engaged in combat when they are at a wedding or some other innocuous activity?
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)onenote
(42,694 posts)I haven't scoured his statement to see if he also used the word "randomly."
bowens43
(16,064 posts)TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)President use that sort of power against an American. Only nimrods could misread that.
meow2u3
(24,761 posts)Extraordinary circumstances = armed rebellion and/or insurrection. In other words, Obama can order military force (via the National Guard) be used to quash an insurrection by RWNJ teabagger traitors.
That's why Rand Paul, Ted Cruz Missile, and the other far right teabaggers want to outlaw use of drones against right-wing hate groups--they either belong to one of them or sympathize with the anti-government hatriots.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)who fight the United States. That would fall under "combat". We've seen militia compound sieges before.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)
Laurian
(2,593 posts)walking confusion. It's like he's walking on egg shells all the time, afraid to speak up then has to backtrack and clarify everything.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)it's been a slow news week 
onenote
(42,694 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)So the President can order an atomic bomb attack on U.S. citizens? Mind you, I'm comfortable with the President protecting the country so long as there is oversight and review.
But Holder's statement clarifies nothing.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)who are attacking the US. Including nuclear weapons.
One would think there would be better options, but he has the power to do so.
randome
(34,845 posts)It's common to say the President has the 'nuclear football' but I'm sure it's a lot more complicated process than pushing a single button somewhere. There is a chain-of-command that is followed. That's what should be followed with any use of force.
If Congress would stop posturing and propose some legislation, all this 'hair-on-fire' stuff would settle down.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)All that's required is concurrence of a second person, such as the VP or someone else confirmed by the Senate.
In the case of an imminent or actual attack, the second person can be the general receiving the order to fire.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)"The president has not and would not use drone strikes against Americans citizens on American soil," Carney said. "The legal authorities that exist to use lethal force are bound by, constrained by, the law and the Constitution. The issue here isn't the technology .... Whether it's a drone strike or a gun shot, the law and the Constitution apply in the same way."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/07/obama-drone-strikes_n_2830174.html
Personally, I put this in the same category as the WH releasing the long form, but YMMV.
randome
(34,845 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)authorization of non-drone lethal attacks.
There's nothing saying "the President shall have the authority to order lethal force by means of fighter jet or pistol, but not by weaponized drone or candelstick."
The entire focus on drones as resulted in a dumbing down of discourse.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Rand Paul should be asked to explain his legistation.
Rand Paul supports "swift drone action" based on a "reasonable suspicion" of an "imminent danger"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022472789
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)were utterly full of shit? 
I can't believe it!
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Because they read both letters.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)yes.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)on US soil who is not engaged in combat?
Myrina
(12,296 posts)... and whether is can be changed based on what pisses the Administration off at any given time.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)be twisted by a dishonest administration to suit its own means.
People should assume "engaged in combat" means the plain meaning of the words.
onenote
(42,694 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)that plane down?
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)with your own words. lol.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)target being the pilots being the actual combatants.
SpartanDem
(4,533 posts)Do you think he was talking about someone running from the cops?
Holder's original answer:
The Obama administration, Holder said, rejected the use of military force where "well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat." But in theory, it'd be legal for the president to order such an attack under certain circumstances, Holder said.
"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," Holder wrote.
demwing
(16,916 posts)which is 100% the problem.
I can see a future Republican administration targeting abortion clinics as within the arbitrary definition of "extraordinary circumstances"
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Obama won't always be President, and Holder won't always be AG.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)or anyone else who wishes us harm. But everyone else recognizes that if the U.S. were to suffer an attack like Pearl Harbor or like 9/11, military force could and should be used to protect the country. That is what Holder actually said. If you or anyone else here has a problem with the CiC commanding the military to defend the United States on U.S. soil, after we've been attacked on U.S. soil, then I would like you to explain your reasoning to me. There was no mention of drones, you realize. None whatever.
Somehow lots of so-called progressives pretended Holder said something he did not say. Like that tabloid Common Dreams. They either cannot read or they deliberately spun the story to make the Obama Administration look as bad as possible. While I don't doubt the first choice is possible, I'd say probability rests with the second option. But what a choice! Stupidity or dishonesty. Yet they scratch their heads, wondering why they aren't attracting more Democrats to their site. Sad, really. I used to read Common Dreams back when it was smart and honest.
Comrade_McKenzie
(2,526 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)asshats who were so certain the president has the right.
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)...Take a closer look at the latest answer from Holder and tell me the Government's definition of combatant, and then tell me how that answer will actually limit the use of drones in the US against American citizens if the Government deems it necessary.
For example...
A US citizen is sitting in a cafe sipping coffee and munching on a bagel while talking on a cell phone. His conversation is randomly intercepted because of his use of several key words used by terrorists and he is immediately suspected to be coordinating a terrorist attack. A drone strike is carried out killing the cell phone wielding suspected terrorist, 17 other customers, 6 employees, and the owner. Shops on either side of the cafe are damaged as well as vehicles on the street. 35 additional people are injured by flying debris.
The Government claims the US citizen was an enemy combatant because he was suspected of coordinating a terrorist attack. He didn't wear a uniform of any kind, and he didn't carry a weapon.
So, what definition of the word combatant will the Government use in this case? Is the Government covered or not covered by the latest explanation given by Holder?
onenote
(42,694 posts)He said "engaged in combat". Now, like every other word that Holder or anyone else could use, one can claim that it doesn't necessarily mean what most people would take it to mean.
So, I ask you, what word or words would you use to the following question: "Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?"
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)harkonen
(36 posts)
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)....What exactly classifies a US citizen as being engaged in combat on American soil? Does the person have to be wearing a non-US uniform to be considered a combatant? What if he or she is wearing a US military uniform? Can the person be in plainclothes? Does the person have to be carrying a weapon? What if he or she appears to be giving instructions via cell phone for a terrorist attack?
So many questions.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)He acknowledges there is a legal rather than policy limit to the use of deadly force. The lawyers can hash out where exactly that limit is.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)In Afghanistan, however, no need to be concerned about that. Apparently the philosophy is "Let God sort them out."
creeksneakers2
(7,473 posts)If there is sufficient threat and no alternative exists then deadly force can be used.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)The Constitution pretty much answers that question.
Article I, section 9.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section9
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)just how badly they got trolled by Rand Paul.
Sid
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)vote for Brennan. He said he is more than satisfied with administrations response.
randome
(34,845 posts)And Holder said nothing substantially different from what he previously said so Rand's 'satisfaction' is fake, as well.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)forestpath
(3,102 posts)colsohlibgal
(5,275 posts)Just like his dad most of the things he stands for are weird, dangerous, and wrong but libertarian types do intersect with we lefties on some things, primarily on the military industrial complex and marijuana. I commend him on doing this. Sometimes politics create strange bedfellows.
Oh and where were the liberal dems other than Wyden?
SpartanDem
(4,533 posts)Holder gave the same answer the other day.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)soil sounds like some paranoid conspiracy theory that would never occur because we have SWAT, FBI, ATF, & Police officers to carry out arrest scenario's.
frylock
(34,825 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)with any conceivable language the administration uses.
forestpath
(3,102 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)Give the process oversight and review and we should be done with it. If Congress was doing it's job, it would propose legislation instead of standing in the spotlight and whining about it.
n
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Sounds like WikiLeaks is "engaged in combat."
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)unless exculpatory evidence shows otherwise.
randome
(34,845 posts)Nothing the administration says will satisfy everyone. The points raised in this thread are valid ones.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)HEADLINES JULY 24, 2012
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/7/24/headlines#7241
U.S. Drone Strike Kills 9 in Pakistan
At least nine people have been killed in a U.S. drone strike in northwest Pakistan. Pakistani officials say the victims were suspected militants, but the Obama administration’s policy is to deem all adult-male drone targets as militants unless exculpatory evidence emerges after their deaths
You may now return to your fantasy land in the BOG.
randome
(34,845 posts)And saying that 'all adult-male drone targets' are deemed militants is not quite the same as saying that 'all adult males ARE drone targets'.
The difference is that the ones being targeted have already been identified as the enemy. We can debate about whether this is effective warfare or even if we should be conducting operations in Pakistan at all but the military does NOT deem every adult male in Pakistan as a target.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)The confidence of your statement does not reflect on reality.
http://livingunderdrones.org/report/
First, while civilian casualties are rarely acknowledged by the US government, there is significant evidence that US drone strikes have injured and killed civilians. In public statements, the US states that there have been “no” or “single digit” civilian casualties.”(2) It is difficult to obtain data on strike casualties because of US efforts to shield the drone program from democratic accountability, compounded by the obstacles to independent investigation of strikes in North Waziristan. The best currently available public aggregate data on drone strikes are provided by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ), an independent journalist organization. TBIJ reports that from June 2004 through mid-September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562-3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474-881 were civilians, including 176 children.(3) TBIJ reports that these strikes also injured an additional 1,228-1,362 individuals. Where media accounts do report civilian casualties, rarely is any information provided about the victims or the communities they leave behind. This report includes the harrowing narratives of many survivors, witnesses, and family members who provided evidence of civilian injuries and deaths in drone strikes to our research team. It also presents detailed accounts of three separate strikes, for which there is evidence of civilian deaths and injuries, including a March 2011 strike on a meeting of tribal elders that killed some 40 individuals.
Second, US drone strike policies cause considerable and under-accounted-for harm to the daily lives of ordinary civilians, beyond death and physical injury. Drones hover twenty-four hours a day over communities in northwest Pakistan, striking homes, vehicles, and public spaces without warning. Their presence terrorizes men, women, and children, giving rise to anxiety and psychological trauma among civilian communities. Those living under drones have to face the constant worry that a deadly strike may be fired at any moment, and the knowledge that they are powerless to protect themselves. These fears have affected behavior. The US practice of striking one area multiple times, and evidence that it has killed rescuers, makes both community members and humanitarian workers afraid or unwilling to assist injured victims. Some community members shy away from gathering in groups, including important tribal dispute-resolution bodies, out of fear that they may attract the attention of drone operators. Some parents choose to keep their children home, and children injured or traumatized by strikes have dropped out of school. Waziris told our researchers that the strikes have undermined cultural and religious practices related to burial, and made family members afraid to attend funerals. In addition, families who lost loved ones or their homes in drone strikes now struggle to support themselves.
Third, publicly available evidence that the strikes have made the US safer overall is ambiguous at best. The strikes have certainly killed alleged combatants and disrupted armed actor networks. However, serious concerns about the efficacy and counter-productive nature of drone strikes have been raised. The number of “high-level” targets killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely low—estimated at just 2%.(4) Furthermore, evidence suggests that US strikes have facilitated recruitment to violent non-state armed groups, and motivated further violent attacks. As the New York Times has reported, “drones have replaced Guantánamo as the recruiting tool of choice for militants.”(5) Drone strikes have also soured many Pakistanis on cooperation with the US and undermined US-Pakistani relations. One major study shows that 74% of Pakistanis now consider the US an enemy.(6)
Fourth, current US targeted killings and drone strike practices undermine respect for the rule of law and international legal protections and may set dangerous precedents. This report casts doubt on the legality of strikes on individuals or groups not linked to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2011, and who do not pose imminent threats to the US. The US government’s failure to ensure basic transparency and accountability in its targeted killing policies, to provide necessary details about its targeted killing program, or adequately to set out the legal factors involved in decisions to strike hinders necessary democratic debate about a key aspect of US foreign and national security policy. US practices may also facilitate recourse to lethal force around the globe by establishing dangerous precedents for other governments. As drone manufacturers and officials successfully reduce export control barriers, and as more countries develop lethal drone technologies, these risks increase.
“Before the drone strikes started, my life was very good. I used to go to school and I used to be quite busy with that, but after the drone strikes, I stopped going to school now. I was happy because I thought I would become a doctor.” Sadaullah recalled, “Two missiles (were) fired at our hujra and three people died. My cousin and I were injured. We didn’t hear the missile at all and then it was there.” He further explained, “(The last thing I remembered was that) we had just broken our fast where we had eaten and just prayed. . . .We were having tea and just eating a bit and then there were missiles. . . . When I gained consciousness, there was a bandage on my eye. I didn’t know what had happened to my eye and I could only see from one.” Sadaullah lost both of his legs and one of his eyes in the attack. He informed us, “Before (the strike), my life was normal and very good because I could go anywhere and do anything. But now I am not able to do that because I have to stay inside. . . . Sometimes I have really bad headaches. . . . (and) if I walk too much (on my prosthetic legs), my legs hurt a lot. (Drones have) drastically affected life (in our area).”
http://archive.org/details/scm-90762-medeabenjamindronewarfarekilli
If you want to know how the administration will respond to to someone "engaged in combat" on American soil, you might want to read what John Yoo wrote.
http://media.npr.org/documents/2009/mar/dojmemo_force.pdf
We believe that Article II of the Constitution, which vests the President with the power to
respond to emergency threats to the national security, directly authorizes use of the Armed
Forces in domestic operations against terrorists. Although the exercise of such authority usually
has concerned the use of force abroad, there have been cases, from the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion
on,5 in which the President has deployed military force within the United States against armed
forces operating domestically. During the Civil War and the War of 1812, federal troops fought
enemy armies operating within the continental United Stales. On other occasions, the President
has used military force within the United States against Indian tribes and bands. In yet other
circumstances, the Armed Forces have been used to counter resistance to federal court orders, to
protect the officials, agents, property or instrumentalities of the federal Government, or to ensure
that federal governmental functions can be safely performed.6 We believe that the text, structure,
and history of the Constitution, in light of its executive, legislative, and judicial interpretation,
clearly supports deployment of the military domestically, as well as abroad, to respond to attacks
on the United States.
~snip~
Because the scale of the violence involved in this conflict removes it from the
sphere of operations designed to enforce the criminal laws, legal and constitutional rules
regulating law enforcement activity are not applicable, or at least not mechanically so. As a
result, the uses of force contemplated in this conflict are unlike those that have occurred in
America's other recent wars. Such uses might include, for example, targeting and destroying a
hijacked civilian aircraft in circumstances indicating that hijackers intended to crash the aircraft into
a populated area; deploying troops and military equipment to monitor and control the flow of
traffic into a city; attacking civilian targets, such as apartment buildings, offices, or ships where
suspected terrorists were thought to be; and employing electronic surveillance methods more
powerful and sophisticated than those available to law enforcement agencies. These military
operations, taken as they may be on United States soil, and involving as they might American
citizens, raise novel and difficult questions of constitutional law.
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.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)with zestful abandon by any weaponized drone flying in the unfriendly skies.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)in order to evade the rule of law.
Even criminals involved in an act of violence, in the commission of a crime, have rights. If they can not be captured by police authorities because they resist arrest with violence, that is one thing. Blowing them away with a drone should not be allowed, even if they are "terrorists" involved in an act of terror.
Now, if the U.S. is invaded by a foreign military force, let them drones fly. But if some guy is building a bomb in his basement, he should be arrested and tried, not executed from on high.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)It does not mean "violent criminals."
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)What is the legal definition of "engaged in combat."
In the 1997, two heavily armored and armed bank robbers fought 400 police officers through the streets of LA. Now, was that engaged in combat or a criminal act? A circling drone could have taken them down, no muss, no fuss.
Where do you draw the line?
Short of an invasion by a foreign military, we should not use drones on U.S. streets. A criminal act is a criminal act whether the motive is terror or money.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)of an insurrection.
The state can mobilize that national guard as an intermediate step.
Honestly, the plight of heavily armed gunman engaged in massive gunfights is not a civil liberties concern to me.
Lint Head
(15,064 posts)a police drone? Metropolitan police departments are considering their use. I'm not aware of cops ever shooting from helicopters but I'm would imagine it has happened.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Lint Head
(15,064 posts)Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)and deadly force has legal limits
They can not just shoot jaywalkers or some guy over there becuse he is wearing a turban and looks suspicious.
Combat is defined by rules of engagement and not probable cause. Should a "terrorist" making a bomb in his basement be treated like an enemy combatant who can be shot on sight or as a criminal where arrest must be attempted?
Shot of a full scale invasion by a foreign military, I think that people engaged in criminal acts on U.S. streets, even if those acts are terrorism, should be treated as criminals not as military targets.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)they should just call 911?
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Drones engage targets on the ground.
In such a case, they would scramble an Air Force Jet flown by a pilot and ask Dick Cheney, or his replacement for permission to fire.
It isn't the clear cut cases I have a problem with. A military invasion or a legitimate hijacking are clear cases. I can honestly say I would not want to be the man ordering airliner shot down or the pilot that launched the missile. But that is a very clear act, though not one in which a drone would be of much use.
What about the Liberty City Seven? So much easier and cheaper to blow their asses away than to arrest and try them.
As a veteran, engaged in combat has a real meaning to me. What I want to know is what they mean by engaged in combat. Could the target be planning a terrorist attack, a member of an active terrorist organization, or just Joe Schmo pissed off at the world. Must they be firing a gun, or just thinking about it. Would the danger to people be imminent or next week sometime. When I was in combat and ordered to take an objective, it was not necessary to ask for surrender, and my enemies only right was to run up a white flag or surrender to the physics of a high speed metal projectile. They enemy was not guilty of anything except being on the other side. He was not engaged in a crime. We were on opposite sides of a war. I had exactly those same rights.
A military target "engaged in combat" (whatever that means) has no Constitutional Rights. A drone can not ask him to surrender, put down his arms, or discuss the relative merits of Maoist Philosophy, Jeffersonian Democracy, and Sharia Law. Most likely he will never know it is there. One minute, a living breathing human being, and the next a feast for worms.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Combine that with posse comitatus and the "engaged in combat" language here, it's pretty clear that it would take a really tortured stretch to authorize the US military to intervene in a law enforcement scenario here.
So much so, that any administration pursuing it would not care about the law to begin with.
Lint Head
(15,064 posts)xocet
(3,871 posts)By Molly Hennessy-Fiske
October 26, 2012, 2:47 p.m.
HOUSTON -- Two people were killed in Texas’s Rio Grande Valley after a state trooper flying in a highway patrol helicopter opened fire on a fleeing pickup authorities thought was smuggling drugs, officials said.
No drugs were found inside the truck. Troopers found three people shot inside the truck, two of them dead. The third person was hospitalized and seven others were taken into custody, including one who initially fled, according to the statement. All the passengers and the injured person are suspected to be illegal immigrants, officials said Friday. They did not release the identities of those killed.
...
The Department of Public Safety has a fleet of 16 helicopters and eight airplanes. They respond to various law enforcement support requests including pursuits, manhunts, search and rescue, disaster relief, surveillance, aerial photography, criminal transport, domestic marijuana eradication and border security operations.
The agency has increased the number of troopers patrolling the border in recent years as violence has surged in northern Mexico. They patrol by land, by armored boat on the Rio Grande and by air in helicopters where marksmen armed with powerful rifles scan the terrain for suspects.
...
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-texas-helicopter-shooting-20121026,0,6104028.story
ecstatic
(32,685 posts)
I'm actually more concerned with the power that police departments seem to have.LynnTTT
(362 posts)Rand; well, who gets to decide what combat means? Do you mean any person with a gun? How do we know you won't send a drone strike against a band of militia who are peacefully having a rally in Idaho? Or maybe just building a harmless weapon in their back yard?"
He'll never give up.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)It's easy to see what happened here. Holder read the correspondence from Paul and rightly suspected he was being set up so he responded in an ambiguous, weaselly, lawyerly fashion. Paul was of course able to spot the ambiguity which gave him an opportunity to exercise his republican right of fake outrage.
Once Holder realized that he had been fooled he issued an amended response which stated the same thing in a straightforward manner. Of course by then the damage had been done and Paul had grandstanded his earlier response into headlines and campaign donations. And negative publicity for the administration by a media eager to pile on.
I've said it before. Obama's failure to get rid of this douchebag is going to come back to bite him in the ass big time.
greyseal
(6 posts)"Oh....OK....good, because I really need to take a piss right about now."
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)The real question is, "Can Obama kill me?" or will I just be tortured and indefinitely detained again?
treestar
(82,383 posts)It is meant to divide and conquer.
The President can use any means to defend us, as we demanded when we claimed Bush was not competent or part of LIHOP or MIHOP when jets were not scrambled in a timely fashion on 911.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Yay freedom!
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)The Prez will get what he wants. Whatever that is.