Obama has right to kill Americans, on American soil, without due process

[jimnyc]

This according to Eric Holder in response to Rand Paul. What say thou, Rev?


Sen. Rand Paul is blasting Attorney General Eric Holder's assertion that the government could conceivably use drones against its own citizens in the U.S. as "frightening," saying such an action would violate the Constitution.

Paul, R-Ky., was responding to comments by Holder released Tuesday before the Senate Intelligence Committee approved the nomination of John Brennan, President Obama's pick to be his next CIA director.

Paul said in a statement obtained by Fox News that Holder sent him two letters regarding the constitutionality of the use of legal force, such as drones against Americans and on U.S. soil, after Paul petitioned Brennan to speak on the matter.

In the letter, Holder says the U.S. has never carried out a drone strike against one of its citizens on American soil, and calls a situation where such a strike may occur "entirely hypothetical" and "unlikely to occur."

However, Holder does not entirely rule out that such a scenario may occur in the future, and indicates that such a strike would be legal under the Constitution.

“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 said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/06/sen-paul-slams-attorney-general-holder-for-refusal-to-rule-out-drone-strikes-in/

[gabosaurus]

This has been true for all Presidents. Why just single out Obama?

[Little-Acorn]

This according to Eric Holder in response to Rand Paul. What say thou, Rev?



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/06/sen-paul-slams-attorney-general-holder-for-refusal-to-rule-out-drone-strikes-in/

Ted Cruz hammered on Eric Holder for half an hour, and Holder finally admitted that such a thing is unconstitutional, unless the citizen is an imminent threat.

[fj1200]

This according to Eric Holder in response to Rand Paul. What say thou, Rev?


“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 said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/06/sen-paul-slams-attorney-general-holder-for-refusal-to-rule-out-drone-strikes-in/

That's a fine statement except for where they have already "stretched" the Constitution to fit other situations.

[fj1200]

This has been true for all Presidents. Why just single out Obama?

What other presidents have proposed drone strikes against citizens?

[Kathianne]

Ted Cruz hammered on Eric Holder for half an hour, and Holder finally admitted that such a thing is unconstitutional, unless the citizen is an imminent threat.

That's what Holder has been saying since the beginning, using Pearl Harbor and 9/11 attacks as the sort of 'crisis' he's referring to as 'exceptions.' Except, Pearl Harbor were Japanese pilots, 9/11 were Saudis and Egyptians. No Americans. Besides, no addressing the fact that drones wouldn't have helped in either case, with or without Americans.

This would be blatantly unconstitutional, no single person regardless of party, should have that power.

[gabosaurus]

What other presidents have proposed drone strikes against citizens?

Tell me where Obama is proposing drone strikes against American citizens on American soil.

[jimnyc]

This has been true for all Presidents. Why just single out Obama?


Tell me where Obama is proposing drone strikes against American citizens on American soil.

You have a link/quote of another president or attorney general stating it's A-ok to target Americans with drones? I'm all ears and will happily point out their crap too. Honestly though, since drones are fairly new, I haven't seen/heard another do so. But also, I don't think I've ever seen either state it was OK, regardless of "how" they would target that person on our soil. So I'll take links about former presidents saying as much, regardless of tools... Ante up!

[jimnyc]

Tell me where Obama is proposing drone strikes against American citizens on American soil.

It's not only about proposing, but stating it CAN happen and would be constitutional. But I'll wait for the others you stated have done so before.

[aboutime]

Tell me where Obama is proposing drone strikes against American citizens on American soil.



Gabby. You really ARE that uninformed, and stupid?

Do you read, or listen to anything before you put your FOOT in your Mouth?

[fj1200]

Tell me where Obama is proposing drone strikes against American citizens on American soil.

Are you confused as to Holder works for?

[aboutime]

This has been true for all Presidents. Why just single out Obama?


Gabby. PROVE IT! Use a link with viable, actual, documented, verifiable proof. Otherwise. Speaking for Holder, and Obama isn't good for you.

[jimnyc]

Are you confused as to Holder works for?

Holder and Obama talking about how it's ok to target Americans on American soil. These are the same 2 men ultimately responsible for the federal agents dead as a result of Fast and Furious. And then the failed debacle in Benghazi. Should anyone be surprised that they feel it's within their right to kill Americans on American soil without due process? It's not like they're in a foreign land and cannot be brought in.

[hjmick]

He's done it to Americans on foreign soil, why should this recent turn of the worm be a surprise to anyone?

[Kathianne]

He's done it to Americans on foreign soil, why should this recent turn of the worm be a surprise to anyone?

Many thought that wrong, the argument though would be they had proof of involvement and he was traveling with known foreign terrorists. However, the problem with this is the government can manufacture anything they want, without other branches, such a judicial, there are no checks and balances.

[hjmick]

Many thought that wrong, the argument though would be they had proof of involvement and he was traveling with known foreign terrorists. However, the problem with this is the government can manufacture anything they want, without other branches, such a judicial, there are no checks and balances.


I was referring more to his son, killed a couple of weeks after his father...

But the most controversial drone strike took place on Oct. 14, 2011, when 16-year-old Abdulrahman was killed by U.S. forces.

Family of the Denver-born teenager say he had no ties to terrorist organizations and was unjustly targeted because of his father. (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/05/16856963-american-drone-deaths-highlight-controversy?lite)

[jimnyc]

I was referring more to his son, killed a couple of weeks after his father...

But the most controversial drone strike took place on Oct. 14, 2011, when 16-year-old Abdulrahman was killed by U.S. forces.

Family of the Denver-born teenager say he had no ties to terrorist organizations and was unjustly targeted because of his father. (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/05/16856963-american-drone-deaths-highlight-controversy?lite)

But he was with terrorists, and I don't recall HIM being a target. Traveling with terrorists is a risky proposition!

[jimnyc]

I believe the actual target was a known Al Qaeda soldier, and Awlaki's son was "collateral damage".

[Voted4Reagan]

Gabby dropped her turd and fled.

typical

[hjmick]

But he was with terrorists, and I don't recall HIM being a target. Traveling with terrorists is a risky proposition!


That almost makes it worse...


Makes me think that, where Obama is concerned, the ends justifies the means no matter how many innocents are killed.

[jimnyc]

That almost makes it worse...


Makes me think that, where Obama is concerned, the ends justifies the means no matter how many innocents are killed.

I don't have a problem with a drone strike in a foreign country, against known terrorists, who have pledged to attack us. It sucks that the kid was killed, but he wasn't a target and the operation did in fact get an Al Qaeda leader. I don't think we should balk at such opportunities just because it's possible an American is perhaps abroad hanging out with the enemy.

But I think there's a huge difference between abroad and on American soil. On our soil we have an option of capturing, or sending in various forces, without the use of a drone. Of course if someone comes back at the police with guns of their own... but that wouldn't be "targeting" them then at least. But an enemy on foreign soil, planning attacks, and no forces will intervene and take them in? We take them out.

[Robert A Whit]

This point I have not read discussed.

Say the cops shoot a family member to death under the Holder / Obama doctrine.

Who do you complain to?

The media? They promote left wing ideology?

Cops? Good luck. they killed the guy.


So who?

[jimnyc]

This point I have not read discussed.

Say the cops shoot a family member to death under the Holder / Obama doctrine.

Who do you complain to?

The media? They promote left wing ideology?

Cops? Good luck. they killed the guy.


So who?

We're talking about whether or not the President has the authority to order a drone strike on an American, on American soil - not police.

[Robert A Whit]

We're talking about whether or not the President has the authority to order a drone strike on an American, on American soil - not police.

What is the difference since both result in the death of some American?

[jimnyc]

What is the difference since both result in the death of some American?

If a policemen did so, we're talking a case of justified use, or murder. If we're talking about a sitting President ordering a drone attack, in America, on an American, we are talking about something MUCH different, constitutionally different.

[jimnyc]

Lost in all of this...

The Senate is due to vote on the nomination of John Brennan to the CIA. Rand Paul is making his speech though and basically he will continue for as long as it takes, to stop the nomination, so long as Obama and Holder are against the constitution. I'm not normally in favor of such tactics, but it's sure as hell a way to "stop the insanity" and give Americans a chance to look at something in depth before it disappears, never to be heard from again,


WASHINGTON -- In a rare, traditional filibuster, Sen. Rand Paul vowed to speak on the Senate floor "as long as it takes" to draw attention to his concerns about the Obama administration's policy regarding the targeted killing of American terrorism suspects.

The Kentucky Republican took to the floor before noon Wednesday to block an expected vote on the nomination of John Brennan to lead the CIA, with aides saying he could continue for hours. Paul, beginning his remarks, said he would continue "until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important."

"Are we so complacent with our rights that we would allow a president to say he might kill Americans?" Paul asked. "No one person, no one politician should be allowed ... to judge the guilt of an individual and to execute an individual. It goes against everything we fundamentally believe in our country."

As Paul began the third hour of his filibuster, he shifted from discussing terrorism to government spending. No other senators were in the chamber, except freshman Democrat Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin who sat on the rostrum as presiding officer. A Senate stenographer stood just feet from Paul as he spoke from his corner desk, an aide seated to his left. A spokesman for Paul said he was armed with three large binders of material to help him deliver his remarks.

The Senate Intelligence Committee voted 12-3 Tuesday to forward Brennan’s nomination to the full Senate, a path that senators thought was cleared after the White House agreed to provide all of the Justice Department’s secret legal opinions on killing terrorism suspects abroad, as well records from the September attacks at U.S. diplomatic and intelligence compounds in Benghazi, Libya.

A leadership aide had said the Senate could potentially hold a confirmation vote Wednesday evening, with a 60-vote requirement, a threshold that appeared to be within reach.

Paul, a self-described champion of constitutional liberties, had said this week he would delay a vote until the White House assures him it has no authority to target an American within the United States under the drone program. Perhaps because he lacked the support of a sufficient number of colleagues to hold up the vote, Paul instead chose to use his prerogative as a senator to control the floor.

“I have allowed the president to pick his appointees, but I will not sit quietly and let him shred the Constitution,” he said. “I cannot sit at my desk quietly and let the president say he will kill Americans on American soil who are not actively attacking the country.”

Under Rule XIX of the Senate, senators who have been recognized to speak may do so for as long as they wish and cannot be forced to cede the floor or even interrupted without their consent, according to the Congressional Research Service.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-rand-paul-brennan-nomination-20130306,0,257591.story

[gabosaurus]

When it comes to targeted killing of American citizens, both major political parties have President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder's back.

Top officials and legislators from both the Democratic and Republican party have expressed public support for the Obama administration's drone strikes against American citizens who were suspected of terrorism abroad.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/03/bipartisan-approval-targeted-killing

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You have a link/quote of another president or attorney general stating it's A-ok to target Americans with drones? I'm all ears and will happily point out their crap too. Honestly though, since drones are fairly new, I haven't seen/heard another do so. But also, I don't think I've ever seen either state it was OK, regardless of "how" they would target that person on our soil. So I'll take links about former presidents saying as much, regardless of tools... Ante up!

She has no link , no proof , nothing but her insane defense of obama the traitor.
Denying due process to an American on American soil unless he/she presents an immediate threat to others is Unconstitutional. It is for the president just as it is for anybody else! He does not get to be above the Constitution.
This is a no-brainer for anybody that has even basic knowledge of our Constitution and the foundation of this nation. The right to life is by far the greatest right we have and obama would love to be able to snuff it out at his damn leisure. He can be trusted ever bit as far as you can pick up and throw your car.-Tyr

[jimnyc]

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/03/bipartisan-approval-targeted-killing

That's for situations abroad, as in an American abroad involved in terrorist activity. That has NOTHING to do with what is being discussed here.

[Robert A Whit]

If a policemen did so, we're talking a case of justified use, or murder. If we're talking about a sitting President ordering a drone attack, in America, on an American, we are talking about something MUCH different, constitutionally different.

I get your point, however in my case, same victim, same spot and date. Only difference is one case the cops, the other the president. To the victim, it does not matter. All of it is wrong.

[Robert A Whit]

Gabby. You really ARE that uninformed, and stupid?

Do you read, or listen to anything before you put your FOOT in your Mouth?

Yeah, I would say all that is on your part is starting one more argument.

[aboutime]

yeah, i would say all that is on your part is starting one more argument.


just one?

[revelarts]

That's a fine statement except for where they have already "stretched" the Constitution to fit other situations.
Exactly.
the constitution has been twisted hard for 12 years now since 9/11. lawyers for the each president assume it says what they want it to mean and then wait and see if anyone calls them on it.
Bush was called on some things and 1/2 the time told that stuff was unconstitutional. then he would cajole the congress to change the laws do make whatever look almost constitutional. Obama is following the same pattern, Get a lawyer to write up some BS then do it . Then see who has a problem with it . Act shocked and offended, say your protecting the country, wave the flag, mumble something about you won't misuse the new power. precedent set, game and match.
Bush claimed he could put people in prison without trial, and that the whole world is a war zone therefore the presidential war powers are in effect indefinitely. I heard an Obama lawyer during his 1st term say to flatly to congress that under war powers a president could jail and kill whoever he pleases. "...but it doesn't mean laws the congress enacts to codify tribunals are moot senator..."
right.



That's what Holder has been saying since the beginning, using Pearl Harbor and 9/11 attacks as the sort of 'crisis' he's referring to as 'exceptions.' Except, Pearl Harbor were Japanese pilots, 9/11 were Saudis and Egyptians. No Americans. Besides, no addressing the fact that drones wouldn't have helped in either case, with or without Americans.

This would be blatantly unconstitutional, no single person regardless of party, should have that power.
And they could say ANYTHING fits that criteria in their mind. And A lot of people would say "well he's the president he must know something we don't. He just wouldn't shoot those people or drone strike those people without a good reason. And the innocent people shouldn't have been on the same planet as terrorist."


Many thought that wrong, the argument though would be they had proof of involvement and he was traveling with known foreign terrorists. However, the problem with this is the government can manufacture anything they want, without other branches, such a judicial, there are no checks and balances.
Exactly.

AND here another thing. they've already said in their justice dept legal letter that imminent threat doesn't have to mean a really imminent threat. So a terrorist "suspect" can be killed even before he's done ANYTHING. Pre-crime. Planing a crime, your dead without a trial or questioning or need to tell anyone why.
AND the term terrorist has been expanded to mean a lot of things. a man supposedly counterfeiting was charge with terrorism. People who've gotten loud on plane too. Plus the term "associate forces" can legally sweep in just about anyone they want as well.