Holder: Obama Can Target US Citizens on US Soil for Killing

[xchrom]

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/03/06


In a letter to Sen. Rand Paul, Attorney General Eric Holder (pictured) says that Obama could kill US citizens without due process.

The President of the United States, according to Justice Department's top lawyer, reserves the right to use lethal military force against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil without judicial review or due process.

That is the content of a letter sent to Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) by US Attorney General Eric Holder and disclosed Tuesday as part of a deal reached between the White House and members of the Senate Intelligence Committee that allowed John Brennan, nominated to head the CIA, to have his confirmation fast-tracked to the full Senate for a vote.

The letter from Holder reads, in part:

"It is possible [...] 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."

As Michael Luciano notes at PolicyMic, such a statement would possibly be "unremarkable" in the era before the rise of predator drones or if the US had not recently killed US citizens abroad without judicial review. "However," Luciano says, "Obama's clear willingness to employ drone strikes to kill individuals who aren't necessarily involved in plotting attacks at the time they become targets should give all Americans pause."



***while i find this horrifying and abhorrent -- since it was addressed to rand paul -- i hope holder signed it...XOXO.
i mean a little dig at that bastard would not be undue.

[99Forever]

1. That whole...

... "due process" and "rule of law" thing is so overrated anyway.

[dixiegrrrrl]

2. Farewell, Due Process. We are going to miss you.

"necessary and appropriate under the Constitution"??????????????

The Constitution makes it "necessary" to kill American citizens without any due process?

Guantanamo was such an early warning.

[jsr]

6. "I want you to know this administration is totally committed to protecting the people."

- GWB, June 12, 2002.

[dixiegrrrrl]

25. ".... the people of the 1%"

[geek tragedy]

3. If you actually read the letter, Holder doesn't say anything controversial.

He ducks the question everyone here would like answered, but the problem is that Rand Paul didn't ask the right question.

Rand Paul should have asked "is the President legally barred by Posse Comitatus from targeting American citizens for killing inside the US, without a trial, using the military rather than law enforcement, to disrupt or thwart terrorist plots in the planning stages?"

Instead, Paul asked "could the President ever kill Americans inside the US without a trial" and Holder responded "I guess if you're creative enough, you could come up with an outlandish scenario that would require it and be legal."

[mzmolly]

16. Are you saying

we should be expected to read?

[Bake]

18. How about not reading stuff into the letter that wasn't there?

Holder's a lawyer. He wiggled on the VERY HYPOTHETICAL question. I would too.

Bake

[geek tragedy]

21. Think, read, think, then react.

Usually better than skipping the first three steps.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

34. So what's wrong with stating unequivocally where the boundaries to lethal force lie?

It seems like a professional could anticipate the reaction to a half-answer even if it were in response to a half-question. Giving your opponents reason to cry foul and your allies a reason to doubt is a sad commentary on a lack of professional responsibility.

Spell-out, without room for doubt, what the limits of power would be.

[geek tragedy]

40. Because in the real world it's not plausible to state

with certainty where the boundaries lie with regard to each and every possible scenario.

He can state standards, but those will still depend on words or phrases whose meaning is subjective like "extraordinary" or "event that threatens national security" etc.

Whether lethal force is authorized is a very, very fact-dependent question. In the VAST majority of cases, the answer is no.

A further point: if you create an explicit standard, then all anyone has to do to justify a drone strike is creative interpretation to make the definition fit the facts. John Yoo was pretty good at that.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

43. "The US military will not be used on US soil against its citizens

except in the case of a general insurrection in deference to the broadest possible interpretation of posse comitatus."

See. How hard was that?

[geek tragedy]

45. The 9/11 attacks were not a general insurrection.

Under your standard, it would have been illegal to shoot the planes down as they headed towards the WTC, the US capitol, etc. Because those planes had US citizens on them, the act of shooting them down would have meant killing them without a trial, on US soil.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

51. False analogy.

If the US is under a sustained attacked as on 9/11/2011 and 12/7/1941 then US forces could respond and any US civilian casualties would be incidental. But that's not the topic of discussion.

The topic of discussion is a dedicated targeting US citizens in cicumstances presumed to not include on-going acts of widescale violence.

Why disavowing such a course of action is so difficult is beyond me but it is frightfully telling that some feel the need to hedge, dodge and obfuscate in order to avoid answer the issue forthrightly.

[geek tragedy]

53. You just changed your own rule.

Before you said "general insurrection."

Now the standard is "on-going acts of widescale violence."

I could easily point out an example of "on-going acts of widescale violence" that would clearly be an illegal use of force by the federal government, e.g. urban riots.


I'm not accusing you of dishonesty or hypocrisy, but rather pointing out that it's very hard to have a simple, unambiguous rule to apply to every unforeseeable situation.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

54. When have riots been judged as un unlawful use of military force?

[geek tragedy]

55. They are law enforcement situations, not military ones.

I guess here our positions are flipped--the thought of tanks and armed drones being used to stamp out urban violence gives me the chills.

[onenote]

56. Actually, the topic of discussion is Holder's broad response to Paul's broad question

Paul didn't ask the question you seem to think he asked. His very broadly worded question was not specifically directed to "dedicated targeting" of US citizens in "circumstances presumed to not include on-going acts of widescale violence." Rather Paul stated his question as follows: "I once again request you answer the following question: Do you believe that 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?" Paul went on to say that he thought the only acceptable answer was no.

But given the question, "no" is not the only acceptable answer.

[onenote]

46. so you would oppose the use of the military to stop a RW domestic terror group

from crashing a plane into the President's residence?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

52. Is that what Awlaki was doing? Or his 16-year old son during a separate, dedicated drone strike?

Because presumably that is what the article is referring to. Sure, the Awlakis were in Yemen but what is the guarantee such an offense would not be perpetrated by President Obama or his inevitable successors?

Please tell us all what you're willing to publically defend the next Republican president on similar policies.

[onenote]

58. Why is that "presumably" what the article is referring to. Its not the topic of Paul's inquiry

Paul's inquiry was very broadly worded and it was entirely appropriate for Holder to respond broadly. Paul said the "only acceptable" answer to his broadly worded question was no. Holder correctly, imo, disagreed.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

60. So in other words -- we're at the mercy of our masters without due process or judicial review

Because no one defending Holder seems eager to define ANY constraints.

[onenote]

65. You've conceded that we're at the "mercy of our masters" without due process

in certain situations. Holder wasn't asked to describe exactly when military intervention in the US against US citizens might be necessary and appropriate. But he correctly acknowledged that, contrary to Paul's assertion, there were extraordinary circumstances where such intervention would be necessary and appropriate. There was no need for him to go further.

Again, you've conceded, as I understand it, that military force could be used against US civilians (such as a RW group that launched an air attack against the White House) without simply relying on the DC police or the Secret Service or without having to get a court order to intervene.

Drawing the lines more specifically than indicating that it would be limited to extraordinary circumstances (and by extension to the previously announced policy regarding action against US citizens overseas) limited to circumstances where intervention by non-military means was not feasible is a fool's errands. No one can or should try to predict every circumstance. The fact that some people will never be satisfied with the answer is just the way it is.

[onenote]

44. Because unless you have a crystal ball you can't possibly foresee every

circumstance.

Some situations are easy. While some DUers seem ready to set their hair on fire on the very idea that the military could be involved in any action on US soil against a US citizen, I would bet a very large sum of money that the only a handful of extreme DUers would say that, if some RW maniac militia group hijacked a plane and sent a message that it was heading to the White House to take out the president and his family, the military could be called out to intercept and if necessary take down the plane without bothering to get a court order or other "due process."

That's an easy case. But not all cases are easy. More often than not a measure of judgment is required. And whatever words are used to draw a line are going to be subject to interpretation. For example, the policy with respect to killing US citizens overseas was stated as requiring that certain conditions be met, including that the targeted person is deemed to pose “an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States” and that capture of the person is infeasible.

Overseas capture is going to be "infeasible" much more frequently than it is in the US, so the circumstances would be narrower to begin with. But it would be foolish -- indeed it would be impossible -- to attempt to describe with more specificity when capture is infeasible, or when the person poses an imminent threat of violent attack". The scenarios are endless.

Paul asked a broad question. He received an appropriately broad response.

[spanone]

4. david koresh? waco 1993

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Koresh

[FSogol]

5. Unrec. More anti-Obama spin and BS from common dreams.

[dixiegrrrrl]

7. How about Jonathan Turley's view on the subject, then?

Holder Tells Senator That Obama Does Have Authority To Kill Citizens With Drones On U.S. Soil Without Criminal Charge or Conviction

"it is astonishing how citizens, including so many liberals and civil libertarians, have remained relatively silent in the face of a classic claim of authoritarian power.
The relative silence over this latest development shows just how passive the country, and particularly liberals,
have become in challenging Obama on his aggregation of executive power. "

http://jonathanturley.org/2013/03/06/holder-tells-senator-that-obama-does-have-authority-to-kill-citizens-with-drones-on-u-s-soil-without-criminal-charge-or-conviction/

[OldDem2012]

47. Just curious, but why should we care about Turley's views on this or any other issue? nt.

[struggle4progress]

57. +

[frylock]

63. because as far as constitutional scholars go, turley eats obama's lunch..

fucking eats it. but who gives two shits about the Constitution or the rule of law when it's our guy shitting all over both, amiright? of course, that tune will change so fast that it will make your head spin when president jeb bush is sworn in.

[OldDem2012]

69. LOL. You seem to have a bit of a personal attitude....

...about a variety of subjects, don't you?

[frylock]

72. i do indeed.

[OldDem2012]

73. You do understand Turley is a right winger, don't you? nt.

[frylock]

74. i'm a policy guy, not a personality guy..

I'm not even registered under any political party. are you in the habit of supporting right-wing policy just because it's pushed by a Democrat?

[OldDem2012]

80. You need to do a little better homework on the people you reference in your posts on DU....

...Turley is a right-winger posing as an impartial Constitutional scholar. He interprets the Constitution exactly like the right-wingers on the SCOTUS. That makes a TON of difference to me.

But no, I don't believe in ruling out a weapon system for use in the US if the situation warrants it. It's not a right-wing or left-wing policy, it's a homeland defense policy.

Here's a scenario for you:

Let's say a group of US citizens attack a critical US facility on US soil, kill all of the occupants, and occupy the structure taking up defensive positions. The facility is surrounded by several other buildings containing US civilian and military personnel You discover that they are fully equipped with automatic weapons, handguns, body armor, and gas masks.

You're the commander and you've been ordered to retake the facility. Choose one of the following for use against the occupied structure:

1. Assault using troops only
2. Assault using a mix of armored vehicles and troops

....expect to take losses among your personnel and possibly among people in the surrounding structures...

3. Assault using attack helicopters, armored vehicles, and troops
4. Assault using a strike aircraft armed with a laser-guided projectile

....expect to take losses among your personnel and among people in the surrounding structures...

5. Assault using a drone

....expect to take no losses among your personnel and very few people in the surrounding structures.

Your choice....what do you do?

[frylock]

85. wowie. you've put a lot of thought into this..

it's almost as if you're a writer for 24, or the Die Hard franchise. Now what about when Obama is no longer President, and instead it's Jeb Bush, or even Jonathon Turley calling the shots? What if a group of protestors occupies a public space, and refuses to leave quietly. What if TPTB get up on the teevee machine and tell us that they're an imminent threat to our freedoms (much like Saddam's daunting military forces were). You're the commander and you've been ordered to retake the public space.

superpatriotman summed it up for me in his succinct reply to a similar question you posed to him:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022466858#post82

and again, personalities mean jack shit to me. when you're right, you're right. I don't care if it's Noam Chomsky or Dick fucking Cheney. unlike too many people on this board, my political beliefs and positions are the same today as they were on January 19, 2009.

[onenote]

90. as "constitutional scholars" go, Turley is third rate, at best

He doesn't even teach constitutional law. To the best of my knowledge he's never argued a case before the Supreme Court. Check lists of Constitutional Scholars -- not ones published on blogs, but ones published based on peer based review or on the number of times being cited in law review articles. Turley's name doesn't show up.

Turley is, and always has been someone who is good at getting himself interviewed on TV and quoted in the press, but isn't in any way one of the nation's leading constitutional lawyers. If you want a respected constitutional scholar who also appears in the media, look at Laurence Tribe. If you want a guy who takes positions designed to get him attention, like supporting Clinton's impeachment, or describing Sotomayor as not being t brilliant enough to be on the Court or agreeing that the second amendment creates an individual right to gun ownership.

[great white snark]

20. Well, they are consistent.

And the same DUers consistently lap it up. Hell, BBI made a career out of posting their biased babble.

[FSogol]

24. True dat! n/t

[talkingmime]

8. Why is Holder still in office?

[forestpath]

9. Any replacement would be just as bad, or even worse....

[talkingmime]

10. Really? He's incompetent and ineffective. How could you get worse?

[forestpath]

13. Yeah, like Obama would replace him with somebody better....NOT.

[talkingmime]

15. I just can't understand why he hasn't already. It doesn't make sense.

[forestpath]

17. But it's in keeping with his other horrible choices. None of it makes sense.

[talkingmime]

22. I think a lot of it is to appease the GOP wingnuts. But geeze, they held up Hagel!!!

McCain is on tape saying Hagel would be perfect for the job and yet he was one of the ones doing his best to hold up Hagel's confirmation.

Personally I think Obama should just push whatever he wants down the GOP's collective throat and make them swallow it. The only weakness I've seen in him is his use of logic and compromise. Neither of those work with today's GOP because they don't comprehend either.

[Ganja Ninja]

26. It makes perfect sense.

We just expect Obama to be something he's not. We keep waiting and hoping and scratching our heads and the reality is right in front of us. Obama is a conservative.

[immoderate]

35. Occam's Razor!

The simplest explanation is probably correct.

--imm

[talkingmime]

68. I use the spelling "Ockham", but the concept goes back at least as far as Ptolemy.

That predates him by 13 or so centuries, but the idea is the same. Still, in the case of Holder I don't see a simple explanation. Well, to be clearer, I don't see an explanation at all. It has me befuddled.

[frylock]

64. word up

[DevonRex]

49. This subthread didn't get the point.

Holder ignored the question asked. Answered another question. About our military responding if attacked as we were on 12/7/41 or 9/11.

Common Dreams made this into tabloid trash BS. Poor things.

[woo me with science]

67. Because Obama wants him there.

The one percent wants him there.

It is that simple.

This constant expressed amazement that Obama's administration is doing exactly what Obama and the authoritarian corporatists he works for wishes it to do, is just the icing on the Twilight Zone cake we are force fed in this country every day now.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. The only circumstance this could even be justified

(It is in International law) is within the realm of internal rebellion, otherwise known as civil war.

Otherwise this is a grab for naked authoritarian power, and anybody not seeing it is either a partisan, a fool, or perhaps both.

No, Waco and Ruby Ridge do not rise to internal rebellion.

[Bake]

19. It was a very hypothetical question.

Holder ducked it. People need to stop getting their panties in a wad over it.

What did you expect him to say????

Bake

[GRENADE]

79. Ummm

No

[geek tragedy]

23. Holder didn't grab any kind of authority. He ducked the question that

people wanted answered. Rand Paul gave him that option through a very poorly worded question.

[bowens43]

12. fuck freedom and our constitution , who needs them right?

[reformist2]

14. It really is time for Dems to mobilize against the Obama Admin and push him (back?) to the left.

We have two years until the next national election - now is the time to move the debate in a more liberal direction with the least danger of fracturing the party. In any case, this is unacceptable. This is not what we voted for.

[snooper2]

37. "we"? speak for yourself please

[Rex]

27. No he can't, sounds like some BS from commondreams.org

nt.

[woo me with science]

28. GOOD FUCKING GOD.

That should be everyone's response. And we should be in the fucking streets about it.

No, this isn't acceptable. The fact that we are sitting here arguing about whether the President should have the right to murder Americans in our own country without due process is fucking obscene. It is something out of a dystopian novel.

It is beyond putrid and disgusting and offensive that the apologism for this shit even stands at what is supposed to be a democratic website.

This is what this country has become, when corporations own our government and our media and have their ugly, slimy tentacles of propaganda everywhere around us, down to discussion boards on the internet. Portraying any of this as even remotely constitutional, and pretending that reasonable people can have reasonable arguments about whether the President should have the right to murder any of us is pure fascist propaganda, and it should have no place whatsoever on DU.

What utter, steaming, reeking indefensible BULLSHIT.

[tridim]

29. Woo me with deja vu, Woo.

You posted the same BS in yesterday's thread on the same subject.

Why?

[Puzzledtraveller]

30. Your point?

[dixiegrrrrl]

31. There's a DU rule against saying something more than once????

[DevonRex]

32. *snicker* *cough* *SNORT* Naw, woo. Obama'd just leave us totally unprotected, not fight back.

Order the military to stand down if the U.S. is attacked like on 12/7/41. Let our citizens be slaughtered without defending them.

Is that what you'd like to see then? Wholesale slaughter of U.S. citizens by another nation on U.S. soil? That's what Holder is talking about. The U.S. being attacked and the military having to respond on US soil. Your reaction, and that of Common Dreams, is bizarre to say the least and unfortunately typical.

I used to read Common Dreams. I wish US politics could go further to the left as we all do on DU. But CD makes itself irrelevant with this kind of trash. It might as well be reporting about a woman giving birth to an alien baby. For the life of me I don't know why anybody reads that tabloid shit.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

36. 12/7/41 was perpetrated by Americans?

[DevonRex]

39. I see you didn't actually read the article.

It referenced Pearl Harbor specifically. That was another country if you remember.

[yodermon]

33. How do you think the Administration should react to an armed rebellion against the government? n/t

[DevonRex]

42. Why, suh, they should suhrenduh to General Lee immediately!! LOL!!!

After letting American citizens be slaughtered by him first, apparently. This is just bizarre. I cannot believe people are actually saying the CIC shouldn't protect America.

[superpatriotman]

38. There were no US citizens involved with Pearl Harbor or 9 11

So the issue is using the military within the country. Not killing citizens.

[geek tragedy]

41. US citizens were on the planes that were used.

If you shoot the planes down, you're using lethal force to kill those Americans, on US soil, without a trial.

[onenote]

48. You're just trying to confuse the absolutists

[OldDem2012]

50. At least 48 civilians were killed during the attack on Pearl Harbor...

Full Pearl Harbor Casualty List

I also seem to recall quite a few US civilians killed aboard the four airplanes and in the WTC.

Maybe I didn't understand your post?

[Autumn]

62. I'm not sure anyone can understand anything Holder says or writes.

I'm confused also. He really makes no sense, but I guess he's good at it.

[GreenStormCloud]

70. U.S. citizens were not attacking us.

The military opened fire on an attacking foreign military. Holder's letter is about authorizing the military to shoot U.S. citizens.

[OldDem2012]

75. The majority of the US citizens were hit by descending US antiaircraft fire...

....not by bombs or machine gun fire from the Japanese aircraft.

If I remember correctly, nobody was authorized at that time to shoot at or kill Americans, but it happened without due process, did it not?

[GreenStormCloud]

86. The U.S. civilians were not targeted and killed deliberately by the U.S.

They were killed by accident. Indeed it was from decending U.S. shells. Accidents still happen. Recently in New York several citizens were accidently hit by bullets from police who were shooting at a guy that was pointing a gun at the cops.

The Japanese pilots & crew were authorized by their government to attack U.S. targets. It would be expected that some civilians would be killed and injured as collateral damage. After the war we did not attempt to prosecute the surviving pilots for war crimes.

[superpatriotman]

76. Americans were not involved in the PLOTTTING with either attack

That's my point. They can offer no reasonable or probable scenario in which drones would be used to kill us citizens on us soil, so they reserve the right to decide on a case by case basis. I am thoroughly against this practice, however.

[OldDem2012]

78. If US citizens launch an attack on a US facility/US citizens on US soil, would that not...

...create a circumstance where a drone could be used on American soil to take out the attackers? Why rule out ANY weapon system in that kind of situation?

By the way, we do have circumstances in the past where attacks have been made on US soil by US citizens.

[superpatriotman]

82. Yes we do, McVeigh, for example

However, why stop at massive attacks? Why not a drone strike on gang members, wife beaters, drug dealers, card cheats, protestors destroying property? It's the true definition of a slippery slope.

[OldDem2012]

83. Nope. Because local police forces are empowered to handle local problems. nt.

[struggle4progress]

61. Did you ever actually read Holder's letter to Rand Paul?

[FarCenter]

66. The F-16s from Langley would have brought down United Flight 93 if necessary

They would have killed the hijackers, but would have also have killed a large number of innocent US citizens. Being without ammunition or missiles, the F-16 pilots would not have survived either.

As it turned out, UA 93 was down before they arrived.

The F-15s from Otis were too late to intercept the WTC attack, but they were armed.

[WinkyDink]

87. Your point? It would have been to prevent MORE casualties.

The F-15s from Otis were too late to intercept the WTC attack-----

THAT is the point one should investigate.

[FarCenter]

97. So you agree that the President can order the killing of some Americans to save other Americans.

Yes, there are lots of thing about 9.11 that are fishy. There are actually a number of units nearer NYC than Otis that on normal days could have intercepted.

I believe that some parts of the US government knew that the attack was coming and allowed it to proceed. Including standing down parts of air defense.

[mwrguy]

71. Easy solution:

Don't be a terrorist.

[indepat]

77. Now just how freakin' special is this? Holder and his lads can't get enough evidence to

charge any of the big-wing Wall Street banksters or fraudsters, but might can get enough evidence to waste citizens without the requisite constitutionally-mandated due process. Again, just how freakin' special is this?

[Spider Jerusalem]

81. Fucksake. Context, people.

"Possible to imagine an extraordinary circumstance"...and goes on to mention 9/11 and Pearl Harbor as examples of such possible extraordinary circumstances. Which really isn't "can target US citizens with drones". But that doesn't make for as sensationalistically hand-wringing a headline I suppose.

[OldDem2012]

84. Unfortunately, we're dealing with the context-blind. nt.

[zipplewrath]

88. Two scenarios

Here are two scenarios I'd be afraid to ask Holder about:

1) There's a movie with Clooney and Kidman about chasing a terrorist with a backpack nuke. He makes it to NYC and is headed towards the UN. There are snipers about on buildings and one of them spots the terrorist (not a US citizen). Clooney, a Colnel in the Army, orders the terrorist shot, even though the streets are full of cops who could attempt to arrest the guy. Mind you, the guy is wearing a nuke. The shot could hit the bomb, the terrorist could have a "dead man" switch on him, no one really knows. They do believe he is headed to the UN. The sniper announces he can't take a shot because there are innocent US citizens in the way of the shot. Clooney orders him to take the shot anyway, presuming the through shot would still strike the terrorist.

Does that authority exist in such a situation. Can a Military officer order a US citizen to be shot in order for the bullet to go through and kill a terrorist. Does it matter what the citizenship of the terrorist is? Is there an obligation to attempt arrest?

2) Branch Dividians. They have already killed officers of the law. They are armed. You know the situation. Nothing has happened for 30+ days. Could the president order the military to drop a bomb on the facility and kill the occupants?

[BlueCheese]

89. As mentioned, Holder purposely ducked the question being asked.

Namely, does the executive claim the authority to kill someone in the U.S. under the same circumstances that it has already claimed for killing American citizens abroad?

However, the administration's refusal to answer this question tells us what we need to know. If they did think they don't have the authority, they would simply have said no. This coy evasion is only because they'd rather not say yes. Remember this is the same administration that is still pretending in the courts that the foreign drone program doesn't officially exist, so that they don't have to respond to FOIA requests about it.

[onenote]

91. where in Paul's letter does it say what you say it does?

If Paul was asking THAT question he should have asked it. But he didn't. He asked a very broadly worded question and Holder gave an appropriately broad response, one that indisputably was a more correct answer to the question asked than the answer Paul provided.

To reiterate from earlier posts, this is exactly the question that Paul requested Holder answer:

"I once again request you answer the following question: Do you believe that 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?" Paul went on to say that he thought the only acceptable answer to that specific question was no.

Given the specific question that Paul chose to ask, Holder's answer clearly was correct. There are circumstances (described by Holder as extraordinary) where a President would be acting within the Constitution and laws of the US to order the use of lethal force against a US citizen without a trial. (Hell, there are circumstances in which the local sheriff can order the use of lethal force against someone without a trial).

Paul demanded an answer to a specific question. He could have phrased that question in a much more specific way if that was what he wanted. So why didn't he?

[BlueCheese]

92. Come on. Everybody knows what question Paul wanted answered.

This isn't a court case where you purposely try to disclose as little as possible while technically answering the question in some oblique way. This is a U.S. Senator asking a coequal branch of government about its policies.

That the administration chose this way out means they didn't want to answer the real question. Why not?

[onenote]

95. I've worked on and around the Hill for 30 years

I've drafted letters for members of Congress to send to government agencies. And there isn't a staffer that doesn't know that you will never get an answer to a question if you don't ask it specifically and that even if you don't think the specific question you want answered will get a response, you ask it anyway.

Its not rocket science.

[BlueCheese]

96. Okay, I'll defer to your experience.

Seems like a dysfunctional way of conducting government, but I guess that shouldn't be surprising.

[tarheelsunc]

93. Due process is important, but...

say we find out that an American citizen has stolen a plane and is headed towards the White House. Should we give him a fair trial, or should we take the plane down, thus killing the American citizen and potentially saving the President's life? I think this is the gist of the "on American soil" argument. I support protecting our national security through waiving due process in a case such as this when a known threat exists. I would NOT, however, support waiving due process if the threat could not be directly established.

[guardian]

94. We have arrived 29 years late