E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSIn an appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, Attorney General Eric Holder defended the Obama administration’s targeted killings policy, even in cases of American citizens who may be on U.S. soil, in some situations where they are planning an imminent attack on the country.
Even as Holder finished his testimony, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., began a filibuster of CIA director nominee John Brennan as a gesture of protest against the administration’s policy.
Holder told the Judiciary Committee that he expects Obama himself will be speaking about the controversy in the near future.
The attorney general repeated what he had said in a letter this week to Paul, “The government has no intention to carry out any drone strikes in the United States. It’s hard for me to imagine a situation in which that would occur.”
Addressing Holder's "no intent" statement, Paul later said in his Senate speech, "I frankly don't think that's good enough."
Holder explained in his testimony that for terrorist suspects inside the United States, the government has the ability to arrest them and prosecute them. But there’s little or no feasibility of capture in places such as Pakistan, he said.
The use of drones inside the United States to kill a terrorists planning an attack is, he said, “entirely, entirely hypothetical.”
Attorney General Eric Holder was on Capitol Hill Wednesday morning testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on his agency's policies from guns to drones. NBC's Pete Williams reports.
In a lengthy wrangle with Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, Holder repeatedly said the use of a drone to kill a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil who wasn’t an imminent threat would not be an “appropriate” use of lethal force, but it took some minutes before Holder said it would also not be constitutional.
Cruz told Holder, “I find it remarkable that in that hypothetical -- which is deliberately very simple -- you are unable to give a simple, one word one syllable answer: ‘No.’”
Holder said, “I thought I was saying ‘no.’ All right, no.”
Cruz will be offering a bill this week to clarify that the government does not have the authority to kill an American citizen on U.S. soil in the absence of an imminent threat.
Related: Holder: No drone strikes in US, except in 'extraordinary circumstance'
But Holder expressed doubt about such legislation, saying it might “run contrary to” the Article II powers the president has under the Constitution, but said he’d look at the legislation.
Under pressure from both Democratic and Republican Judiciary Committee members, Holder gave some indications the Obama administration may soon release the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memos which members of Congress have been seeking that would explain the justification for the administration’s use of targeted killings.
He won some understanding from committee chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who told Holder, “I realize the decision is not entirely in your hands.”
And Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who has read at least some of the memos in her capacity as chairman of the Intelligence Committee, said “they are very sound opinions” and argued that the administration would be better off releasing them.
When she urged Holder to give the memos to Judiciary Committee members, he replied, “I have heard you. The president has heard you.”
Pressed on the same topic by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, Holder said, “I will be bringing that to the attention of the appropriate people within the administration.” He did not identify who those people were. “I’m not unsympathetic” to senators’ requests to see the OLC memos, he said.
When Lee complained that the Department of Justice white paper (first published by NBC News) that discusses the targeted killings policy did not clearly define “imminent” in its use of “imminent threat,” Holder replied that the white paper definition would be clear if Lee could read the OLC memos.
Holder faced criticism from Republican committee members such as Lee, Cruz and Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, but won strong support from one Republican, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.
“I want to congratulate you and the president,” he said, “I think you have thought long and hard about how to defend the homeland during difficult circumstances. I want to applaud your efforts with the drone program -- it has really helped us in Afghanistan and Pakistan.”
He added, “I want to stand by you and the president to make sure we don’t criminalize the war and that the commander in chief continues to have the authority to protect us all.” He said “a lot of my colleagues are well-meaning but there is only one commander-in-chief in our Constitution.”
Citing previous wars in which Americans have joined the enemies’ cause, such as German-American saboteurs in World War II, Graham told Holder that it is a long-standing principle that such people are enemy combatants. Holder concurred with that view.
When Congress passed the use of force resolution after the Sept 11, 2001 attacks, Graham said, “We didn’t exempt the homeland, did we?” Holder agreed that Congress had not done exempted U.S. soil.
This story was originally published on Wed Mar 6, 2013 3:22 PM EST
Leave a Comment:
Yes tell us how our constitution doesn't matter, please continue...
Imminent threat? I have no problem with the use of a drone for killing.
We have SWAT snipers trained to do just what the drone would do. What is the difference? Drones taking the place of the snipers?
"What difference does it make?"
Hillary Clinton
Didn't the last memo redefine imminent threat as basically someone who simply discussed planning attacks and had ties to a terrorist organization? And didn't an earlier memo back in 2008/2009 talk about how former veterans could be terrorists? And animal rights activists? And how many other groups?
Pfft, who needs the 4th Amendment. Big brother knows what's best for you, comrade.
http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2009086058_extremist20.html
http://www.wnd.com/2009/05/96916/
The 2nd Amendment is sounding better every day. This administration wants total control of the masses.
I have several ADJECTIVES designated for Mr. Holder.....however if I posted them, he would probably send the black helicopters or a drone to my house.
However.....Mr. Holder is an IDIOT.
YOU ARE FIRED.....wait a minute.....not so fast.....where is the TRUTH about "Fast and Furious" ?
No answer, go straight to jail since beds were made available when the DHS/ICE released thousands of FEDERAL CRIMINAL Illegal Aliens (Immigrants) because of fiction produced by Mrs. Napolitanoski.
Why am I not surprised that the regular teabaggers are a little nervous about this issue??
To quote what the righties were saying when they originally gave up their rights to the BushII regime..."If you are not doing anything wrong, what are you worried about??"
...yes...again I express my lack of surprise at the teabaggers fears.
Is that backpedaling by the administration I see? Kinda like Biden's statement that an assault weapons ban is not all that important?? :)
@Shockedanddisgusted
You are assuming that anyone who opposes this now supported Bush. You are dead wrong. Many people (myself included) did not support the Bush policies and we don't support these ones either. Obama is Bush on steroids. Not everything comes down to your simplistic view of right vs left. Not everyone is a blind sheep, believing whatever their political party spoon feds them.
Not all "teabaggers" were fine with it then either. The Republican party was for it, but those "teabaggers" have always been only a part of the party. There were 3 republican representatives that voted against it. Yes, more Democrats, but keep in mind, Senate was 98/1/1, and the House was 357/66/9. The country was reeling from 9/11, or did you forget how unified both parties were at the time? The original Patriot Act was passed less than 60 days after September 11th. It was an emotionally charged peace of legislation. It shouldn't have passed, but it did due to the high emotion of the situation. Quit trying to "hold it over" on us "teabaggers".
What in Gods name will it take for you on the left to get just a tiny bit worried that this is way over the line. A sniper and a drone are not the same. A sniper has situational awareness, he/she can react instantaneously as needed as ethe vents unfold, the same cannot be said of a drone piloted by someone 1000 miles from the scene. This was Obamas doing, not Bush.
Snipers are also called in when a crime is in progress not because one might happen
We are a Republic - rule of law- which is based in our Constitution.
The Constitution grants limited power to the government by limiting the power of the offices held by our representatives. Our representatives, as a condition of assuming office, are required to take an oath to follow the Constitution.
Under the Constitution, neither the office of the president, nor the office of a member of Congress has the power to authorize the killing of a citizen without due process. Due process IS required under the Constitution.
So someone please tell me the source of the president's authority to authorize such behavior, and why such behavior is not a criminal offense. Can a white house lawyer simply write a legal opinion that supercedes the Constitution? Not legally, but that is what has been done.
Yes indeed, the second amendment is, more and more, relevant, even in this century.
Our president has already issued illegal orders to kill an American citizen. Officers in oujr military, sworn to follow the Constitution, carried out those illegal orders. This must stop. If the president feels constrained by the Constitution he swore to follow, then he should implement the necessary changes to that constitution by process of amendment and allow the states their right to ratify such changes.
President Obama has sidestepped all of this and granted to himself powers not given to the office he holds. He jokingly siad recently that he is not a dictator. Well, Mr. president, if the shoe fits...
Eric Holder knows best, Holder rules and the rest are fools !!!
Killing American Terrorist with drones that kill Americans works for me !!!
My objection is the to faux outrage at attempting to pin yet another policy on President Obama that was enacted by the BushII regime. It's as phoney as Fox news. Once again what was good for the goose is impeachable for the gander.
Satanik, while I appreciate your honest opinion and, for the most part, agree with you, I can't help but wonder how things would have been if we could have taken out at least one of the planes that hit the twin towers with a drone. There would have been the tragic loss of American lives, but it would have been far less.
This whole paranoid delusion that the President is after Americans is completely manufactured by smart people with no other goal than to sell dumb people products through advertising. Rush and Murdoch are not poor because there are a lot of very dumb, paranoid people out there.
Why am I not surprised that some that critizied waterboarding of known terrorist would feel it perfectly alright to bomb Americans on US soil because of suspicions of terrorism?
Get it right, the Drones are used overseas on terrorist that kill Americans, not on U.S. Soil !!!
In that situation how could the government know what the hijackers were doing? They couldn't know if they were planning to crash the plane into buildings or if they were going to hold the plane/passengers for ransom etc. What if they were just going to demand ransom money and we shoot the plane down with a drone? The government would have killed hundreds of people when they could have resolved it without so many innocents dying.
Seaskip, this article and discussion is focused on extending that overseas use of drones to domestic use of drones. Can you say "collateral damage"!!
BTW, how can Holder defend the "hypothetical" domestic use while, at the same time, acknowledging that it may be unconstitutional?
You know, Satanik, that is a very, very good point. What is the procedure now, in this post 9/11 world, when a commercial airliner dramatically changes course?
Two sides to this coin and neither one is pretty. Executing an American citizen on U.S. soil without due process goes against the grain of the Constitution and the thinking that we are a nation of laws. On the other side you have homegrown terrorists like Timothy McVeigh who successfully murdered 168 people, wounded almost another 700 and did over 600 million dollars damage in the process of the Oklahoma City bombing.
Although Justice Holder would like to say we wouldn't use drones on Americans on U.S. soil, if an imminent threat like McVeigh was uncovered and countless American lives were at stake, what would you expect Justice to do? Don't act and allow possibly hundreds if not thousands die, or eliminate the threat with the use of a drone. On a personal level, I would like to have the option to eliminate the threat before hand. We shouldn't have to stand over and salute more coffins if we don't have to. Makes for a thorny argument that needs to be thoroughly discussed.
Thank you, Common Sense. I can only pray that this is the actual debate that is being had in our government and that reasonable, cautious and actionable policy will result.
Common sense:
If the government knows where McVeigh is, and he is in a shopping mall strolling along, on US soil, which would be the better solution:
To send the nifty little drone to take him out along with whatever human and structural collateral damage can be amassed, or to converge with a SWAT team and try to handle it with as little loss to life as possible?
Good grief! Drones as a last resort on American soil when the full force of so many law enforcement agencies can be brought to bear is bullsh#%, and any thinking person knows it.
The silence on the left is deafening.
The activists criticized Bush and are silent on Obama.
Where is everyone? Because if Bush was doing this, oh my goodness, there would be marches on the streets. Hollywood would be exploding with insults towards Bush.
Where were YOU ten years ago, "jo ann"??
Don't you think this issue is a bit more important than your childish "I hate dem commies" crap?
Sceminmimi Of course use drones as a last resort when there is no other fathomable alternative. I don't think anyone is condoning indiscriminate use of a drone on U.S. soil. Correct me if I'm wrong, the argument appears to be wanting a definite "no" as an answer to the question of whether or not drones could, or should be used on U.S. soil against citizens. Each situation will be unique and will need to be judged as so. But saying "no" when it would be an appropriate response seems to be illogical. Just because you have the option doesn't mean you have to use it. I think the fear is that it would be used indiscriminately and that the people making those decisions would be cavalier in their thought process. As I said earlier, it needs to be thoroughly discussed. The scenario you mentioned would not be one that would call for the use of a drone. I clearly see and understand your point.
Shockedanddisgusted-
Bush caught hell for the "warrantless wiretaps". No one had a bomb dropped on their heads sitting at home with their kids. Yet you think it's OK to drop a bomb on a citizen without due process. Why??
The only good thing about this issue is that if Bush had that authority, Bill Ayers would be scattered over a city block. Does blowing up a police station qualify as a terrorist activity?
Common sense:
The problem is that governments, including ours, always go for the most expedient solution. Once the genie is out of the bottle he never wants to go back in (see "I Dream of Jeanie; Aladdin;). Okay, a little levity there, but you get my drift.
All it takes is one time.... just one. Municipalities are already ordering drones and outraged citizens are up in arms. It's not just the armed drones, it's the sneaky spy ones we aren't happy with either. And all this coming on top of the push to limit the right to purchase and own firearms...
Yes, we are paranoid. But our government can congratulate itself on making us so, and live with the damn consequences of it.
Dont forget the other casualties where women and children have been killed
"targeted killing" is Elite Speak for assassination, which is against the law.
seaskip....."Get it right, the Drones are used overseas on terrorist that kill Americans, not on U.S. Soil !!!"
RE-READ the dad gum article.
Mr. "Fast and Furious" Holder continues to state that drones COULD be used against Americans on U.S. soil.
DRONES are already flying across the United States even though the FAA has not authorized such use. Didn't you see the video and article on the drone which came within just a couple hundred yards of a passenger jet landing ? There may be one over your house RIGHT NOW.
Meanwhile, give the "terrorists" their Miranda rights and release THOUSANDS of Illegal Aliens (Immigrants) who have committed Federal crimes.
You may want to change your screen name to SEASICK.
This is yet another fiasco in holder's career as AG. I really can't describe how much this piece of @!$%# disgusts me.
Which parties Justice Departmnet shot and killed a woman with her baby in her arms? Hint Ruby Ridge
Which parties Justice Department caused mas killing in Waco, Texas?
Which parties Justice Department raided a private residence with assualt rifles drawn? Hint: Elian G.
Which parties Justice Department sent a couple thousand assault weapons to Mexican gangs?
Now they claim a right to be judge, jury, and executioner?
Now they want to gut our 2nd Amendment?
Something isn't quite right here, is it?
What right do I have to come here and post such lies?
I just wanted to get that question out there before we hear form the regular lefties.
The President must uphold the Constitution. He has no leeway. Splattering citizens on a hunch doesn't cut it. He can take someone to court if he thinks he has grounds. Everybody has a right to a fair trial, be he misguided youth in somebody's opinion, illegal, whomever.
@!$%# this policy. Anyone who would defend such a policy is a traitor to the very ideals this nation is supposed to represent.
Mr. Obama, his surrogates, and his administration cronies do not believe in AMERICA.
THEY are trying to make the U.S.A. into a complete and total different Country~Utopia ruled without legislative or judicial processes.
...and yet he still kicked your candidates a$$ in the last election. If our President does not believe in America, that sure doesn't say anything about Miss Mittsy and all the other psychos your side had to offer.
Sorry to be the first to break it to you, but the majority of Americans do not agree with your paranoid, fascist vision. Perhaps you should move to a more like-minded country such as Iran or Sudan and let the normal, well adjusted adults handle issues far beyond your capacity to comprehend.
@ Shocked
I am totally certain that if there ever is a strike from a drone, and collateral damage is in the 20's you will be using that moniker permenately.
We have some zombies that think putting boots on the ground and killing more Americans is better than Drones, how stupid is that !!!
seaskip What are you even talking about? This is about drones being used to kill American citizens on American soil. This isn't about drones being used abroad (which I don't agree with when they are used for assassinations). I don't think we need boots on the ground in the middle east, I think we need to pull out entirely.
Shockedanddisgusted"...and yet he still kicked your candidates a$$ in the last election."
Just 51% is NOT KICKING A$$. There are 49% of Americans who VOTED AGAINST Mr. Obama' Socialist agenda and policies.
Matter of fact, Mr. "Drama" Obama just lost 13 points on his approval rating because of his audacity to "fear monger" Americans over HIS "sequester" cuts.
Why do you think Mr. Obama met with Republicans at a local hotel instead of the White House today ? That would have interfered with the Wednesday party at the White House for family friends, campaign supporters, and special interest groups.
I would think YOU would be welcomed with open arms in Iran, Egypt, North Korea, or Cuba. Might want to consider taking folks like Penn with you.
Uninformed Progressives cannot think for themselves, they have to be told what to say via twitter feeds from the East Wing of the White House or via MoveOn.
Shocking I tell you....what Progressives are doing to our great country.
The President must uphold the Constitution. He has no leeway. Splattering citizens on a hunch doesn't cut it. He can take someone to court if he thinks he has grounds. Everybody has a right to a fair trial, be he misguided youth in somebody's opinion, illegal, whomever.
Poor, spoiled little "ido" with the pathetic "I know you are but what am I" response common among those mentally incapable of seeing beyond their hate.
Poor ignorant idiots have been asked, over and over, in the past 4 year to define Socialism and name all policies enacted by democratically elected President of the United States that fit into their definition of what Socialism is. None of them are capable because none of them have a clue as to what Socialism is.
"ido" consistently posts rantings of undocumented lies and throws little fits when called on it. Can't you teabaggers find at least ONE person with a functioning brain cell to represent your views to the public?
Is this part of the reason that the Department of Homeland Security ordered 1.5 billion rounds of ammo, 7000 fully automatic weapons, and 2700 armored vehilces for domestic use?
We cannot be sure of Homeland Security's motive. HS may simply plan to "walk" these weapons to the Mexican Drug Cartel, as they did the 2000 AK-47s.
Hopefully they have ordered the 2700 armored vehicles to use as every day departmental driver cars because they think they look cool.
Saying they have no intention means what exactly? No intentions of sending guns to drug dealers in Mexico? We can't trust our leaders with the legal power they have now, why would we want to give them more?
They aren't our leaders, they are a bunch of ignorant children with way too much power and money. What really needs to be done to heal this country is first get rid of all the current decision makers and all of the muppets, then install real leaders who make rational decisions for the good of the country itself rather than to try and uphold a corrupt system and try to make that old and outdated corrupt system work. They aren't leaders, they are crooks. In the current system, if a real leader does come into office that person will be assassinated by the decision makers and the trigger pullers will most likely be the next "presidents" in the future. We can't trust these crooks, or criminals with the legal power they have now and they should never ever get more legal power.
The government has always had the right to kill Americans under special circumstances. Where have you all been? Dont read much history, do you? So of course when we elect a Commander-in-Chief, he will want to use the best weapons available to protect the American people. Duh. Republicans are just mad because they wanted Romney to have the drone-toys, even if all that Romney wanted was the battleships.
Thats exactly how they will justify it-to protect the people. Yet military veterans, consitutional allies, pro lifers, Ron paul supporters and many others are on the terrorist watch list. Whats the definition of imminent threat? Whatever they want it to mean! The consitution was drafted to protect us from the excess of government. It must be honored or they are breaking the law and should be tried and if convicted - jailed. That's the prescription to maintain the rights of the people and it must not be infringed. Don't make this a 1 party issue. there are many in both parties who are party to burying the rights of the american people.
Would you be so kind, "mrkirchner" to be more specific in regards to your copy of the terrorist watch list? You desperately use "military veterans" to tug at the hearts of the stupid, but wasn't Timothy McVeigh a military veteran? Or do you consider Timothy McVeigh to be a hero for your cause, "mrkirchner"?
What is a constitutional ally???? That pretty much describes 99 percent of all American citizens. "mrkirchner". Can you be just a tad bit more specific?
It is very obvious that "mrkirchner" agrees with the man that set off the bomb at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics, pelting the crowd with nails and various shrapnel. That man was one of his beloved "pro-lifers". How about the many other assassinated doctors or bombed abortion clinics? I guess, in "mrkirchner's" world, he doesn't call it terrorism when he shares the heart and soul of the murderers.
Name the circumstances behind all Ron Paul supporters that are on your list, "mrkirchner". It wouldn't be a surprise to find someone that supports Ron Paul to be on the list, but their being on the list specifically because they are a Ron Paul supporter is beyond reason. Provide specifics, "mrkirchner".
That brings me to the true mystery of your post, "mrkirchner". Where did you get a copy of the "terrorist watch list"? If you are privy to such sensitive information, wouldn't discussing that information in a public forum be an act of treason? Does it make you proud to be a traitor to the very country you are pretending to save?
When you get off your little soap box, "mrkirchner", ponder the idea that your post is one of the most heinous lies I have seen in a long time. It's one thing to be just a liar, repeating propaganda like most of the teabaggers on here, but you, "mrkirchner" seem smart enough to know better and yet you post fear and deceit anyway. You should be ashamed of yourself, but I doubt if you know shame any better than the Constitution that you wipe your bum with.
I'm glad you are not a Christian...Christians have a very special, very bad place for deviant souls in the afterlife.
There is ZERO defense for drone attacks on American soil.....
The left can't even bring themselves to end the life of a MASS-MURDERER, how can they possibly condone a drone attack?
Liberals should be screaming to the top of their lungs about this....
But where are they?
Right is right & wrong is wrong... and never the two shall meet
"steve": Do us a favor and post the documentation of your complete moral outrage when BushII and Co. passed the original legislation post 9/11. Can you do that? If not, than you will be forced to admit that your faux outrage is manufactured and that your pseudo-noble statement about right and wrong varies depending on the opinion of those who program you.
Steve-446003 Yeah just let it go. We will see what the DemoRATS say when we have another Republican in the White House. Hacks like Shockedanddisgusted will be squealing like a little girl.
Shocked never even blinked when the ATF killed scores of innocent children in Waco. No, it could never happen in America
Shocked,
If I remember the biggest outrage over the original Patriot Act was the wiretapping of suspected terrorists. I think drone attacks are a few steps past that.
Zappas: The Oklahoma City bombing was in retaliation to Waco, so I think your side made it's point. The death of the children at Waco rests solely on the wack-job that rigged the place to blow "in the event of an emergency"...you seem to have forgotten that important piece of information.
"deerhunter..." you certainly aren't as clever as you think, since you are the one crying like a little girl now. It would require castration and personality realignment for me to stoop as low as you and, judging from the gang of lunatics the Republicans had to offer in your last pathetic attempt, we will never have to worry about a Republican in the White House...so I'll keep my balls while you go look for yours.
"jerry"...um...the use of drones against US civilians has been argued, hashed and re-hashed since it came into being more than 10 years years ago. Where have you been? (oh...that's right. Your programmers on Fox can't make you blame Obama if they actually told you this is an old argument...and they certainly would never tell you THEIR stand on the issue back in the day when everything contrary to BushII was considered, by them, treason). Wake up little man.
And what government agency was Timothy Mcveigh involved in?
Zappas - wasn't he, at one point, a member of the armed forces? What is your point?
Shocked,
Please show me a source about Bush having a policy on drone use against US Citizens on US soil. The discussion under Bush was the use of drones and the killing of innocent people in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Before you insult somebody please get your facts correct.
jerry - Start with the Patriot Act and work your way up to the suspension of Habeas Corpus. This has been messy way and too open for interpretation for too long and I, for one, am glad this is being hashed out. Hopefully this is being done in an intelligent manner.
Using this as a tool for the "I hate Obama because he's trying to take away our rights" crowd is insipid and this issue is way too important for it to become yet another attempt at a witch hunt.
The Government killing American citizens..., on American soil... Is this due process..., or some sort of 3rd world dictatorship?
@Steve-
If you got you azz out of Faux News, and turned on some "liberal" TV, you would hear plenty of screaming to wit, and just this week:
There are plenty of "liberals" (actually, the word is progressive) who find the entire drone on US citizen thing more than troubling. I have less of a problem when said citizens are living and working with terrorists, than I have about other suspected terrorists who don't fall into a cleanly defined definition.
And as far as drones in the USA, I am completely and utterly against even the use of them for surveillance, much less assassination.
Finally, I think the drone program needs to be removed from the CIA purview and put back into military's control: at least there will be some adult oversight and transparency with that move.
frankjcapp-4002889
Just take a look here at your Liberal Brothers. People that put the "Party" before the Public.
The saddest thing to me is how easily we Americans are divided and then conquered.
What could be taken as a good sign...that both sides are getting worried about this
out of control administration...degenerates into comments about teabaggers and libtards.
Is it not clear that we could all be safer if we worked together to shorten the government's
leash? And protect rights we don't necessarily like to prevent our own from coming under
attack?
Come on...wake up!
Most of the people that had problems Water Boarding Foreign Terrorist have no problem with Americans being shot by drones on American soil ? I don't have a problem shooting a terrorist, I just don't want the absolute power to do it at home given to so few people without oversight. Remember people, there will be people in higher places that you may not always agree with.
Well, "deerhunter"...Where is your documented outrage when BushII had the power?
Apparently, if it were possible to take down an airliner with Americans on board, off course and heading for Disneyworld, over a sparsely populated area with a drone because the Air National Guard could not make it in time, "deerhunter..." would sit there with his thumb up his butt and watch the plane hit. That, "deerhunter..." is why the American people elected a much bigger man than you to make those decisions.
I remember, "deerhunter..." strongly disagreeing with the administration that originally enacted the legislation. Do you???
Holder is a puppet. The "tough" words that come outta his mouth are put there by Obama. Any time the United States government is advocating assassinating United States citizens on United States soil for no reason other than suspicion that they may be thinking about an act of terrorism, it gives them the totalitarian authority to kill on the spot anyone who expresses an opinion other than the officially authorized one. 1937 Germany. 1950 Russia. Holder has no regard for the Constitution, no regard for U.S. citizens, no consience when it comes to wielding authority.
"...but it took some minutes before Holder said it would also not be constitutional." So SOMEONE in this administration actually has read the Constitution.
But Holder expressed doubt about such legislation, saying it might “run contrary to” the Article II powers the president has under the Constitution, but said he’d look at the legislation. Perhaps Holder should check Article III, and read it thouroughly.
When she urged Holder to give the memos to Judiciary Committee members, he replied, “I have heard you. The president has heard you.” (Translated, "We've heard you, and don't give a crap...") Pressed on the same topic by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, Holder said, “I will be bringing that to the attention of the appropriate people within the administration.” He did not identify who those people were. Well, I'll be. So this administration is going to withold vital information from even our Legislative Branch then? Sounds about right. And now a word to all of my fellow Veterans and freedom loving Americans out there: "A study funded by the Department of Homeland Security that was leaked last year characterizes Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority,” and “reverent of individual liberty” as “extreme right-wing” terrorists." Saaay whaaat??? God
Obamaforbid that Americans are actually somewhat reverent of our individual liberties. Moral of the lesson; reap what ye have sown my ignorant liberal friends!So, does this mean that when police officers act in causing terror against innocent Americans that some will be "droned"?
Or is Holder's statement inferring that only civilians will be defamed and labelled as "terrorists" when they oppose Barack Obama?
Get this man out of the country. He's a factual criminal. Fast & Furious was committed under his authority.
I have a right to speak freely in this nation - just say no to drones, which are anathema to the principles of the Bill of Rights.
Drone were created to thwart removal of office by wrongdoing public officials that know in the United States that power belongs to the people.
Note to all of the "chicken littles":
1. The sky is NOT falling. It is NOT full of drones. They are NOT shooting missiles at people inside the US.
2. You have been crying wolf at every single move the Obama administration has made. Not one of your "this is the end of America" BS predictions have ever come to pass. Why should anyone pay attention now?
As a bonus - a thought to keep you warm at night. Did it ever occur to you that articles like this are posted to see who reacts to them? They have to get the target list for the drones somehow - how better than to do that then to see who objects? Sleep tight kiddies......
Diogenese,
If this is accepted then it becomes the policy of the United States, so if we have a different President in the future who might start shooting at US citizens it will be too late to object.
Jerry,
I hope that you realize that the president has had authority to order the summary killing of any enemy during an insurrection since Abraham Lincoln. This includes US citizens. Lincoln did it and did it within the continental US. It is way too late to worry about what future presidents will do.
Diogenese,
The policy here though if some unknown person thinks somebody might commit a terrorist act then they have a right to have them and anybody around them killed. They do not have to supply evidence of why they think this, they can just give an order to kill the person.
If the President has conclusive evidence then take the person out, I have no problem with that but I do have a problem with somebody thinking that somebody is guilty and taking them out
We can argue to death (death) the hypothetical, remote possibility that law enforcement would use whatever means (drone) to end a criminal or terrorist situation. Once we follow the laws we have, and the proceedings needed, as we hope to always consistently do, the law enforcement can take whatever means available to terminate the situation. There are no if, and, or, or buts about it.
Thus to engage in false debate, a debate that has but one side, is an act against civilization. Why? It not just a matter of wasting time, it is wasting time, the intention is only to waste time, because the one sided debate cannot preempt such an action! The hypothetical question answers itself, yes we can end a situation, and everyone accepts that the deed had to be done. It is no different than any other law enforcement activity.
This is always the nature of one sided arguments, one side states an absurd, unrealistic, unachievable position and the rest of world can argue the issue to eternity, just to waste time.
If you choose biblical restrictions, or humanitarian restrictions, or morally superior positions, but none of those meets the needs of enforcement apprehension. So the argument against killing varies against that of murder, no difference between fists, clubs, knifes, and firearms or any other means available (drone).
So what is your position? The constitution has rules reflected in criminal law enforcement, do you really expect that any details in law could be created that would anticipate every situation? If so then I am pleased to inform you that laws have never been written this form of open-end-ness.
So this drone debate is false, and can never even be considered useful, but is there another constitutional debate that occurs constantly that might, just might save a few thousands of real lives, that is not so very far is beyond reason?
Yes, it perfectly reasonable to have restrictions and reregulation on fire arms, and the same (anarchical) crowd that rises falsely against drone armaments for law enforcement allows, encourages and proves the means of killing, mayhem and murder in false defense of the same constitution. The blood is everywhere, innocents, infants, grandparents sleeping in bed?
So far we have the hypothetical case of a natural (technological) extension to law enforcement with no current examples, and the case of tens of thousands of dead or maimed people, without the slightest chance of being addressed, while it is on the congressional plate before us.
We will now illustrate the two issues together. We have another perennial debate in this country, again it is the "one sided" argument, where there is a position on one side and an endless resolved, indeterminate, discussion on the other that does not show any sign of being satisfied. This debate goes even beyond its own bounds because; if the wishes of the proponents would win the day; the argument would resume the very next day without one bit of progress.
Let's be gentile in a rough sort of way. It has been said that having wide spread availability of guns without restrictions, without registrations, without notice of conditions and without limits is just version of legal post birth abortion or death panels for the aged? This is classical one sided debate that rages and will never ever be resolved. The protagonist and the antagonist will simple exploit the situation, for political gain and never ever advance a solution that addressed the problem.
Exploiting a perennial unresolved situation just for political gain, this is corruption of politics far beyond the usefulness of politics.
Advancing the abortion argument, would require the possibility of personhood not just during embryogenesis, but include the unfertilized. Hardly approach of maturity or sanity.
So at the center is this spectacle is Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, John Cornyn, Jerry Moran, Saxby Chambliss, Pat Toomey, Marco Rubio, and fellow traveler Ron Wyden of Oregon.
Who have more interest in this issue than perpetuate their existence? They should fight their own demons and windmills while we have better things to do.
When the media gets out of juvenile detention, they might see the trap that has been lain on these three one side issues.
We all believe that the Gov't will take any means possible to kill some one they don't like or considers a threat. the US has a very long long long history of lies and deceit.
When the security of the country is at stake, especially lives of civilians, the subject should not be political. While I disagree with Holder on many subjects, I think the Republicans are out of line here, and are only playing political games.
I don't see why we need these drones and how many terrorist have been killed in america out in public by swat or any gov. department.Why would we need drones when we haven't needed them up to this point.when they find a terrorist don't they arrest them and not kill them on the spot?That is how it's done in the third world countries not here. Next anyone talking bad about our potus could be considered a terrorist. Have already lost the right to assemble when he's around next could be the 1rst amendment.The people who don't see where this could go are either young or can't think on their own and think obama is thinking of our best interest.He is only thinking how to make america into a third world country and to bankrupt the U.S.A.
This is what happens when you get two coons talkin in the middle of the night smokin crack with tiger and his hoes.....
Dude... Seriously?
Be carefull what you post here Americans. You are being watched.
Hey - stop stealing my thunder - I posted this idea first (look at my post at 5:28pm).
But thanks for helping to keep paranoia alive and well in America :)
So who are the "domestic threats," really?
Here is an interesting article - from the FBI Link: http://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/the-terrorist-threat-confronting-the-united-states
Interesting link: http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/dr20120810-domestic-terrorism-by-members-of-extremist-groups-a-serious-threat-fbi
Another link - the FBI wrote that Occupy Wall Street was a "domestic terrorist group."
Link: http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/26/us/fbi-occupy
Saving the best for last: Link: http://www.hlswatch.com/2010/06/29/does-the-us-have-any-domestic-terrorist-groups/
June 29, 2010
Does the US Have Any Domestic Terrorist Groups?
Filed under: Terrorist Threats & Attacks — by Christopher Bellavita on June 29, 2010
So, if I recycle am I an eco-terrorist? Obviously BP Oil is not [sarc] so who is?
The primary eco-terrorist groups I know of are anti-logging interests in the north west. These folks have been known to destroy logging equipment and to "spike" trees. This involves placing large steel spikes into trees to make it destructive to the logging saws to cut the trees down. Unfortunately, when the saws break the saw operators are often injured or even killed. I haven't heard much from these folks in recent years but in the 90s they were very active.
Feel free to recycle - you are quite safe from being considered an eco-terrorist.
Every time I see that "provide material support" line - I think back to the 80's and the fund-raising efforts by rich Americans sending money to support the IRA. By today's definition, they'd all be terrorists instead of philanthropists.
Very well said "Black Kettle and Sand Creek". BTW, really like the name, although I seriously doubt there are many on here that even know what your name actually means..
To Shocked and other almost rabid supporters of this administration: the fact that Bush overstepped and pushed the envelope isn't the question here - few are defending that. The issue here is that fact does not give Obama the right to do the same thing, except exponentially squared. What does it take here? The absolute love affair with this administration's people and policy is nauseating. Today we also learn that the FBI has secretly spied on thousands with 'Security Letters". What's next? Remember the "transparency" office headed by Biden? Obama's long-forgotten disgust of Executive Signings? Yes, it is a dangerous world, but it is becoming no less dangerous from the people purporting to protect us from it. Do you truly, truly, truly trust this type of activity as being totally benign except for those who are the bad guys? Who makes these decisions about "imminent threat" or what is, or is not, "hypotetical"? If you are saying that you wouldn't trust Bush at all, but will trust Obama 100%, then you need to replace some of your moral outrage at Bush with a more jaundiced eye at Obama - he is not your friend and his ever-expansive actions, Bush's to the contrary, are actions that prove it.
Look - Obama isn't much better or much worse than a lot of presidents before him when it comes to doing just about anything to maintain the lust for power inherent in the executive branch.
I don't think Obama is a saint but he isn't the rapacious evil monster that some here would have you believe. Frankly, he is just about the same as all the rest - not much better and not really much worse.
"ME..." Rabid?
I don't care who the President is and what it does to their "power" - This and many other "interpretations" of the Patriot Act have needed clarification for quite some time and I am glad that this is finally happening. I can see where the drone attacks can be useful and save lives - and I can see where it can be very abused. Hopefully cooler and more rational minds than "trouble" (below) are going to work this out intelligently.
@ME2494532
Excellent point (no sarc)- my guess is that the decision makers are red-tap loving bureaucrats who know they can't be fired but need to produce a short report - every month or two.
People, relax!! It's Obama...these will doubtless be tough decisions for Him to make, but that's His prerogative. Holder said in earlier testimony: "The term due-process, as specified in the Constitution, does not necessarily mean judicial process". Targeted killing of American citizens is perfectly legal as long as POTUS carefully considers the facts of the case and defines "imminent threat". If He, in His judgement decides an execution is warranted (no pun intended) so be it.
After all, GWB authorized water boarding of terrorist suspects to gain information about imminent threats. Now, Obama has the authority to order executions of citizens (certainly off-shore..and probably domestically) when necessary for the public good.
Michelle 2016!!
And just how many people were killed by waterboarding? The information gleaned was priceless, and eventually led our elite military forces to exterminate this animal, proven by the intel gathered from his compound. This is ridiculous. Had G.W. attempted something like this, liberals from around the world would be collectively screaming "impeach"! But since Mr. Obama (our "Lord and Saviour" according to Jamie "Douschbag" Foxx) is pushing the button, it's all good. Stay hypocritical my liberal friends!
Diogenese
You may find others who know of me, not stealing your thunder, been posting this for months. As for keeping paranoia alive in America, both my parents lived under dictatorships, one formerly under Hitler, the other under Stalin then whoever came afterwards. Believe me, I know what goes on behind closed doors.