General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHolder: No drone strikes on Americans in US, except in 'extraordinary circumstance'
The Obama administration has no intention of carrying out drone strikes against suspected terrorists in the United States, but could use them in response to an extraordinary circumstance such as the 9/11 terror attacks, according to a letter from Attorney General Eric Holder obtained by NBC News.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who received the March 4 letter from Holder, called the attorney generals refusal to rule out drone strikes in the U.S. more than frightening.
The letter from Holder surfaced just as the Senate Intelligence Committee was voting 12-3 to confirm White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan to be CIA director. The vote came after the White House agreed to share additional classified memos on targeted drone strikes against U.S. citizens overseas.
Paul had threatened to hold up Brennan's confirmation on the floor of the Senate if the administration did not clarify whether targeted drone strikes could be used inside the U.S.
In his letter, Holder called the question of drone strikes inside the U.S. "entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur and we hope no president will ever have to confront.
As a policy matter, moreover, 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."
http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/05/17197906-holder-no-drone-strikes-on-americans-in-us-except-in-extraordinary-circumstance?lite
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Who determines if it's an extraordinary circumstance?
Will the next Republican Administration exercise extreme caution when deploying drones armed with hellfire missiles against Americans?
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)So it's like obscenity: everyone will know it once they see it.
dembotoz
(16,808 posts)HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Does anyone not realize that 12 years and some months after the fact, we are, indeed, still responding to the extraordinary circumstance of 911?
jsr
(7,712 posts)NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)I just hope they'd show more concern for collateral damages than they have in Af/Pak.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Holder's answer was more detailed, however, stating that under certain circumstances, the president would have the authority to order lethal attacks on American citizens. The two possible examples of such "extraordinary" circumstances were the attack on Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 terrorist attacks. An American president order the use of lethal military force inside the US is "entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront," Holder wrote. Here's the bulk of the letter:
As members of this administration have previously indicated, the US government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so. As a policy matter moreover, 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. We have a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad. Hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts.
The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront. 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. 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 like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.
- more -
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/03/obama-admin-says-it-can-use-lethal-force-against-americans-us-soil
Senator Wyden made that point in a recent statement.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022320280
This is not new, and no one is advocating the use of lethal force on American soil, but if this shuts Rand Paul up, I'm all for it.
It's sickening that assholes like Rand Paul get to demagogue these issues. He doesn't give a fuck about people and their lives.
Making hundreds of thousands hungry or homeless: 'Brutal' or 'a pittance'?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022457325
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)GOOD FUCKING GOD.
randome
(34,845 posts)I would think the government would do something if, say, a Mexican drug cartel crosses the border. They'd be on American soil then. Should we do nothing?
The future can't be predicted but we can make sure we meet unimagined possibilities with a sense of organization.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)the Executive has the power of the pardon and Congress can declare a war, specifically identifying the enemy.