AG Holder: Gov could drone strike citizen within US.

[Lugiahua]

President Barack Obama has the legal authority to unleash deadly force—such as drone strikes—against Americans on U.S. soil without first putting them on trial, Attorney General Eric Holder wrote in a letter released Tuesday.
But Holder, writing to Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, underlined that Obama “has no intention” of targeting his fellow citizens with unmanned aerial vehicles and would do so only if facing “an extraordinary circumstance.”

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/h...-politics.html
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/0...ble/?hpt=hp_t2
http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news...cumstance?lite

Where is our 5th Amendment?

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.

[ISNJH]

I already posted this in the gun thread, this was a big slip up on the admin to come out and say this, as I said in the other thread we conduct targeted strikes outside the US on those who are planning attacks because the effort to go in to arrest them and bring is out is not really possible because by the time a person is detected over sea's that person will likely have moved on before the go ahead to send a team in is given and for the team to reach that area.

To say that the police inside the US with all the equipment gear and training they get would be unable to mount a raid on a person or group to go in and arrest that person and would require a direct military strike on US soil is total bullocks.

[Ought Six]

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...33#post6588033

[HK in AK]

It is clear that the constitution is being decimated; anyone that believes otherwise is a fool.

[PMI]

I already posted this in the gun thread, this was a big slip up on the admin to come out and say this, as I said in the other thread we conduct targeted strikes outside the US on those who are planning attacks because the effort to go in to arrest them and bring is out is not really possible because by the time a person is detected over sea's that person will likely have moved on before the go ahead to send a team in is given and for the team to reach that area.

To say that the police inside the US with all the equipment gear and training they get would be unable to mount a raid on a person or group to go in and arrest that person and would require a direct military strike on US soil is total bullocks.

You need to read the entire letter. Most of it is up at the link. The entire thing can be found HERE in pdf.

The relevant paragraph...

.../snip/...

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."

.../snip/...

Saying that in the case of an attack along the lines of 9/11 of Pearl Harbor that it may be necessary for the military to take a role is a far cry from categorically refusing to rule out drone strikes against American citizens on US soil.

Of course it would have been realpolitik to say "Absolutely not! Of course we would never kill citizens in our country without due process!" and then if Red Dawn happens and you have to order a Predator strike on some convenience store owner who was acting as a pathfinder for the waves of North Korea paratroopers then follow up with "well obviously unforeseeable circumstances made it necessary".

I'm a pretty big 4th & 5th Amendment guy but I think this letter is getting blown out of proportion just a bit. Of course it's Ron Paul so what do you expectin?

[Henry's Fork]

It is clear that the constitution is being decimated; anyone that believes otherwise is a fool.

In before Benders "Obama's Fault Gif" !!!!

I wouldnt say decimated, but clearly infringed upon.

The media is also guilty in this as well.

[Ought Six]

You need to read the entire letter. Most of it is up at the link. The entire thing can be found HERE in pdf.

I do not know what letter you are talking about. I am talking about this:

"Our legal authority {to use drones} is not limited to the battlefields in Afghanistan. Indeed, neither Congress nor our federal courts has limited the geographic scope of our ability to use force to the current conflict in Afghanistan. We are at war with a stateless enemy, ****e to shifting operations from country to country."
-- Eric Holder, speech at Northwestern University, 5 March 2012 --

After this speech reporters pressed the White House to rule out the use of drones on American soil. The White House, instead of doing so, flatly refused to comment.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

I really think the Jenna Marbles " Thanks Obama " skit is needed in this thread.

Some of you guys on here were praising the private use of a drone by some pot bellied trapper beared militia types down on the border a while back but now its panting hystronics that god forbid the Govt may use the best tools at their disposal to eliminate a clear and present danger to your life and liberty.
Call me a militaristic imperialist but you guys should have these drones armed and stalking the Southern seaways of your border like yesterday.

[tokengator]

Holder uses 9/11 and Pearl Harbor as an example. Mr. Holder surely realizes that neither of those incidents involved citizens, right?

[IconOfEvi]

Holder uses 9/11 and Pearl Harbor as an example. Mr. Holder surely realizes that neither of those incidents involved citizens, right?

And yet this pond scum is the highest attorney in the land.

Don't you just feel so much more safer?

[Laconian]

According to the Federal standard, established by several SCOTUS cases (the 2 most prominent being Tenn. v Garner and Graham v Connor), in very general terms can be summed up as an LEO can use deadly physical force to protect himself/herself or a third party when he/she reasonably believes that he/she or the third party is in imminent danger of death or serious physical injury. For the most part therre are no ROE, there are objective facts and circumstances (and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom) that would lead a reasonable officer to believe deadly force is warranted or justified. There is no trial, an arrest may have been attempted or not. It is also understood that when a certain level of force is justified, including deadly physical force, the manner in which it is applied is irrelevant. So an officer faced with a deadly force situation would be authorized to shoot a subject but could use another means to eliminate the threat as well (head strikes with an impact weapon, etc.)

So the same legality that authorizes/sanctions a police officer to shoot a suspect, a police sniper to shoot a hostage taker, etc. in the performance of their duties, probably could be extrapolated out to show the the government may be faced with an instance where it would be objectively reasonable for the Executive, when faced with a certain set of circumstances to use the drone strike to eliminate a threat of imminent danger.

I am not comfortable with it being done. But from a strict legal understanding of use of force, I can see how it could be deemed acceptable. Sort of along the same lines of would it ever be justifiable for USAF fighter planes to shoot down a civilian aircraft being used as a guided missile? What are the ethical and legal consequences?

[shermbodius]

It is clear that the constitution is being decimated; anyone that believes otherwise is a fool.

Agree and also replace Obama with Bush and watch the fireworks from the media instead of crickets.

[tokengator]

Rand Paul has speaking over an hour in his attempt to filibuster Brennan.

I wonder if anyone else in the GOP is going to help him out?

Senator Rand Paul ‏@SenRandPaul
I will not sit quietly and let President Obama shred the Constitution. #filiblizzard

[shermbodius]

Rand Paul has speaking over an hour in his attempt to filibuster Brennan.

I wonder if anyone else in the GOP is going to help him out?

Senator Rand Paul ‏@SenRandPaul
I will not sit quietly and let President Obama shred the Constitution. #filiblizzard

The problem with the Republican leadership is it wants the same big government.
Boehner, Cantor, these guys aren't conservatives. They just want power. They are statist light. They don't communicate values that are Constitutional. If you bring up the Constitution, your considered nutty. That is why Rand is on his own.IMHO

[tokengator]

The problem with the Republican leadership is it wants the same big government.
Boehner, Cantor, these guys aren't conservatives. They just want power. They are statist light. They don't communicate values that are Constitutional. If you bring up the Constitution, your considered nutty. That is why Rand is on his own.IMHO

bingo......


those of us wanting to government to work within the confines of the constitution have been marginalized as loons, fringe, whackos not only by the left, media...but also by many in the GOP. It is sickening