[Live2ride883]

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.”

What I would like to know is the exact scope of "an extraordinary circumstance" is, and if it includes situations other than another 9/11, or Pearl Harbor.

On Tuesday, he (Rand Paul) denounced Holder's response as “frightening” and “an affront to the Constitutional due process rights of all Americans.”



Pearl Harbor, was of course an act of war committed by a nation state (Japan), so I guess this would be justified if he used drones if/when we come to a second American revolution, or during martial law.

[metz65]

Innocent till proven guilty with a trial of your peers is now guilty if the president says so.

I don't care what kind of phone you have, that's not how I judge someone's worth or intelligence.

[Live2ride883]

Innocent till proven guilty with a trial of your peers is now guilty if the president says so.

I don't care what kind of phone you have, that's not how I judge someone's worth or intelligence.

It's looking that way.

[Kevin O'Quinn]

Legal for now...

Couldn't this get challenged somewhere? I mean, it definitely should, just because it seems like too much power for the President (the Office, not the individual).

[metz65]

Legal for now...

Couldn't this get challenged somewhere? I mean, it definitely should, just because it seems like too much power for the President (the Office, not the individual).

Agreed. Something like this isn't just about our current president.

I don't care what kind of phone you have, that's not how I judge someone's worth or intelligence.

[Live2ride883]

Once the government (any government) strips a right from the people, or assumes a power not previously granted it is very difficult to get that right back to the people, or the power removed.

[Mooncatt]

Couldn't this get challenged somewhere? I mean, it definitely should, just because it seems like too much power for the President (the Office, not the individual).

The way I understand it is you can't challenge/sue the government through the court system unless you have standing. Meaning you have to have been affected by the action to be able to sue. Problem with that its the person affected will be dead. There may be some exceptions to this, but otherwise I think it will have to be Congresses that goes after this kind of power assumption.

I haven't heard enough about this controversy to address it directly here, and this post is only about challenging government on potentially illegal activities.

[NothingIsTrue]

Once the government (any government) strips a right from the people, or assumes a power not previously granted it is very difficult to get that right back to the people, or the power removed.

need this picture in the human rights forum.

[NothingIsTrue]

Innocent till proven guilty with a trial of your peers is now guilty if the president says so.

I don't care what kind of phone you have, that's not how I judge someone's worth or intelligence.

This is a huge affront to the 14th Amendment. I felt the use of drones for targeted assassination, double taps and signature strikes was ridiculous and illegal when it was foreign citizens and "enemy combatants" we were targeting. We're not at war, who the heck is the enemy? We haven't declared war since June 5th, 1942 when we added Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania to the countries we opposed in World War II.

In addition to the multitude of international laws and treaties we've danced on, now we're killing citizens. I want to make clear, I don't care what you are accused of. Until you are tried and convicted, you cannot be sentenced, nor have the sentence carried out. This needs to be immediately challenged in a highly public forum, such as the 2014 midterm elections.

As commander in chief, the president is granted no extra military powers by the constitution in time of crisis. It is in those times that it becomes more important for the president and congress to do their duty to the county by strict adherence to our laws and the constitution, upholding their oath to protect the constitution at all costs.

[metz65]

Today it's legal with drones, how much longer before the CIA, FBI, DHS etc can kill on command with no trial?

And people wonder why we are so against a ban on (as they call them) assault rifles.

I don't care what kind of phone you have, that's not how I judge someone's worth or intelligence.

[AustinTech]

Well apparently all the President has to do is suspect someone of being a terrorist and then its lawful to murder, whoops, I mean kill them. Obama has already done so without any consequences. The next guy will do the same.

Drone strikes against anyone, domestic or foreign, is a war crime in my opinion. The only stipulation I'd put on that is if we are officially at war and a strike is going to happen either way, drone or not, then it's okay.

From my Galaxy Note 2

[kilofoxtrot]

Once the government (any government) strips a right from the people, or assumes a power not previously granted it is very difficult to get that right back to the people, or the power removed.

Can we use the Patriot Act as an example of stripping a right from the people?

[kilofoxtrot]

What is the difference between a law officer killing a suspect in the commission of a crime or terrorist act and a drone operated by a law officer killing a suspect during the commission of a crime or terrorist act ?

The former happens all the time.... and not a peep from any of you.

[bclinger#IM]

The opinion issued by Holder is that it is legal; however, the opinion does not make it legal. This will go through the courts as it by passes due process.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

[kilofoxtrot]

Well apparently all the President has to do is suspect someone of being a terrorist and then its lawful to murder, whoops, I mean kill them. Obama has already done so without any consequences. The next guy will do the same.

Drone strikes against anyone, domestic or foreign, is a war crime in my opinion. The only stipulation I'd put on that is if we are officially at war and a strike is going to happen either way, drone or not, then it's okay.

From my Galaxy Note 2

We have not been "officially" at war since WWII. So according to you.... all the killing since then has been a war crime. Right?

[bclinger#IM]

What is the difference between a law officer killing a suspect in the commission of a crime or terrorist act and a drone operated by a law officer killing a suspect during the commission of a crime or terrorist act ?

The former happens all the time.... and not a peep from any of you.

Caught in the act versus suspected without due process, that is the difference.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

[kilofoxtrot]

Here is the rest of the story from Yahoo News that Live2Ride conviently left out:

Paul had asked the Obama administration on Feb. 20 whether the president "has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil and without trial." On Tuesday, he denounced Holder's response as “frightening” and “an affront to the Constitutional due process rights of all Americans.”

“The U.S. government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so,” Holder assured Paul in the March 4, 2013 letter. The attorney general also underlined that “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.”

Holder added: “The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no President will ever have to confront."

But "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. "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 of a catastrophic attack” like Pearl Harbor or 9/11.

“Were such an emergency to arise, I would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the President on the scope of this authority,” said Holder.

-------------------------

He won again..... get over it again.

[Live2ride883]

Here is the rest of the story from Yahoo News that Live2Ride conviently left out:

Paul had asked the Obama administration on Feb. 20 whether the president "has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil and without trial." On Tuesday, he denounced Holder's response as “frightening” and “an affront to the Constitutional due process rights of all Americans.”

“The U.S. government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so,” Holder assured Paul in the March 4, 2013 letter. The attorney general also underlined that “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.”

Holder added: “The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no President will ever have to confront."

But "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. "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 of a catastrophic attack” like Pearl Harbor or 9/11.

“Were such an emergency to arise, I would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the President on the scope of this authority,” said Holder.

-------------------------

I never left anything out. I posted sections from the article, and the link so everyone could read the article for themselves. I believe is mentioned in the forum rules not to copy entire articles from other sources to ensure that the originating author gets full credit for the article.

[NothingIsTrue]

Can we use the Patriot Act as an example of stripping a right from the people?

Absolutely, the Patriot Act is ridiculous both in the law and the manner in which it was passed, then repassed, etc.

[kilofoxtrot]

I never left anything out. I posted sections from the article, and the link so everyone could read the article for themselves. I believe is mentioned in the forum rules not to copy entire articles from other sources to ensure that the originating author gets full credit for the article.

True.... my apologies. You are right.

I do think people need to read the article. I think people are jumping to conclusions that are based on paranoia and non-fact.

[Live2ride883]

True.... my apologies. You are right.

I do think people need to read the article. I think people are jumping to conclusions that are based on paranoia and non-fact.

Thanks for the apology, and don't give it another thought. However by adding the "He won again...get over it again" comment in bold no less. I get the impression that you think this is an Obama specific issue and that's how you want everyone else to see it. It's not I wouldn't care who was/is in office if they released this statement I would be just as outraged as I am now. If I have an Obama specific issue I usually put it in the "impeached" thread. I felt this issue was important enough to have a thread of it's own.

I agree that everyone participating in this discussion needs to read it before commenting.

I think this issue/statement alone should cause a lot of fear and paranoia, there should not be ANY situation where it is legal to use drone strikes on american citizens on american soil.

I don't like drone strikes regardless of where they are used, they remove the "human" element from war. I'm sure everyone has heard the saying "war is he.ll" well it's supposed to be. War is supposed to be that last resort after all other options have been tried, failed, and tried again. War is destruction not only of the target, but of the mind and spirit/soul. When you are watching that activity on a video screen from an air conditioned trailer on another continent, or in another country it becomes too unreal, it's like playing a video game, or watching a movie.

A pilot in a fighter/bomber would have a better chance of identifying that the targeted individuals are actually on sight than someone watching a video screen. Also is the drone targeting system as accurate as the one used in our fighters?


Awhile back when I was in the Navy my dad came on board for what they called a tiger cruise. He flew to Spain and sailed back to the US on the ship with me, it was to give our family members an idea of what our daily lives were like at sea. There were tours, and other activities that were set up for our families, one of these events was a live fire demo of a missile from an F16 Tomcat. The ship was towing a target approximately 300 yards behind us on a raft. The pilot had no problem hitting the target on the first run, had this been an actual combat mission I doubt there would have been much collateral damage.

[Live2ride883]

Can we use the Patriot Act as an example of stripping a right from the people?

The Patriot Act is an exercise in obscenity.

[Timelessblur]

To me this entire thing as turned into yet another political show of force to try to get their way.

To me this is what the GOP has turned into it. a bunch of cry babies abusing what ever power they got. This is just to try to swing votes. They do not give a rates *** about the answer.

[Live2ride883]

To me this entire thing as turned into yet another political show of force to try to get their way.

To me this is what the GOP has turned into it. a bunch of cry babies abusing what ever power they got. This is just to try to swing votes. They do not give a rates *** about the answer.

Please read the article if you haven't already, and post your opinion on the topic instead of just coming in and making pointless comments. Or if this is your opinion on the topic of legal drone strikes on US citizens on US soil, I for one would be interested in reading the information (links) you used to form this opinion.

[NothingIsTrue]

Please read the article if you haven't already, and post your opinion on the topic instead of just coming in and making pointless comments. Or if this is your opinion on the topic of legal drone strikes on US citizens on US soil, I for one would be interested in reading the information (links) you used to form this opinion.

I somewhat agree with the position that this is in the media for political reasons, not because of the fight for liberty. They only thing they're really fighting is the legality of using it on US soil against citizens, not the rest of the myriad of issues.