Barack Obama 'has authority to use drone strikes to kill Americans on US soil'

Geoist · Mar 8, 2013

HonestJoe said:
This strikes me as an entirely manufactured controversy. The administration were asked a leading question and gave a perfectly reasonable answer based on their interpretation of the law.

They were murky (intentionally or unintentionally idk) with their response.

Here's the memo coming from the Administration concerning "imminent threats":

Certain aspects of this legal framework require additional explication. First, the condition that an operational leader present an "imminent" threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons will take place in the immediate future.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...cans-twists-imminent-threat-like-bush/272862/

Geoist · Mar 8, 2013

sangha said:
Drones are just a different form of military defense which can be used to thwart an attack, by a citizen or non-citizen, on domestic soil. I don't see why the anti-aircraft defenses bothers no one but the potential use of drones get so many in a tizzy.

While they can be used to thwart an attack, that is not what they are exclusively used for. You know this.

Geoist · Mar 8, 2013

MaggieD said:
This is much ado about nothing. Rand Paul grandstanding to what supposed end? He says it's until President Obama assures the American public that he would never authorize a drone strike against an American citizen on American soil.

Well. That's not going to happen. The President will never say never. Nor should he.

Rand Paul did not request the president to say he would never use a drone on a US citizen on US soil. He himself said it is reasonable to take such action if there was an imminent threat. The question is: what does "imminent threat" mean? To the White House it doesn't have to mean an attack is about to happen.

Geoist · Mar 8, 2013

sangha said:
Holder has clearly stated that drones could not be used on american soil unless the target was engaged in combat

I don't see how someone "engaged in combat" could fail to suspect that they might be attacked

While he has been forced to clarify, their original memo stated:

Certain aspects of this legal framework require additional explication. First, the condition that an operational leader present an "imminent" threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons will take place in the immediate future.

^This is anything but clear.

Geoist · Mar 8, 2013

Imnukingfutz said:
Who watches any TV news anymore?

The 50+ crowd?

sangha · Mar 8, 2013

Geoist said:
They were murky (intentionally or unintentionally idk) with their response.

Here's the memo coming from the Administration concerning "imminent threats":

Certain aspects of this legal framework require additional explication. First, the condition that an operational leader present an "imminent" threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons will take place in the immediate future.
Obama's Memo on Killing Americans Twists 'Imminent Threat' Like Bush - Conor Friedersdorf - The Atlantic

It is dishonest to refer to a memo that explains our policy concerning the use of drones on foreign soil when this thread is about the use of drones on american soil

sangha · Mar 8, 2013

Geoist said:
While they can be used to thwart an attack, that is not what they are exclusively used for. You know this.

Drones are to be used on american soil exclusively against people engaged in combat

“It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: ‘Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?’ The answer to that question is no,” wrote the attorney general.

sangha · Mar 8, 2013

Geoist said:
Rand Paul did not request the president to say he would never use a drone on a US citizen on US soil. He himself said it is reasonable to take such action if there was an imminent threat. The question is: what does "imminent threat" mean? To the White House it doesn't have to mean an attack is about to happen.

Your post is dishonest. Holder clearly limited the use of drones on american soil to those who are engaged in combat

“It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: ‘Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?’ The answer to that question is no,” wrote the attorney general.

sangha · Mar 8, 2013

Geoist said:
While he has been forced to clarify, their original memo stated:

Certain aspects of this legal framework require additional explication. First, the condition that an operational leader present an "imminent" threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons will take place in the immediate future.

^This is anything but clear.

Your response dishonestly quotes from a memo discussing the use of drones on foeriegn soil, not american soil

Geoist · Mar 8, 2013

sangha said:
It is dishonest to refer to a memo that explains our policy concerning the use of drones on foreign soil when this thread is about the use of drones on american soil

I did not claim that quote referred to actions in the US. However, it is reasonable to wonder if their definition of the word "imminent" applies as much at home as it does abroad.

Geoist · Mar 8, 2013

sangha said:
Drones are to be used on american soil exclusively against people engaged in combat

And once again, that was released AFTER the filibuster. I am satisfied with that answer, as was Paul.

sangha · Mar 8, 2013

Geoist said:
I did not claim that quote referred to actions in the US.

This thread is about the use of drones in the US, so your quote is irrelevant

However, it is reasonable to wonder if their definition of the word "imminent" applies as much at home as it does abroad.

The use off drones on US soil against american citizens is limited to using them against people engaged in combat

sangha · Mar 8, 2013

Geoist said:
And once again, that was released AFTER the filibuster. I am satisfied with that answer, as was Paul.

Because Rand didn't ask the question until he was in the middle of his filibuster

I guess Holder should have answered Rands question *before* Rand asked it :screwy

Geoist · Mar 8, 2013

sangha said:
Because Rand didn't ask the question until he was in the middle of his filibuster

I guess Holder should have answered Rands question *before* Rand asked it :screwy

So you really think Rand was originally questioning the Administration on its authority over taking out imminent threats? Really? :doh

sangha · Mar 8, 2013

Geoist said:
So you really think Rand was originally questioning the Administration on its authority over taking out imminent threats? Really? :doh

Rand asked (and I'm paraphrasing here) "Does POTUS have the authority to order the use of military force against a US citizen on US soil without a trial"

Holder answered his question. If Rand had additional questions, there's no reason for him to think they would go unanswered.

Geoist · Mar 8, 2013

sangha said:
Rand asked (and I'm paraphrasing here) "Does POTUS have the authority to order the use of military force against a US citizen on US soil without a trial"

Holder answered his question. If Rand had additional questions, there's no reason for him to think they would go unanswered.

And once again, "So you really think Rand was originally questioning the Administration on its authority over taking out imminent threats? Really?"

You know he was referring to non-imminent threats in that question. He shouldn't have to draw a diagram.

sangha · Mar 8, 2013

Geoist said:
And once again, "So you really think Rand was originally questioning the Administration on its authority over taking out imminent threats? Really?"

You know he was referring to non-imminent threats in that question. He shouldn't have to draw a diagram.

Again, Rand had no reason to think that any question he had would go unanswered. His fillibuster was nothing but grandstanding

Geoist · Mar 8, 2013

sangha said:
Again, Rand had no reason to think that any question he had would go unanswered.

He didn't say he didn't get an answer, he said he didn't get a clear answer.

Surtr · Mar 8, 2013

The Article said:
"The president could conceivably have no choice but to authorise the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland," Mr Holder said.

Apparently Mr. Holder never heard of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.

Imnukingfutz · Mar 9, 2013

MaggieD said:
Futz, I didn't vote for Obama. Don't agree with his style or most of his policies. I could critique him negatively and be infracted for "fair use." So please. Don't tell me I'd defend him to the end of the earth.

Did you even read the letter that started the controversy? Well, I did. Here it is: http://www.paul.senate.gov/files/documents/BrennanHolderResponse.pdf Unfortunately, it's a pdf and I can't copy relevant portions here.

It's filled with qualifiers...ending with "Should such an emergency arise, I would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the President on the scope of his authority."

It's not much more than a gotcha game.

Qualifiers or not, it violates Constitutional rights. They can put all the qualifiers in there they want, it makes no difference to me, if it violates one single Americans Constitutional rights it should not be allowed period.

There is no trial, there is no ability to address your accusers...regardless of the situation at hand, as an American on American soil you are guaranteed those rights. Call it what you will with qualifiers etc... it violates the Constitution and must not be allowed.

We have allowed (willingly or not) our government to walk all over the Constitution, ignoring portions - reinterpreting others to suit their needs...either a line must be drawn or we just give up completely.

Imnukingfutz · Mar 9, 2013

sangha said:
And the use of drones in this case are limited to defending against attacks; they are not to be used offensively.

How can a drone be used as a defensive attack when you are sending it out to kill someone?

Preemptive defensive attack? Kind of like what we did in Iraq?

Drones are an offensive weapon and should not be used to kill Americans....at home or abroad.

Imnukingfutz · Mar 9, 2013

rocket88 said:
Maggie will defend Obama to the ends of the Earth? :lamo :lamo :lamo

In that instance yes...

Imnukingfutz · Mar 9, 2013

Geoist said:
The 50+ crowd?

OK....maybe. Only the uninformed or gullible maybe.

Dezaad · Mar 9, 2013

Imnukingfutz said:
Much ado about nothing? Really?

The Attorney General said it was legal for the President to use drone strikes in the US against American citizens...with out trial, pretty much with the same accountability & intel they use for drone strikes on Americans abroad...which is little to none.

So the President...and every future President...now has the legal ability, not through law passed by Congress but just by the OK given to him by his own Administration, to use drones to kill Americans on American soil.

And thats much ado about nothing?

You really will defend this administration to the ends of the earth.

In my experience, MaggieD is no fan of the Obama administration. Just saying.

sangha · Mar 9, 2013

Geoist said:
He didn't say he didn't get an answer, he said he didn't get a clear answer.

He got a clear answer to the question he asked of Holder

He did not get a clear answer to the question he did not ask of Holder

Barack Obama 'has authority to use drone strikes to kill Americans on US soil'

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency