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

[WilliamPitt]

Source: Mother Jones

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.

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

---

Look at the bright side: at least they answered the question.

[jsr]

1. And an informed, high-level official will decide

whether you should be killed or not.

[awoke_in_2003]

77. That makes me feel soooo much better. nt

[TheDebbieDee]

87. If this is true, then the Obama admin should start with the republicants in congress!

[AnotherMcIntosh]

93. Yes, one as well informed as these:

[dtom67]

152. yeah,

Probably the same guy who picked out all the "terrorists" to be held at guantanamo.
We all know how accurate those picks were...

Rand Paul is still a nutjob, though....

[blkmusclmachine]

154. Work backward: DC needed every rancid piece of legislation they passed since 9/11 to get to this

terrible conclusion. And the "Democrats" have been there doing squat to fight this the whole damn time. That's what I call "bipartisanship."

1 Party, 2 Faces

[GeorgeGist]

160. Or ...

2 Parties, 1 Feces.

[Nihil]

161. I don't always agree with you but I certainly do on that post.

12 dimensional chess? Nah, just the PNAC play book in an obfuscated edition.

[fasttense]

157. So, Obama really does have death panels? n/t

[In_The_Wind]

183. just great

[Katashi_itto]

186. Could Congressional Republicans be declared Enemy combatants?

Just a thought...

[cliffordu]

2. US Marshals, the FBI and a couple other agencies

have had this capability for quite a while.

Just ask Dillinger and his crew.

Bonnie and clyde.

[Swede Atlanta]

13. Agree but this is significantly different in my opinion....

In those cases you had human law enforcement agents who had significant amount of evidence as to the culpability of these individuals. I think the circumstances around their deaths lend themselves to a conclusion these were bad people who had done bad things before and were likely to do bad things including killing people again. Should they have been apprehended and brought to justice in a courtroom? Sure, that would have been ideal.

My concern with the use of drones or other military resources against American citizens on U.S. soil are several fold. The first is the notion of posse comitatus under which the U.S. military cannot engage in law enforcement action on U.S. soil. The next is the fact we have history with drones and know that their use often involves "collateral damage" whereby innocent victims are killed. Further there is no actual confrontation between law enforcement and the individual to be sure it is the right person, etc. Allowing someone sitting in a command center hundreds or thousands of miles away playing on their video monitor to kill an American citizen is beyond creepy.

I am very disappointed in this but we have seen time and again where Obama has not only relished in the exercise of what I consider extra-constitutional powers that were devised under GWB but has in fact extended them.

I do not want an imperial president. I want a president that upholds the Constitution. As a lawyer and someone who taught constitutional law I expect better from this man.

Trust me I still prefer him sitting in the White House than RMoney or McInsane but he is far from ideal as a president.

[cliffordu]

14. Well written and I will think about what you have posted -

J. Edgar Hoover ordered killings on a regular basis.

Dillinger......

I am not excusing this, but I have always believed that if ANY president wanted someone dead, it was a done deal.

I believe to this day, with absolutely NO proof, that Nixon ordered Kent State.

[Stewland]

41. Obama was the Lesser evil

I voted for Obama with quite a few reservations. Romney plainly expressed his disdain for anyone who is not in his stature. I don't think it matters who we elect because they no longer represent the average citizen. Even Obama serves da man.

[struggle4progress]

155. Did you actually read Holder's letter to Rand Paul?

[struggle4progress]

29. Bonnie and Clyde were killed in a firefight with local law enforcement officials

[cliffordu]

31. No one wanted to take them alive.

[struggle4progress]

46. That may well be the case, but I wasn't there, as it was all before my time,

and a number of people note the extent accounts conflict somewhat with each other

It seems entirely plausible to me that the posse simply shot them as they prepared to drive away from their friend, but it's also possible that the pair had gone for their guns after being told to halt and perhaps even that they had managed to squeeze off a shot or two, before the posse opened fire

[cliffordu]

50. From all accounts, because they were folk heroes among many of the poor,

the word went out that they were NOT to be taken alive.

They'd killed a cop, too.....

[struggle4progress]

58. In any case, neither FBI nor US Marshalls were responsible for the events of 23 May '34

[cliffordu]

67. This is true, although

from what I have read, the FBI weren't going to give them a chance to surrender, either.

J.Edgar was like that.

That the locals got there first is moot.

[Art_from_Ark]

145. Actually, Bonnie and Clyde were ambushed

It wasn't much of a firefight-- they were driving down a road and the Feds starting shooting at them. No time for return fire-- they were killed instantly.

[struggle4progress]

146. See my #46 upthread

[Art_from_Ark]

147. The newsreel about the ambush implied that the Federal posse just started shooting

Since B&C had already killed 14 people, including many law officers, the Feds didn't want to take a chance that there would be No. 15, so they just started shooting when B&C's car appeared.

"Seldom did anyone live when Clyde got the first shot"

[struggle4progress]

156. It was eighty years ago; I'm no expert on the subject; and accounts differ

I'm sure it is quite possible that the posse shot them down without any pretext, but it also seems quite possible that the posse made a quick effort at arrest and then responded appropriately to the pair's reaction, which in some accounts included indications the two were preparing to shoot. Unfortunately, not much has been clarified with time:

... Hinton's account has the group in place by 9:00 pm on the 21st and waiting through the whole next day (May 22) with no sign of the outlaw couple, but other accounts have them setting up on the evening of the 22nd ...

Henderson Jordan's 1934 Ambush Account

... I was watching Barrow. His left hand was on the steering-wheel. He picked up a gun with his right hand. "Bonnie" Parker was seen to raise a pistol. The door on Barrow's side of the car started to swing open. Barrow would not surrender ...

Barrow and Bonnie Parker Shot Dead from Ambush

... disregarding a command to halt and unable to get their weapons into play, the desperado and his cigar-smoking girl crumpled up in the front seat of a car traveling about 85 miles an hour ...

Bonnie & Clyde Amateur Coroner's Night Revisited

... It's likely we will never know all that really occurred at the ambush of Bonnie & Clyde. Hamer for example, said the Warren Car was traveling at a high rate of speed when the shooting commenced. All other accounts have the car stopped or barely moving, which logic also supports ...

[riderinthestorm]

66. But this is the President of the United States with a whole hell of a lot different accountability!

I think there's a big difference between a US Marshall making that decision (who will face a hearing board for his/her action) and POTUS (who will never be called to account now that W and Cheney got away with war crimes)

[cliffordu]

70. Well...OK - my take is more cynical than that. The government as a whole has the ability

to kill without oversight.

Or repercussions.

I believe it's always been that way.

Including the attempted murder of heads of foreign states. Castro, anyone??

This drone thing is just an upgrade in the process.

I believe the niceties of due process are fantasy at best.

Always have been.

[riderinthestorm]

91. I actually agree you. Its the fact they are acknowledging that accountability is for shit

out loud, in clear violation of the Constitution, and its a Democratic Admin that's codifying it.

Just tears things a bit.

Its the fact that we all KNEW about W and Cheney's crimes, and that they got away with it. We knew that Obama decided to NOT hold them accountable so logically we knew that he was also okay with all that.

I guess its just the fact that now its out in the open and its Obama - a constitutional lawyer - saying it out loud that's just wrong.

But that those things have been going on covertly? Yeah, I believe it too.

Doesn't mean I like it. I hate seeing us go down this road.

[slackmaster]

3. Cue Tricky Dick...

[struggle4progress]

23. Mr Obama has nowhere adopted Mr Nixon's view, argued by St Clair before the Supreme Court,

"that he is as powerful a monarch as Louis XIV .. and is not subject to the processes of any court in the land"

[sofa king]

196. I can't believe nobody sees what he's doing.

Just suppose, hypothetically, that you are the President and you inherited this piece of shit argument from a prior, illegally acting Republican administration.

Suppose also you didn't particularly like it, thought it might be illegal, and/or thought it might set a useful precedent in order to later make a case against the people who created this insane state of affairs--or to hold it over the heads of those people to ensure they can never come back to Washington.

Suppose also that the Republicans are so dead set against every single position you take that they are willing to savage a career Republican whom you nominate to a cabinet position. They hate you so damned much that their opposition is as predictable as Ex-Lax.

What would you do?

You would assert your authority to do it, is what you would do. You would let the hateful knuckledraggers spend millions of Republican dollars to marshal public opinion against it, and spend millions of Republican dollars on dozens of Republican lawyers to run expensive cases through Republican-packed courts to dismantle their own legal fantasy at their own expense... before another effing Republican can steal another election and actually start using that authority.

That way the people responsible use their own money, time, and effort to fix the problem they created.

[struggle4progress]

197. Facts should precede analysis, but you would it the other way around

Here's a tip for writing clearly and convincingly: focus on real quotes and documented acts

[sofa king]

198. Here's a tip for you.

Watch and see what happens.

[sofa king]

201. Please forgive my snippiness.

Allow me instead to point out that quotes and documented acts do not bolster the veracity of a prediction or a hypothetical situation; only time and results can do that. That is why I deliberately chose to write the post in the second person (past simple?).

But it wouldn't be a bad idea to offer some links to better define the situation as it exists.

First of all, the idea that this is somehow President Obama's or AG Holder's idea is rubbish. Here is Tom Daschle describing how, less than 100 hours after the 9/11 attacks, the Bush Administration tried to ram through a last minute change in the Congressional authorization of use of force:

Just before the Senate acted on this compromise resolution, the White House sought one last change. Literally minutes before the Senate cast its vote, the administration sought to add the words "in the United States and" after "appropriate force" in the agreed-upon text. This last-minute change would have given the president broad authority to exercise expansive powers not just overseas -- where we all understood he wanted authority to act -- but right here in the United States, potentially against American citizens. I could see no justification for Congress to accede to this extraordinary request for additional authority. I refused.

So what did the Bush Administration do? They spent the next six years using some of the nation's youngest and worst law graduates to re-interpret the powers of the executive branch, in order to allow them to freely act outside of the power or oversight of the Senate. That eventually culminated in the perpetual reference to the "unitary executive theory," which is how the Bush Administration escaped culpability for an unknown number of crimes and overextensions of authority.

(Bush's people weren't smart enough to come up with that on their own, by the way. Just as all of the other major woes of America today can be traced back to him, Saint Ronnie was the "unitary executive's" progenitor.)

The Bush Administration created a huge and largely secret volume of pseudo-legal and historical precedent, the known parts of which are potentially disastrous and dangerous, and quite obviously already have been disastrous in the past.

It is not enough for this President to simply ignore that legacy, for ignoring it merely allows it to lie dormant, and very deadly, allowing the next asshole who slithers in to mis-use it. Here is a visual metaphor of how Jeb Bush would utilize such a body of precedent, should he darken our door (caution: graphic violence). Imagine the object in the bathroom as the Bush legacy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ppjyB2MpxBU

Which returns us to the speculative part of my post above. This brilliant President has long since figured out that reason and moral clarity means nothing at all to Republican legislators. His prior actions show that the President gets more done by using Republicans' blanket opposition against themselves.

And what do you know? There's Rand Paul, doing his Jimmy Stewart imitation against this. The President and the Attorney General are using Republican opposition to get the gun out of the bathroom before Michael Corleone arrives, is what I think is happening. We shall certainly see.

[proverbialwisdom]

200. You could be right. I regard your post as plausible, although uncertainty rules the day. (NT)

[SpartanDem]

4. Was this even a question, "Whiskey Rebellion" anybody?

[geek tragedy]

10. Or the Civil War. nt

[freshwest]

42. Rand Paul didn't see that on Faux, so it never happened.

[AzDar]

5. Ugly. Unacceptable. Beyond fucking disappointing.

[rachel1]

69. +1

[tblue]

6. Constitutional Professor

BOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

[blkmusclmachine]

153. "Scholar." HA!

[RC]

7. So, if I flip off a drone flying overhead, my neighborhood will not get blown up, as a result?

Good to know.

[struggle4progress]

26. I haven't ever seen any reports of Americans being offed by Mr Obama for flipping the bird

Why, exactly, have you you worried about that, instead of (say) the threat posed by extraterrestrials who might kidnap you as a lab animal for their horrid experiments?

[stillcool]

8. everybody else can...

Why not him?

[Heather MC]

71. Exactly, how many good Americans are storing up weapons to fight

the guberment. Unfortunately at some point they have to say ok you turn your weapons on us, welp tuck your head between your legs and kiss your ass good bye.

I hope i really hope we never come to this point as a nation. but crazy people are easily riled up.

I am not condoning it, it really sad just saying it might be a necessary policy.

[geek tragedy]

9. To all those getting worked up about this:

imagine the US military had a chance to shoot down the planes headed for the WTC. Horrible violation of the constitution to shoot them down?

Was Lincoln violating the constitution by ordering union troops to fire at the Confederates?

[GRENADE]

11. imagine

what a republican president would do with this power. This is fucking insane. I am extremely dissapointed

[geek tragedy]

12. Lincoln was a Republican. And he did use it. nt

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

15. I think you know what Grenade means...

I wouldn't necessarily deny the Administration this kind of power, but it needs to be clearly defined when, where, why, and how, and there needs to be clear accountability.

I don't deny that we're in some constitutional tall weeds. The founders didn't anticipate something like this.

[geek tragedy]

17. Necessarily deny? The right to repel an armed attack against the US has never been

in doubt.

Folks need to read Holder's letter, and state which part they disagree with.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

22. I'm not disagreeing with you...

But are we going to allow the military to take this action? Or civilian authority?

I personally think a scenario where a drone strike would be used would be exceedingly rare, given the potential for unintended civilian casualties. Shit that we would do in Afghanistan would be unthinkable here in the states.

This is not a federal officer firing in self defense at an attacker. This is the government (potentially) blowing to smithereens a person(s) who may not necessarily pose an immanent threat.

[geek tragedy]

28. Civilian authorities can't repel a catastrophic armed attack.

They can't shoot down airplanes, for instance.

Holder chose his examples very carefully.

[GRENADE]

159. lincoln

also had to declare martial law in order to do so...

[SpartanDem]

18. All presidents have ALWAYS had this power

since when they have not had the ability military force on citizens? Washington call up the militias to put down tax protesters within couple years taking office. It's not been used often, but it's has been used.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

[donnasgirl]

64. Grenade

You hit the nail on the head and people better watch what they wish for,just remember someday a republican will be back at the helm.

[Amonester]

135. if a republican pretzeldent would not have this power available and wanted to have it

he would try to create it and use it

don't believe it?

just one word: bu$h

[Ter]

20. Lincoln did more than voilate it, he shredded the Constitution

n/t

[geek tragedy]

21. Worst president ever!!!! nt

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

24. Oh hush you...

Now you're just being snarky.

Funny, but snarky!

[Ter]

194. He's up there

n/t

[John2]

45. Yeah, Lincoln

did this in extraordinary circumstances also. The rebels fired the first shots on a Federal installation. Lincoln also contemplated putting the Chief Justice (Robert Taney) in jail. He also exiled the leader of the so called copperheads to the South. Lincoln did what he had to do, in order to preserve the Union. In that case, my opinion is it was appropiate when it comes to Treason. War is Hell! Rand Paul should consider the consequences of Treason. Especially when it comes to Seceding. That applies to Lappiere also.

[another_liberal]

75. Lincoln declared martial law during a civil war . . .

Lincoln declared martial law during a civil war, which action the Constitution provides for a President to do. Only then did he assume powers not available to him without martial law.

[Javaman]

163. Or the rioters in NYC. nt

[struggle4progress]

16. In cases of invasion, or armed rebellion, when the usual instruments of the lawful civil government

(such as ordinary civil police powers and the judiciary), become inoperable across a large region, there will be a broad consensus that the President does indeed have the authority to act militarily against those Americans who collaborate with the invaders or against those, in the region where the lawful government is inoperable, materially support the rebellion

And this, of course, is what Holder actually indicated:

... 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 ...

Rand Paul here is following the (by now well-known) Libertarian strategy of trying to split progressives away from the Democrats with vacuous rhetoric suggesting the Democrats are vicious fascists, ready to oppress the citizenry at any moment

[JoePhilly]

76. +100

[yodermon]

19. Yeah, we can't allow an armed overthrow of the US government or anything, now can we.

oh wait.

[Purveyor]

25. I'm starting to understand why US citizens are hoarding high power weapons. Not what I voted

for but the apologists on this thread its says much, indeed.

[geek tragedy]

27. It says we can actually read the English language.

If you disagree with Holder's statement that in cases like 9/11 or Pearl Harbor, the President can use armed force against whoever is conducting the attack, that's fine.

But those of us who actually read his letter are not wetting ourselves.

Maybe you should think before lashing out at those of us who think and then post.

[Purveyor]

33. In neither of the cases that Holder so conveniently presented were the perps 'American citizens'.

Yes, I did read and thanks for playing.

[geek tragedy]

36. Shooting down the planes on 9/11 would have meant blowing up

every American on board those planes.

Thanks for playing,

[Purveyor]

55. No, you've been 'played' by this administration for supporting this policy. Carry on, indeed. eom

[geek tragedy]

59. What policy? Sorry, there's not a single credible constitutional

law professor in the country that would take issue with what Holder wrote.

The President's job is to defend the US against armed attacks. If Americans participate in those attacks, then the President is authorized to use lethal force against them.

I guess you must think that if US citizens had been flying Zeroes on 12/7/41 it would have been illegal to shoot them down.

Or that blowing up US airlines with US citizens on board in US airspace would have been illegal on 9/11.

That is what you are arguing by disagreeing with Holder.

[Jakes Progress]

37. Yeah. Those lashes are shredding your pom poms.

[geek tragedy]

39. No, I just value accuracy over poutrage. nt

[Jakes Progress]

52. No, you just value personality over principal.

S'okay. It's a free country. (Well. Reasonably free.)

[geek tragedy]

54. Tell us which language from Holder's letter, given the specific

question he was answering, has you so angry.

Specific language please. Not imaginary language. What he actually said.

[Jakes Progress]

109. Tell us the language from Holders letter

that gives you the warm fuzzes. Tell me exactly where it says that if dick cheney were president, we wouldn't have to worry about those powers being abused.

What he said is not the point. Did you really think he would say "Well. We won't misuse this, but there is no way to determine if a someone like rand paul is elected that he wouldn't just start executing who he wanted."?

Again. When bush and cheney expanded these executive powers and there was outrage on DU, did you come to george and dick's defense? Did you tell the liberals and Obama supporters who raged against this kind of thing when bush did it, to shut up and chill?

[geek tragedy]

116. What you do not understand is that every President has had the authority to

use armed force within the US and against American citizens if necessary, under truly extreme circumstances.

If you disagree with Holder's letter, you are taking the position that it would have been an impeachable offense to shoot down the airliners heading towards their targets on 9/11, were it possible to do so.

[struggle4progress]

97. Nutzies hoard weapon cuz they are nutzy

[Purveyor]

102. Considering the headlines, why would this not encourage them?...

[struggle4progress]

107. It's pointless to try to understand the thought processes of wackos

[kestrel91316]

30. And the first time they do this, they will lose my support.

[24601]

44. They you need only go back a few weeks - because the FBI used lethal force on the Alabama

kidnapper, not a wrong decision in my book. Think in terms of citizens are not required to surrender and/or turn their back just because the individual they face is a US citizen.

Who are you supporting instead?

[jeff47]

202. So you've never supported any US president then?

After all, Washington himself used this power to put down the Whiskey rebellion.

[alarimer]

32. You would be all be screaming if the Bush administration said this

Let's not deny the hypocrisy here.

It's okay only because it's Obama saying it (or his mouthpiece, rather).

[Purveyor]

34. ^^^THIS^^^ +1000 eom

[Jakes Progress]

35. Hypocrisy thy name is reagan democrat.

This is the real downfall of DU - politics like high school football pep rallies.

I think the sad thing is that, yes they would have screamed if bush did it, but they would have cheered reagan doing it just like they do Obama.

[SpartanDem]

43. The downfall is people too stupid to pick history books

American troops have been used on citizens before, the Whiskey Rebellion, against John Brown during the raid on Harper's Ferry. Instead what I see is a bunch of idiots reacting to an inflammatory headline.

The AG sites those extreme situations as examples:

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.

[Jakes Progress]

47. Wow. Spitting out your cheerios over my post?

Sorry to have sent you into inchoate blathering.

Just how old are your history books? Check out posse comitatus.

And please keep which post your are ranting about straight. The point in this sub thread was whether you would have so vociferously defended this position for bush's benefit. A reagan-like policy under any administration is still a reagan-like policy.

So did you defend bush's extension of executive surveillance here on DU? Did you stand up to those crazy liberals who decried the war powers act when cheney was ruling the land?

(Yeah. I like the edit post thing too.)

[SpartanDem]

62. The Posse Comitatus Act.

despite popular belief doesn't prohibit the military from being used as law enforcement, it says that with certain exceptions that it requires an act of Congress.

Secondly, this isn't about Bush, this about people taking an inflammatory headline using it to say the President is expanding his power. He just asserted that he already had this power. But would I have defended Bush in the exact same circumstance? Yes.


Now back to Posse Comitatus, as you can see the President does have very broad authority under the PCA.

The United States Congress has enacted a number of exceptions to the PCA that allow the military, in certain situations, to assist civilian law enforcement agencies in enforcing the laws of the U.S. The most common example is counterdrug assistance (Title 10 USC, Sections 371-381). Other examples include:

The Insurrection Act (Title 10 USC, Sections 331-335). This act allows the president to use U.S. military personnel at the request of a state legislature or governor to suppress insurrections. It also allows the president to use federal troops to enforce federal laws when rebellion against the authority of the U.S. makes it impracticable to enforce the laws of the U.S.

Assistance in the case of crimes involving nuclear materials (Title 18 USC, Section 831). This statute permits DoD personnel to assist the Justice Department in enforcing prohibitions regarding nuclear materials, when the attorney general and the secretary of defense jointly determine that an “emergency situation” exists that poses a serious threat to U.S. interests and is beyond the capability of civilian law enforcement agencies.

Emergency situations involving chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction (Title 10 USC, Section 382). When the attorney general and the secretary of defense jointly determine that an “emergency situation” exists that poses a serious threat to U.S. interests and is beyond the capability of civilian law enforcement agencies. DoD personnel may assist the Justice Department in enforcing prohibitions regarding biological or chemical weapons of mass destruction

http://www.northcom.mil/About/history_education/posse.html

[Jakes Progress]

111. Nice wiki cut and paste.

It is exactly about people who would have raved and stamped their feet in anger when bush did things, but now that their sweetheart is in office, the very same kind of actions are not only overlooked but lauded.

It is about hypocrisy and a lack of a moral center.

[SpartanDem]

140. Nice deflection.

You still didn't refute my last post.

[geek tragedy]

63. Posse comitatus forbid the use of the armed forces for law enforcement, not

to prevent catastrophic armed attacks against the US.

Maybe you should do some more reading yourself.

[Jakes Progress]

113. You haven't boned up enough in the 16 minutes

between my post and yours. You need to read a little Zinn. Then check out Chomsky. Then study Kane and Blair. You could read the original and the revisions, but you really need to read the discussions that took place in leading political journals and publications that came out at the time. Your quick perusal of a little wikipedia won't get it.

The point again is whether you were as quick to defend dick cheney when he did this kind of stuff.

[geek tragedy]

120. If he had ordered the shooting down of Flight 93, yes I would have supported that.

Torture and the war crime of aggressive war? Lock his ass up.

[OnyxCollie]

130. John Yoo approves.

Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States
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.

[John2]

61. It all depends

on who you think is really defending your Rights. I consider Rand Paul and the Tea Party a threat to my Rights. They refuse to abide by the Electoral process just like the South did when Lincoln was elected. We have a divided nation again, where some think their rights are superior to others. Lincoln said a divided nation cannot stand. Those who support the Tea Party feel the need to arm themselves against the Government. Just like Southernors miscalculated the North in 1860, people like Rand Paul and Wayne Lapierre are repeating the same mistakes. I think it is the same mistake people on the Court like Scalia made just as Taney. The right to vote is a Racial Entitlement, Really? Let him keep thinking that way.

[Jakes Progress]

115. rand paul is the fetid dropping from his libertarian asshole of a father.

What has that got to do with whether someone would defend Obama's right to do something unless they also defended cheney and bush when they did it?

[geek tragedy]

38. Lincoln did it. Heck, George Washington personally led an army

to confront American citizens.

[SpartanDem]

40. So I guess Washington was a criminal for putting down the Whiskey Rebellion

[Jakes Progress]

49. So I guess you don't keep up with history.

The Whiskey Rebellion was before 1878. I guess you were right above when you talked about the idiots who post without reading history.

[rachel1]

51. @alarimer That's indisputable

[840high]

68. ++++100

[Javaman]

164. Quiet you, what did I tell you about point out the obvious?huh???

cheers.

[hughee99]

48. Is the definition of "extraordinary circumstances" also at the discretion of the President? n/t

[geek tragedy]

56. Well, who else would make that call in the middle of an ongoing armed attack?

Not sure why people thought this power didn't exist all along--it obviously has always been there.

George Washington led an army against the Whiskey Rebellion. The rebels backed down, but there would have been bloodshed had they not.

[hughee99]

86. It's good to see that they've streamlined this to the point where

the president is the sole person to determine when this can be used. That makes me feel safer.

As for the Whiskey Rebellion, even Washington had to go to the Supreme Court to get a justice to determine that the law enforcement was beyond the control of the local authorities BEFORE he could raise the army he lead (as required by the Militia Act of 1792).

[geek tragedy]

88. Who else has authority to authorize military action in immediate response

to an ongoing attack?

[hughee99]

96. Whoa, what is this "immediate response to an ongoing attack"?

I didn't see that. I saw a nice vague "extraordinary circumstances".

[geek tragedy]

101. The 9/11 or Pearl Harbor examples were not chosen by accident. nt

[hughee99]

105. Great, but two good "For instances" don't make any kind of actual guideline.

I think that's what bothers people, there's no guidelines at all. It's been asserted that they CAN do this, and there's no guidelines or rules, just a "trust us, we won't abuse it".

[geek tragedy]

106. A guideline covering every possible hypothetical event?

The Constitution is the only guideline there is.

[hughee99]

114. How about some sort of guideline laying out what's NOT covered?

Would 911 have qualified? Sure. How about ruby ridge? Is there some level of threat or urgency required or can you use one to go after members of criminal organizations not in the act of committing any offense? If the person is in the US, is it necessary to have any sort of trial or can you kill someone on the president's word (sort of the opposite of a pardon).

I don't doubt that this might be appropriate in some circumstances, but do you really not see this as having the potential for gross abuses?

[geek tragedy]

119. Ruby Ridge was obviously not an extraordinary, catastrophic attack.

There already is a Posse Comitatus statute. The question was whether it would ever be permissible.

The President has the power--and duty--to repel any and all armed attacks against the US. At what point something stops becoming a local law enforcement matter and becomes a mass scale attack that threatens the security if the entire country--there's no magic phrase or number that delineates between the two.

[hughee99]

124. Sorry, didn't see "catastrophic attack" just "circumstances" after

"extraordinary". You seem to have something specific in your mind, but this doesn't seem to be what Holder said. As far as Posse Comitatus, there are already several exceptions to this, and it sounds like they're arguing another exception. As the Coast Guard falls under the Dept. of Homeland Security, and is not covered by the Posse Comitatus Act, they could always do it that way.

When a vague legal term like "extraordinary circumstances" meets "classified information", bad things have the potential to happen.

[geek tragedy]

125. Holder used the language "catastrophic attack"

as the type of situation where it would be warranted.

Beyond that, and it becomes a law school essay question. What about this scenario? What about that scenario? Repeated for every Jerry Bruckheimer script x1000.

[hughee99]

168. He gave "catastrophic attack" as an example of when it might be used.

He could have also used "possible end of the universe" as an example, but I see nothing in here to suggest that THAT is any sort of guideline or minimum standard.

From the OP
"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"


Look, I get it. You don't have a problem with the president having the authority to kill Americans on American soil based solely on HIS judgment that this is necessary. I don't think we're going to get anywhere if I'm asking for some sort of minimum standard (which I think is a reasonable request) and you're building straw men (we can't possibly come up with all the possibilities that Hollywood could dream up, so why have any guidelines at all).

When we get a new president someday (Obama won't be president forever), I'll still welcome you over to this side of the fence where you no longer feel this is a good power to put in the president's hands.

[geek tragedy]

169. Actually, I do have a problem with that. Fortunately for me, that is explicitly

covered by the Posse Comitatus act.

Rand Paul asked the wrong question. The question should have been "does the President have the legal authority to use the military in place of law enforcement to disrupt terrorist plots in the planning stage, if by doing so means using lethal force against American citizens on US soil without a trial?"

[hughee99]

170. The Coast Guard is already using drones,

falls under the department of Homeland Security, and Posse Comitatus does not apply to them. I'm not suggesting THIS president will go that route, but A president will eventually do this if there remains NO guidelines for this power.

I would suggest this sort of power had the potential to bring back the Star Chamber courts, but of course that would imply that at least some sort of due process built into the system for this.

[geek tragedy]

171. I have no problem with the Coast Guard using drones to patrol the coast.

But, their use of drones has no implications for the assassination of American citizens inside the United States, which is forbidden by the constiution and posse comitatus.

The problem is that people like Paul are looking for a hard, simple rule with zero exceptions. Problem is that's never going to be workable.

[hughee99]

172. I'm all for the coast guard using drones for such purposes (patrol)

but there's no reason to believe that this is all they could be used for, and again, posse comitatus does not apply to them, so if they were to be the organization that executed a drone strike, you can throw that protection out the window.

What is this?

"But, their use of drones has no implications for the assassination of American citizens inside the United States, which is forbidden by the Constitution and posse comitatus."

What are we talking about? The administration has just asserted the authority to do specifically what you say the constitution forbids, to kill American citizens inside the United States. Holder just did exactly this. Yes, he talked about how it's a hypothetical, how there would have to be "extraordinary circumstances" for them to do it and gave a "catastrophic attack" as one of those, but fuck all that, they just asserted the authority to do it, without any due process, on the president's word that it is necessary.

I'm bothered by it and you're defending it. At least until I read this statement, where now you seem to be denying it.

[geek tragedy]

173. Posse Comitatus has very limited exceptions.

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

So, in order to use the military to disrupt a terrorist plot, there would need to be "express" authorization from Congress to disregard Posse Comitatus or express authorization from the Constitution--which there is not in the absence of a mass scale attack like 9/11 or Pearl Harbor.

[hughee99]

174. Again, Coast Guard drones. Posse Comitatus does not apply to the Coast Guard,

so no exception is needed.

[geek tragedy]

175. Coast Guard is a law enforcement agency as well as part

of the military.

[hughee99]

176. Yes, and because of their law enforcement component, they are not subject to Posse Comitatus

and because of their military component, they can be under the direct authority of the president. A president could completely sidestep this whole issue by having the Coast Guard launch the strike.

[geek tragedy]

179. Well, by that token police could kill someone and do so every day.

Why would he bother with the Coast Guard when he has the FBI and the CIA to do it?

Note, btw, that the Coast Guard is limited to, well, Coastal waters.

[hughee99]

181. I didn't realize Nebraska was on the coast.

http://www.manta.com/c/mmd5585/us-coast-guard.

And maybe a president would have the FBI launch the strikes instead. I'm not sure how that makes your argument any better, though.

[geek tragedy]

182. If the President wants to murder someone, he can probably

do it and get away with it.

That's physical reality.

In terms of zone strikes against US citizens, it takes a truly outlandish scenario to make such a strike legal inside the US. But, outlandish scenarios do happen from time to time.

[hughee99]

184. You now seem far less confident in your legal protections

than you did earlier. Though I do agree, if the president wants to kill someone, they can probably get that done. I'd just don't like the idea that a president can kill an citizen on US soil with no due process and be legally protected by asserting an "extraordinary circumstance" and when asked to outline this circumstance they can reply "that's a matter of national security" which would naturally seem to fit right in with the scenario.

As far as what makes for a "truly outlandish scenario", we're just going to have to trust our president to decide that for himself. This is fine, because we'd never elect a president who would lie to us so they could do what they wanted to do anyway. Hell, it's not like some president told us about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the urgency of removing Saddam Hussein from power even though they new it wasn't true.

[geek tragedy]

185. The scary thing about laws is that they're only as good as the people

and institutions implementing them.

The Constitution is a very short document that leaves the three branches to figure out between them what it means as applied to specific circumstances.

The Constitution didn't change between Plessy and Brown v Board--the people enforcing it did.

[Lint Head]

53. GWB could have ordered jet fighters to shoot down the planes that flew into the WTC.

Maybe Ron Paul is afraid there is a drone with his name on it.

[ladjf]

57. "Give a boy a stick and he'll find something that needs to be hit. nt"

[The Stranger]

60. Timothy McVeigh doesn't count (he's the wrong color)

The two possible examples of such "extraordinary" circumstances were the attack on Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Just in case you were wondering.

[Amonester]

139. I had the same thought: What if Bill Clinton had a few minutes warning...

and no effective-enough police forces on location to prevent his mass murders?

In short, Clinton had the same power available to him. Perhaps not the drones at that time, but we don't know that.

[another_liberal]

72. American citizens were involved in the attack on Pearl Harbor . . .?

American citizens were involved in the attacks on Pearl Harbor and the Twin Towers? Talk about your revisionist history, this must be cutting edge scholarship indeed!

[Mutatis Mutandis]

78. (-)<>(-)

The Stimson-Marshall-McCloy-Lovett-Bundy Clique Schemed for US Defeat at Pearl Harbor

http://tarpley.net/audio/20111206-WGT_on_INN.mp3

http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/program/24344

9-11

[another_liberal]

118. Well . . .

There weren't any Americans involved in the attack on Pearl Harbor (that really is revisionism of the worst kind).

I guess the other one is in some doubt, to say the least.

[Mutatis Mutandis]

158. Stimson, Marshall, McCloy, Lovett, and Bundy were Americans

if you have the time, give thise podcasts a listen. Some very interesting subjects surrounding Pearl Harbour and the anti-FDR cabal are discussed.

[Javaman]

165. Discussed or facts presented? nt

[another_liberal]

192. I've read some books . . .

I've read some books regarding that conspiracy theory. I do not buy it.

The Roosevelt Administration likely wanted to enter the war, but not through an attack by Japan on Hawaii.

[Mutatis Mutandis]

73. Rall

[bowens43]

74. Worse then anything bush proposed...

of course the true believers will complain about this post and it will be deleted...oh well.

[FiveGoodMen]

79. He's declared himself King

Shame on those who defend him.

[struggle4progress]

110. That claim requires better evidence than yet another Rand Paul tantrum

[frylock]

80. thank goodness that he'll be president for life..

why I just don't know what i'd do if a republican were to ever have such power.

[4bucksagallon]

81. Ted Nugent and Rush Limbaugh should be looking skyward, ROFL!

[AnotherMcIntosh]

82. So President Bush-43 would have the authority to use military force against Americans on US soil?

So President Bush-41 would have the authority to use military force against Americans on US soil?

So President Nixon would have the authority to use military force against Americans on US soil?

So Jeb Bush, if he becomes President, would have the authority to use military force against Americans on US soil?

[SpartanDem]

89. 41 and Nixon had that authority as CiC

[geek tragedy]

103. Yes, Bush had the authority to shoot down the airliners on 9/11

and that very well might have happened for the fourth plane had not the passengers taken care of the hijackers.

Did you think otherwise?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

137. This president is different from all other presidents in that he is the only one - ever - to claim

to have the authority to kill Americans with drones with no Congressional oversight.

So far, we've only seen drone-killing, with no oversight, outside of US soil. The American that he killed was not flying the fourth plane nor any other plane.

If you are claiming that an emergency would have justified using the military to kill Americans who were in a plane controlled by hijackers and using that as an equivalency to kill other Americans in a non-emergency situation, that is a false equivalency.

If you have any information that an emergency existed when President Obama used a drone to kill an American or foreign soil, where are your facts to support that? Do you have links to anything that would support that?

[geek tragedy]

138. Overseas (tribal Yemen) and within the US are two entirely different legal and factual situations.

Especially when it comes to using the military.

[Amonester]

141. How about Bìll Clinton had the same authority to kill Timothy McVeigh just minutes before...

Would that be justified enough?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

142. How about Richard Nixon who had an "enemies list" of those who criticized him?

If you were a Nixon supporter, would you give him the unfettered authority to do whatever he wanted with those on his list?

[Amonester]

144. 1. You didn't answer the question (yet).

2. Reagan could have done a similar list.

3. I doubt Kennedy or Carter would have.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

148. Why would you ask me, "How about Bìll Clinton had the same authority to kill Timothy McVeigh

just minutes before..."?

There are those, and perhaps you as indicated by your question, who believe that the President can unilaterally take action without any consideration of our views, the Constitution, the established rules of law, Congress, or the judiciary.

My answer obviously indicates that no President should have such unilateral authority - even when imaginary hypotheticals are offered.

Nixon's "enemies list" was real. His Plumbers unit, with E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy, were real. If I understand your position correctly, if anyone can imagine a scenario (such as a the over-used "ticking time bomb" one), then the President can actually act in non-emergency situations to disregard the Constitution and start killing Americans on American soil. Wouldn't E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy agree with you?

This is a novel concept. If you want to agree with it, you are welcome to do so. I don't.

[Amonester]

149. I don't agree with it. But I live in reality.

I don't see the day any president (and CiC) would not do what he wants when he wants, if he really wants to do it.

Nixon was punished for he did what he wanted after he did it. We were lucky that time, but he did it nonetheless.

It's not because Obama would abolish those powers that any other president after him would suddenly become virtuous and refrain from recreating them in order to use them as he/she wishes...

That's a reality.

[jeff47]

203. You can even go back further. Washington-1 used this authority to put down the Whiskey Rebellion.

[Politicub]

84. Rand Paul, spare me the drama queen routine

He's one of the most backward of the tea baggers.

I'll make up my own mind about the policy, but I refuse to let it be colored by Rand Paul's framing.

The justice department policy allows killing of bonafide criminals who pose an imminent threat. If allowed to be brought to fruition, tea bagger-backed economic policies will cause untold suffering to millions of the most vulnerable among us. Fuck Paul and the tea baggers.

[FiveGoodMen]

128. "The justice department policy allows killing of bonafide criminals"

Think of the money we'll save when this catches on and we dispense with all those pesky, expensive trials.

[Politicub]

162. Like I said, I take the policy at face value

Where others, like Paul, are using it like a club to bash the administration.

There's no conspiracy, and it's sad that DUers give one iota of credence to anything coming from Paul.

[FiveGoodMen]

180. Don't give a rat's ass what Paul says

Obama is dead wrong on this.

[Nanjing to Seoul]

85. "Dr" Paul, if Obama had an "R" instead of a "D," you would support this. Hypocritical asshole!

[Blandocyte]

90. If it happens, impeachment would be a good move

Just to review the question of criminality.

[Paul E Ester]

92. Not sure why we focus on the method rather than the action.

The executive branch reserves itself the right to murder Americans in extraordinary circumstances. Whether by drone or by sending a death squad to your house in the middle of the night makes no legal difference to them. Maybe they poke you with an umbrella on the bus and give you cancer or put polonium in your tea. The executive branch can murder at will. The legal question remains, after they murder you, can they rape your wife and children or is that crossing the line? The best legal minds are working on the question.

[struggle4progress]

94. What the fuck are you talking about?

[mimi85]

133. Seriously!

Agree - what the hell are you talking about?

[jeff47]

204. No. And no one beyond you is making that claim.

Military force can be used in the case of imminent or actual attack against the US. And no, there aren't games to be played with "imminent". There's an actual legal definition of the concept.

But feel free to explain how Washington was wrong to use the military to put down the Whiskey Rebellion. It was the same power Holder discussed yesterday.

[DRoseDARs]

95. Wait, THOSE were his examples? Pearl Harbor, which Truman had advance notice and declined to act...

... so he'd have public support for going to war with Imperial Japan, and 9/11, which Bush had advance notice and was ...at best... criminally negligent in putting into place additional security resources? Are you fucking KIDDING me, Holder? You won't go after the Big Banks, but you'll bust potheads and shit all over the US Constitution?

[struggle4progress]

99. Harry Truman wasn't even VP until Jan '45 and only became POTUS in Apr '45

At the time of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Truman was less than a year into his second term as the junior US Senator from Missouri

But if you must promote strange ideas about Truman covering up an imminent Pearl Harbor attack, do at least provide some evidence

[DRoseDARs]

100. My timeline was wrong I fess up to that, but the debate about the government's foreknowledge is real

...and backed by documentary evidence and statements made in that time. Roosevelt was president at the time, and that was indeed my mistake.

[struggle4progress]

104. You have simply moved from a weird attack on Truman to a vaguer weird attack on "the government"

[DRoseDARs]

108. I have done no such thing, but please continue condescending. As much as I loathe doing this, here:

Citing *shudder* Wikipedia for convenience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor_advance-knowledge_conspiracy_theory

My Truman slip was an honest mistake and I owned up to it.

[struggle4progress]

112. So you're pushing a conspiracy theory

[DRoseDARs]

117. If you're going to dismiss it out-of-hand because of one word, then this isn't worth our time.

The debate and questions have gone on for close to 70 years now.

[struggle4progress]

122. You provided a link to a Wikileaks page that discusses a hodge-podge of conspiracy theories,

each pushed by a small group of people: the different theories don't even fit into a coherent narrative

[DRoseDARs]

123. Wasn't aware Wikileaks.org existed before it was registered in 2006, or that Wikipedia = Wikileaks.

Or do you believe Assange to be a time traveler?

[struggle4progress]

127. Thanks for the correction. Dumb typo

[DRoseDARs]

129. As was mine. We're family here, let's just agree to disagree. I've respected you a long time...

...definitely not willing to change my opinion of you over old history not likely to ever be fully known.

[just1voice]

98. Why not, when we still have torture camps, criminal banks and 2 sets of laws

The 1st set of laws applies to the people, the 99%.
The 2nd set of laws applies to the elite, the 1%, and they can torture and/or kill whomever they want. They can also steal as much as they want.

[Pterodactyl]

121. It's a good thing Obama is good instead of evil, or this would be something to worry about.

[Renew Deal]

126. Hear that teabaggers?

[Deep13]

131. "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,...

... unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

This is very dangerous indeed. Did we make the wrong choice last year?

[geek tragedy]

167. Feel free to register at Free Republic based on a letter you didn't bother

to read.

[Deep13]

187. The correct answer is...

"No, the Constitution prohibits it," rather than leaving the door open for some unlikely scenario.

[geek tragedy]

188. Problem is the constitution doesn't flatly prohibit it in all cases.

That would be a false answer.

[Deep13]

189. "No person...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." nt

[geek tragedy]

190. So, police may never use lethal force?

If an American is flying an airplane headed straight for the Capitol, it would be a violation of his constitutional rights to shoot him down?

The due process clause does not prevent the government from ever taking the lives of its citizens without a trial. That is a frivolous argument;

[Deep13]

191. the police example is personal self-defense,...

...and is supposed to be their last option.

...and the aircraft example is defense of third persons. Frankly, I'm not convinced that the Feds. have the right to kill what amount to bystanders (plane passengers) in other to save other innocent people. The hijackers, yes, that is defense of third persons, but I don't think the passengers. And if the govt. has advanced warning of an attack, isn't the best option to evacuate the likely target?

The basic common law is that one may never use lethal force to defend property. Also, one cannot commit murder to save his or her own life or that of a third person.

Anyway, the Amendment says "No person...." There's no wiggle room there so ambiguities need to be resolved against the govt.

[geek tragedy]

193. "Due process" certainly involves a lot of wiggle room.

Process that is 'due' in some circumstances is not 'due' in others.

The amendment does not say "no person shall be deprived of life without a court hearing."

[davidthegnome]

132. The President's authority is one thing...

The use of drone strikes against American citizens, on American soil... is something else entirely. I'm not sure why Holder chose Pearl Harbor and 9/11 as examples. To begin with, no one (or at least, very few people) would have objected had the planes that blown up the world trade center been destroyed en route. No one would have objected (okay, well, maybe a few would have) if the Japanese strike against Pearl Harbor was halted by military action, even if this necessitated firing on American citizens... which, as far as I know, it didn't.

Holder's examples are misleading. 9/11, as far as I know, wasn't an attack by Americans on Americans. Pearl Harbor, as far as I know, didn't involve Americans blowing up... well, Pearl Harbor. Other examples being used here by rational people are more to the point, more related. Such as the whiskey rebellion, for instance.

What concerns me isn't so much the question of whether the President has the authority to terminate (or order terminated) American citizens. I believe that the President does, but that it is subject to legal review, as well as, eventually, to public outrage/approval. I suppose I'd be more confident, or happier about this, if the Bush administration hadn't gotten away completely with so many crimes. I suppose I'd be happier about this if President Obama had made the attempt to hold the previous administration accountable for war crimes, for lying to the American people in pursuit of their own twisted agenda. For sending our Nation into great debt and our military into hell based on false pretenses and greed.

Who is going to hold the President, or the administration accountable? Us? A bunch of progressives on an internet forum? The American public... the majority of which does not vote? The democrats or the republicans, who are tripping over themselves to see who can be the most corporate friendly ass kissers? Perhaps the UN... which manages to bark quite frequently, but has a bite that... well, wait, do they actually have a bite? (Note that I don't dislike or despise the UN's mission, I simply think it has no real teeth to police a powerful Nation)

We are talking about drone strikes being permitted, being used, against American citizens on American soil... by those who have been determined to be above the law. No one should be above the law - and yet criminal behavior, provided we are sufficiently confused and divided about it, seems to somehow get a free pass here in America, particularly when the guilty are those of wealth and power.

So yeah. This scares the shit out of me.

[leveymg]

134. We're returning to the days when the military was used to put down strikes. That wasn't so long ago

During the period from 1880 through World War One there were many such incidents when State militias and U.S. troops used machine guns against striking miners and other workers in the American west. As recently as 1968, the US Army used armoured vehicles to suppress riots in American cities.

Studies have shown that between 1775-1995, the US armed forces have been used domestically as many as 160 times. http://www.brianwillson.com/history-us-military-interventions-against-domestic-civil-racial-and-labor-unrest/

It can happen here, and it has, many times. Drones are just 21st Century technology used for the same old, bloody purposes of maintaining control.

[OnyxCollie]

136. Preparing for the Hour of Need: Emergency Powers in the United States

Abraham Lincoln assumed office in March 1861 in an already
prevailing crisis atmosphere. Dissolution threatened the Union's
very existence; there were the first traces of open warfare between
the federal government and the southern secessionist states; a
month earlier a provisional government had been set up in the
South, and its Confederate Provisional Congress quickly enacted
emergency powers for its chief executive. These conditions led the
new president in July to express aloud the dilemma of political
power which would face his country as well as other democracies
and future generations. "Must a government, of necessity, be too
strong for the liberties of its own people," he wondered, "or too
weak to maintain its own existence?"

It had not taken Lincoln very long to resolve his personal
dilemma. In the eleven weeks between April and July 1861 he
provided authoritarian leadership in combating the crisis and in
preserving the Union. Acting at his own initiative and without
the benefit of precedent, under no restraint since Congress was not
in session at the time, and on the basis of nonstatutory authority,
Lincoln adopted a series of strong emergency measures by executive
order or proclamation which were previously thought to fall
entirely within the competence of the Congress or at least to
require the latter's approval.

In his own defense President Lincoln used two arguments.
Such measures were valid, first, on the grounds of necessity: "I
conceive that I may in an emergency do things on military grounds
which cannot constitutionally be done by the Congress." Public
safety and the public interest would always have to be given the
highest consideration. His second line of reasoning rested upon a
broad interpretation of the president's constitutional role as commander
in chief of the armed forces. As commander in chief of
the Army and Navy, Lincoln argued, "in time of war I suppose I
have a right to take any measures which may best subdue the
enemy." Powers of national defense, it followed, could only be
exerted by the president of the United States. Lincoln's actions
together with his rationalization for them were to profoundly
influence the debate on separation of powers by virtue of their
being the earliest real precedents; they have also provided the
foundation for similar conduct by later presidents.

In terms of a power balance among the branches and institutions
of government the emergency period of the Civil War represents
clear dominance of the presidency. Programs initiated by
Lincoln had a considerable degree of popular approval; and
neither Congress nor the Supreme Court exercised any effective
restraint upon the president. The legislative branch was willing to
allow the president, in his military role, to prosecute the war as
he saw fit, and his actions either went unchallenged by Congress
or were sanctioned after rather than before being implemented.
Once the crisis was safely over, however, the two other, rival
branches did work to redress the balance in the early Reconstruction
years.

Klieman, A. S. (1979, April). Preparing for the hour of need: Emergency powers in the United States. The Review of Politics, 41(2), 238-239.

[struggle4progress]

143. The article, like Rand Paul, completely misrepresents Holder's response:

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

Holder actually goes no further than: "... were .. an emergency to arise, I would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the president ..."

[harkonen]

150. Monsieur Holder, Talk is Cheap

Put the Administration's policy on its website and be specific regarding this issue.

[blkmusclmachine]

151. 9/11 was a handy excuse.

Watch out, 99% percent.

The Drones will get ya.

[Javaman]

166. Well this opens the door for some future nut bag prez. nt

[Sunlei]

177. look how the bush gang was ready to down planes filled with innocents, we're lucky canda let them in

[Beacool]

178. Well, well, isn't that comforting?

[alp227]

195. Listening to Thom Hartmann today and reading friend's twitter about drones killing Obama voters

Unfortunately Obama has confirmed the crackpot wingnuts' worst nightmares.

[quadrature]

199. state murder laws still apply. nt