Holder finally admits it, drone strikes on US soil can be legal

[davmat787]

Because the CIA doesn't operate actual strike aircraft?

Actually, MMM makes a very good point about drone pilots being more likely to carry out such an order. Personally, I think unless it's a shooting situation beyond the capability of LEOs, no such strike should be carried out in any country where we have reasonable accommodation in extradition, much less on American soil.

Still, I can't get too excited. It bothers me that anyone even thought to ask the question, but maybe it's like the military studying and planning for every possibility, no matter how remote.

I thought the CIA can't operate on US soil?

 

[Nebor]

I thought the CIA can't operate on US soil?

Yeah, they're not in Afghanistan either.

 

[Darwin333]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/eric-...ricans-on-u.s.-soil-are-legal/article/2523319





Sure it is hypothetical. But if these warmongers are acknowledging it then it has been discussed and sure they would use it.

Time finally admit this admin is out of control for the die hards?

On one hand I completely disagree with the previous drone strike(s?) against US citizens and I think it is absurdly unconstitutional. OTOH, the example that Holder gave was reasonable. In his example there is a clear and immediate threat to the US and her citizens so the use of deadly force to prevent it is a given regardless if that deadly force comes from a F-15 or a drone.

Some asshole driving in a jeep in the middle of bumfuck nowhere smoking a cigarette is not a clear and immediate threat to the US or her citizens.

 

[Darwin333]

This one and the one before it. This just reminds me of the torture memos. I don't understand how an administration can just right a memo and then say "See it is legal" and the "Oh by the way, no one has legal standing to sue us so we can never be questioned on this."

It would just be really nice if the republicans were as concerned about our loss of liberty to the fight on terrorism when Bush was in office as the now claim to be. And it would be just as nice if democrats were as concerned about our loss liberty due to fight against terrorism now as they were when Bush was in office. But as long as it is my guy doing it, it must be great.

This.

Both shitty clubs have and will continue to erode our liberty. The only time either of the assholes even pay it lipservice is when some asshole from the other side is doing it. What is truly sad is that filters down to their faithful followers on both sides and you end up with a sizable chunk of citizens agreeing with said erosion simply to defend their asshole.

 

[Murloc]

Perhaps my imagination is lacking, but why would a drone be preferable to a manned aircraft in taking out a target on US soil?

this issue is bigger than drones.
Drones are just what brings out the the issue because they're operated by CIA and the such, who abide to a different set of rules, and are used to kill people outside of wars. Plus you don't need to own the airspace to use them because it's just money if they get destroyed, this increases the chance of them being used in preventive strikes.
Before drones it wasn't as easy to kill people from far away so this wasn't as much of an issue, no one knew about poisoned targets or whatever, and it was more limited in use.

I think the debate is about setting limits that didn't need to be set in the past.

 

[GoPackGo]

I could see them being used on the Mexican cartels that cross into the US

 

[michal1980]

This one and the one before it. This just reminds me of the torture memos. I don't understand how an administration can just right a memo and then say "See it is legal" and the "Oh by the way, no one has legal standing to sue us so we can never be questioned on this."

It would just be really nice if the republicans were as concerned about our loss of liberty to the fight on terrorism when Bush was in office as the now claim to be. And it would be just as nice if democrats were as concerned about our loss liberty due to fight against terrorism now as they were when Bush was in office. But as long as it is my guy doing it, it must be great.

I dont think many republicans are concerned over this.

Whats amazing is the inconsistency of the democrats, that had far greater concern for much smaller things.

 

[Fern]

I don't have any problem with what Holder said. As has already been noted, the US military has already used deadly force in the USA against 'citizens' in the civil war, an action most of you seem to support.

If you pose an extreme enough scenario, you can justify an equally extreme reaction/response.

Fern

 

[Sonikku]

Keep the blinds closed, they'll save you.

I'm not dead, therefore I conjecture that blinds are the only reason why I'm still alive.

 

[alzan]

Because the CIA doesn't operate actual strike aircraft?

Actually, MMM makes a very good point about drone pilots being more likely to carry out such an order. Personally, I think unless it's a shooting situation beyond the capability of LEOs, no such strike should be carried out in any country where we have reasonable accommodation in extradition, much less on American soil.

Still, I can't get too excited. It bothers me that anyone even thought to ask the question, but maybe it's like the military studying and planning for every possibility, no matter how remote.

I keep telling myself that and it works most of the time; occasionally the conspiracy-nut in me gives a "Well, you know..." shout-out.

 

[kage69]

Jeepers creepers, some of you aren't thinking.

It is possible that the police can use lethal force to stop you without you having a trial? YES. If you're are engaged in certain activities, the police can shoot you. (Like, if you're holding a gun pointed at the police officer.)

If a someone is flying a small commuter plane loaded with explosives and there's clear evidence that the person intends to fly that plane into a building, should we be allowed to shoot that person down? Is there a difference between that scenario & pointing a gun at a police officer?

Pretty much what I've been saying for years to everyone I know who acts outraged over the executive having this power. I've yet to hear a valid rebuttal.

I guess I must have missed all the outrage when we were ready willing and able to start shooting down hijacked airliners in 2001 to prevent more Americans dying.
Getting frothy over an American jihadi receiving justice via Hellfire is funny behavior from those who didn't seem to give a shit about Jose Padilla ( a 2 bit idiot terrorist with no American blood on his hands that I'm aware of).

The government creates contingency plans, big deal. We have a contingency to take over Canada should we need to, doesn't mean that's 'in the mail.'

 

[HomerJS]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/eric-...ricans-on-u.s.-soil-are-legal/article/2523319





Sure it is hypothetical. But if these warmongers are acknowledging it then it has been discussed and sure they would use it.

Time finally admit this admin is out of control for the die hards?

If the President can already order a military jet to shoot down a commercial airliner(confirmed during Bush admin) what is your problem with drones? Or is you problem with this President having the authority??

 

[Smoblikat]

Absolutely in agreement with you. I mailed my Congress-critter with such a sentiment...

\if any President undertakes such an action such as a drone-strike on U.S. soil - they'd better ready to justify itduck...

Fixed that

Second amendment works both ways.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I don't have any problem with what Holder said. As has already been noted, the US military has already used deadly force in the USA against 'citizens' in the civil war, an action most of you seem to support.

If you pose an extreme enough scenario, you can justify an equally extreme reaction/response.

Fern

This isn't the civil war and "citizens" in this need no quotations. Just who defines "extreme"? What checks are there? We have something called law enforcement who is responsible for domestic issues. First we arrest Americans without due process and then violate posse comitatus and it's fine because of Lincoln. The Act wasn't even written until 1878.
We're screwed.

 

[alzan]

Fixed that

Second amendment works both ways.

"if any President undertakes such an action such as a drone-strike on U.S. soil - they'd better it duck..."

The Secret Service has been informed.

 

[Kadarin]

On one hand I completely disagree with the previous drone strike(s?) against US citizens and I think it is absurdly unconstitutional. OTOH, the example that Holder gave was reasonable. In his example there is a clear and immediate threat to the US and her citizens so the use of deadly force to prevent it is a given regardless if that deadly force comes from a F-15 or a drone.

Some asshole driving in a jeep in the middle of bumfuck nowhere smoking a cigarette is not a clear and immediate threat to the US or her citizens.

What's going to happen is that the definition of "a clear and immediate threat to the US" will slowly change over time.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Well Rand Paul is filibustering some douchebag nomination for CIA.

The Obama Administration’s Reluctance to Say Drone Strikes on US Soil Against US Citizens Are Illegal

PAUL: First aspect of the question is, what is the president thinking? Why would the president not respond to us? Why would the president not answer an easy question and say that non-combatants will not be killed with drones? I think the reason is complicated and it’s conjecture because I can’t get in his mind but I would say it is sort of a contagion that affects Republicans and Democrats when they get into the White House. They see the power of the presidency is enormous. They see themselves as good people and they say I can’t give up any power because I’m going to do good with that power. The problem they don’t see is that the power is intoxicating and that the power some day may be in the hands of someone else who is less inclined to use it in a good way and I think that’s why the power grows and grows because everybody believes themselves to be doing the right thing.

 

[ivwshane]

What's going to happen is that the definition of "a clear and immediate threat to the US" will slowly change over time.

This is the concern I have and for the same reasons as allowing torturing. It's not always about how it's being used now but how it will be used in the future.

Well Rand Paul is filibustering some douchebag nomination for CIA.

The Obama Administration’s Reluctance to Say Drone Strikes on US Soil Against US Citizens Are Illegal

Lol. Does this idiot have any idea how war is fought, casualties are pretty much a given. Another out of touch with reality politician. He wants Obama to promise that non combatants wont be killed?

 

[NoStateofMind]

Too many people live in fear of this supposed evil at their door.

4:59 p.m. | Updated Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, began an old-school, speak-until-you-can-speak-no-more filibuster on Wednesday just before noon, and was still going strong hours later.

Mr. Paul, who opposes the nomination of John O. Brennan to lead the Central Intelligence Agency, had previously said he would filibuster President Obama’s nominee after receiving a letter this month from Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. that refused to rule out the use of drone strikes within the United States in “extraordinary circumstances” like the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

link

Everyone is "okay" with it as long as it doesn't result in another "Pearl Harbor or 9/11". But who the fuck determines this? Definitely not a court of law and certainly no branch are given this authority in the Constitution. Its like everyone is living in an episode of "24". I once said if you want to change the mindset of people away from Constitutional values you would have to convince them they are in a "New World" and this "New World" requires new rules. Looks like they have succeeded. smh

 

[etrigan420]

Well Rand Paul is filibustering some douchebag nomination for CIA.

The Obama Administration’s Reluctance to Say Drone Strikes on US Soil Against US Citizens Are Illegal

Wow. Doing a filibuster the *right* way...

Mad props to Rand.

 

[NoStateofMind]

This is the concern I have and for the same reasons as allowing torturing. It's not always about how it's being used now but how it will be used in the future.



Lol. Does this idiot have any idea how war is fought, casualties are pretty much a given. Another out of touch with reality politician. He wants Obama to promise that non combatants wont be killed?

Are you moronic enough to assume that our country is a battlefield? Fuck us all if you do.

 

[ivwshane]

Wow. Doing a filibuster the *right* way...

Mad props to Rand.

Yeah that was his intention. Unfortunately his intentions are backed by stupidity. I'm sure he still wants to know if we are selling arms to Turkey.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Wow. Doing a filibuster the *right* way...

Mad props to Rand.

some highlights

 

[etrigan420]

Yeah that was his intention. Unfortunately his intentions are backed by stupidity. I'm sure he still wants to know if we are selling are to Turkey.

He's standing on principle though, and I can respect that even if I disagree with him. (I happen to agree with him in this case, but not really the point).

Again, what I'm most impressed about is he's doing it the right way. He's not "threatening" a filibuster, or "making ovations that he might" filibuster, he's actually *doing it*.

As silly and convoluted as it may seem, *this* is how our government is supposed to work. *This* is how the filibuster was meant to be. It's kind of cool seeing it.

...and Ron Wyden kicks ass. I almost wish that I were still an Oregonian just so I could vote for him again.

 

[etrigan420]

some highlights

http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/

:biggrin:

Is anybody even there? It looks like he's talking to somebody...

EDIT: Yup, they just panned, lot's of people still there.