No no no, we would never have to use this power, it's too much, but it's too much for us to stop using it, I mean what if our own domestic enemies begin to develop drones, we could face a drone gap!
_________________ "Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky." — Alan Moore
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:36 pm Posts: 7507 Location: Last Western Stop of the Pony Express
Holder does not actually say it is legal. He says he believes it is legal. That small difference gives him an out if someone successfully argues against it being legal. It introduces doubt and Holder can walk away head held high admitting he thought one way and the Supremes decided another.
Weasel words from the top attorney? Makes me think the case isn't shut and dried and they are waiting for someone to challenge it in court.
_________________ The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin
"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am Posts: 15740 Location: Combat Information Center
Use of force against a citizen constitutes a seizure under the 4th amendment. Use of the weapons drones carry constitutes deadly force.
Therefore, the fact that it's a drone is really irrelevant. If you get killed by the government, what matters are the circumstances, not the weapon used.
The problem with drone weapons is that they're much more powerful than law enforcement weapons, and therefore have a much larger probability of damage or injury to bystanders. Therefore, using a drone would probably still be illegal in most circumstances because it would cause unnecessary damage and injury to anyone else in the area.
Holder is weaseling by using the technical truth of the first point to ignore the second point. He's also being dishonest by using the 9/11 and the Pearl Harbor attacks as an example of an incident, totally ignoring the fact that both are attacks by outside forces. He also fails to mention that using the military to conduct these strikes would require Congressional authorization under Posse Comitatus.
If there actually were a critical mass of violence so large that law enforcement couldn't contain it, then drone strikes would be acceptable, but that's because at that point it would be an insurrection, and would require Congressional authorization as well, and at that point nitpicking between drones and other military weapons is the height of focusing on the boogeyman.
In either case, it wouldn't be within his purview as Attorney General to make that type of decision. Rand Paul, by asking the question in the first place about the drones, is being an idiot anyhow and drawing this stupidity from Holder. The question isn't if drones are being used inside the U.S., the question is if the military is being used in any way in violation of Posse Comitatus. Except for the National Guard under State control, the military should not be used to conduct such activities except in accordance with that law. It doesn't matter if it' a drone or a private with a rifle.
_________________ "Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."
Are the agencies using the drones considered military and do they fall under posse comitis? I think the argument from the administration would be no.
So yeah Paul is correctto question it. And seriously why wouldn't the answer be no.
_________________ A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill
was gonna give this its own thread, but it probably belongs better here.
Quote:
Sen. Paul holds floor for hours in filibuster of CIA nominee, over drone concerns Published March 06, 2013 FoxNews.com
Spoiler:
Sen. Rand Paul launched into an old-fashioned filibuster on the Senate floor Wednesday as he tried to hold up the nomination of John Brennan for CIA director over concerns about the president’s authority to kill Americans with drones. Paul, R-Ky., is one of several lawmakers – on both sides of the aisle – who has raised concerns about the legal justification for launching drone strikes against Americans overseas. But Paul took to the floor after receiving a statement from Attorney General Eric Holder that creaked open the door to the possibility of using a drone to kill an American inside the United States. “To allow one man to accuse you in secret -- you never get notified you've been accused,” Paul said on the floor. “Your notification is the buzz of propellers on the drone as it flies overhead in the seconds before you're killed. Is that what we really want from our government?” Paul said he’d be raising the same complaints under a Republican president. “No one politician should be allowed to judge the guilt, to charge an individual, to judge the guilt of an individual and to execute an individual. It goes against everything that we fundamentally believe in our country,” he said. Paul, who started speaking shortly before noon, said he will filibuster the nomination “until I can no longer speak.” This kind of filibuster is rare – typically, senators “filibuster” by refusing to grant the majority the 60 votes needed to proceed to a final vote on certain bills. Paul, though, said he wanted to raise the “alarm” about the drone issue. He spoke after receiving letters from Holder on drone authority. In one letter, Holder said the U.S. has never carried out a drone strike against one of its citizens on American soil, and called a situation where such a strike may occur "entirely hypothetical" and "unlikely to occur." However, Holder did not entirely rule out that such a scenario may occur in the future, and indicated that such a strike would be legal under the Constitution. “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. Holder said "catastrophic" attacks such as the Sept. 11 attacks or the attack on Pearl Harbor are examples of circumstances where the president could conceivably feel such an action is necessary. Testifying on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, Holder agreed that it would be unconstitutional to use a drone on American soil against a U.S. citizen and suspected terrorist who did not pose an imminent threat. Brennan has been a staunch supporter of the administration’s drone program. But, after members of the Senate Intelligence Committee extracted key documents on the program from the administration, the panel on Tuesday voted 12-3 to approve the nomination. Senate leaders were hoping to hold a floor vote on the nomination as early as Wednesday.
Before someone complains about Fox News, I went to CNN first, but they didn't have anything on it.
On Filibuster: I contend its a viable tool of the minority no matter who is in power. The federal government should be doing only those things that have the broadest of consensuses (sic?). When the Republicans were in power and crying I vividly recall saying on some Glade or another that we shouldn't mess with it because there would be a day we would need it ourselves. I'm glad to be right.
On drones: I'm kinda torn. I get the whole maybe someday in a worse scenario we might want to hit a US citizen on american soil with a remote aircraft. However it should be one of those rebellion or invasion marital law kind of things. The standard would have to be really really high. I'm talking about to set off a nuclear bomb and the only way to stop him is a drone kinda high. Even then I wonder couldn't you just go arrest him, and if he resists shoot him kind of thing. Heck we gave Bin-laden that courtesy. At the same time I get its a violation of how we handle guilt and innocence is this country.
_________________ I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"
Are the agencies using the drones considered military and do they fall under posse comitis? I think the argument from the administration would be no.
So yeah Paul is correctto question it. And seriously why wouldn't the answer be no.
They are. AFAIK, DHS doesn't have Reapers yet.
CIA does. Therefore, holding up the nomination of the proposed CIA director over his positions on this makes perfect sense. Particularly given that the last time a drone was used to assassinate a citizen of the United States was in CIA hands.
Paul wants to know if you can use a drone to assassinate a US citizen on US soil. The argument from Holder and Brennan appears to be, "it depends." Most of us who believe in "due process" would prefer the answer to be, "no."
_________________ “The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am Posts: 15740 Location: Combat Information Center
Except that isn't what Paul asked. He asked is it legal to use drones at all, whether for assassination, or for military purposes, such as quelling insurrction. Holder's examples both reflected the legality of using them in military situations, but he used examples of repelling invasion, which is irrelevant.
Quote:
"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," Holder continued, referring to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Holder said he would "examine the particular facts and circumstances" if such an emergency were to arise.
His examples of legal use specifically reference the military using them. That can only happen under Congressional authorization under Posse Comitatus, under Congressional authorization to quell insurrection, or when repelling invasion (the last of which being what both his examples reflect). By referencing only military uses as possible legal uses that rules out the CIA completely, except for repelling invasion.
Paul is being disingenuous in any case, because he's raising a stink over Holder not ruling out drones, specifically rather than assassinations in general. Holder doesn't control either the CIA or the military, and he's addressing the cases where it could be legal, rather than those where it's obviously not. Paul is focusing on the drones in order to get people like you guys riled up about the boogeyman with his Hellfire missiles. If the CIA isn't covered by Posse Comitatus, then it can't be authorized by Congress to conduct drone strikes at all, except against a foreign invader. The CIA is specifically forbidden from domestic activity.
_________________ "Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."
Except that isn't what Paul asked. He asked is it legal to use drones at all, whether for assassination, or for military purposes, such as quelling insurrction. Holder's examples both reflected the legality of using them in military situations, but he used examples of repelling invasion, which is irrelevant.
Quote:
"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," Holder continued, referring to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Holder said he would "examine the particular facts and circumstances" if such an emergency were to arise.
His examples of legal use specifically reference the military using them. That can only happen under Congressional authorization under Posse Comitatus, under Congressional authorization to quell insurrection, or when repelling invasion (the last of which being what both his examples reflect). By referencing only military uses as possible legal uses that rules out the CIA completely, except for repelling invasion.
Paul is being disingenuous in any case, because he's raising a stink over Holder not ruling out drones, specifically rather than assassinations in general. Holder doesn't control either the CIA or the military, and he's addressing the cases where it could be legal, rather than those where it's obviously not. Paul is focusing on the drones in order to get people like you guys riled up about the boogeyman with his Hellfire missiles. If the CIA isn't covered by Posse Comitatus, then it can't be authorized by Congress to conduct drone strikes at all, except against a foreign invader. The CIA is specifically forbidden from domestic activity.
1) Paul didn't ask Holder questions. He asked Brennan questions.
2) That actually isn't what Paul asked. He asked quite a bit. Holder chose to answer only part, and that evasively.
January 25, 2013 John O. Brennan Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. Brennan, As the Senate moves forward with its consideration of your nomination to be the next Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), it will be necessary to examine not only your qualifications and record, but also to determine whether you will provide the necessary leadership as the head of an agency that operates under unique rules for transparency and that quietly holds significant influence over the advancement of America’s strategic priorities around the globe. After reviewing your record—as well of the record of President Obama, to whom you have provided a great deal of advice and direction on issues of national security and terrorism—I must ask several questions to help inform my decision on your nomination: Do you agree with the argument put forth on numerous occasions by the Executive Branch that it is legal to order the killing of American citizens and that it is not compelled to explain its reasoning in reaching this conclusion? Do you believe this is a good precedent for the government to set? Congress has been denied access to legal opinions and interpretations authorizing placement of U.S. citizens believed to be engaged in terrorism on targeting lists, thus denying Congress the ability to perform important oversight. Will you provide access to those opinions, as well as future opinions? Would it not be appropriate to require a judge or court to review every case before the individual in question is added to a targeting list? Please describe the due process requirements in place for those individuals being considered for addition to a targeting list. Would you agree that it is paradoxical that the federal government would need to go before a judge to authorize a wiretap on a U.S. citizen overseas, but possibly not to order a lethal drone strike against the same individual? If not, please explain why you believe something similar to the FISA standard should not be applied in regards to lethal actions against U.S. citizens. Is it still your intent to codify and normalize the so-called “disposition matrix”—a targeting list that you helped to establish—to direct counterterrorism operations in future administrations, as well as the targeted killing procedures you have outlined in your “playbook”? Aside from the president, how many people have access to the full disposition matrix? Of those, how many participate in the process to add individuals to the targeting list, and how many have the authority to veto an individual’s inclusion? How many times have you specifically objected to an individual’s inclusion on a targeting list, or how many times have you recommended to the president against including an individual on a targeting list? How often are the criteria used for determining whether an individual should be included on a targeting list amended (not simply reviewed)? How many government officials and which agencies participate in establishing these criteria? Does the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) have final say over all criteria? Of those individuals who have been but are no longer included in the disposition matrix (or other targeting list), how many have been killed and how many have been removed from the list by other means? How many individuals remain in the disposition matrix (or other targeting list) today and how does that number compare to the number in prior years? Is the number growing, shrinking, or static? How many U.S. citizens have been added to the disposition matrix (or other targeting list), and how many remain on a targeting list? How many U.S. citizens have been intentionally killed by U.S. drone strikes since 2008? How many have been unintentionally killed by U.S. drone strikes during the same period? In how many countries has the U.S. executed a drone strike against a presumed terrorist? In each of the countries where the U.S. has executed a drone strike in the past four years, please provide a year-to-year estimate of those who self-identify or otherwise associate with al Qaeda within that country. You have indicated that no “credible evidence” exists to support recent claims of civilian casualties resulting from U.S. drone strikes. Please indicate how you define “credible evidence” and what process is in place to evaluate the legitimacy of alleged civilian casualties. Which countries have publicly stated their support for U.S. drone strikes within their territory? Have any publicly indicated support for U.S. drone strikes into the long-term? How relevant is the opinion of the public in the countries where U.S. drone strikes are ongoing? In those countries, how would you characterize public opinion toward U.S. drone strikes? In light of the civilian casualties caused by the extensive use of drone strikes under your guidance, do you continue to stand by your remark that “sometimes you have to take life to save lives”? Do you condone the CIA’s practice of counting certain civilians killed by U.S. drone strikes as ‘militants,’ simply because they were of military age and within close proximity of a target? Do you believe such accounting provides an accurate picture of our drone program? What changes to the CIA review process will you put in place, or have you attempted to put in place in your previous role, to prevent further unintentional killing of U.S. citizens? What role did you play in approving the drone strike that led to the death of the underage, U.S. citizen son of Anwar al-Awlaki? Unlike his father, he had not renounced his U.S. citizenship. Was the younger al-Awlaki the intended target of the U.S. drone strike which took his life? Further, do you reject the subsequent claim, apparently originating from anonymous U.S. government sources, that the young man had actually been a “militaryage male” of 20 years or more of age, something that was later proven false by the release of his birth certificate? Do you believe that the inadvertent killing of civilians, and the resulting anger from local populations, should cause us to limit, rather than expand, the drone program? The CIA has and will reportedly continue to have authorization to carry out lethal drone strikes in Pakistan autonomously and without approval from the president. Will you seek to reduce or eliminate this practice, or keep it in place? Will you hold to the discussed one or two year phase-out of this authority, or work to expedite the phase-out? What conditions would need to be present in order for you to recommend against executing a drone strike? Will you seek to return the CIA to its origins as an intelligence collection agency, or will you preside over continued growth in paramilitary drone strike operations? What are the ramifications of keeping lethal actions such as drone strikes within the CIA, thereby exempting it from the levels of transparency applied to the military? Will you support the proposal of your predecessor to expand the CIA’s drone fleet? How will you address any new drone bases operated by the CIA? Globally, how many of the individuals currently being actively targeted for disposition were directly and personally involved in the planning, support, or execution of the 9/11 terror attacks, or the bombing of the USS Cole, or the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania? Do you believe that lethal drone strikes constitute “hostilities” as defined by the War Powers Act? On what legal basis does the administration derive authorization to conduct such strikes? The president has stated that “al Qaeda has been decimated.” Do you believe this assertion is correct and, if so, who is it that we are now targeting if not al Qaeda? Is the U.S. drone strike strategy exclusively focused on targeting al Qaeda, or is it also conducting counterinsurgency operations against militants seeking to further undermine their government, such as in Yemen? Would you support expansion of the CIA’s drone program into Mali to provide support to counterterrorism operations? Do you believe a long-term, sustained drone strike program can eliminate all threats to the American people, or completely eliminate al Qaeda, as you have indicated is your intent? If not, how would we eventually wind down the drone program? At what point do you believe drone strikes will reach the point of diminishing returns? If so, can it be done on the scale the drone program operates on now, or would it have to be expanded? Do you support the Attorney General’s 2012 guidance to the NCTC that it may deliberately collect, store, and “continually assess” massive amounts of data on all U.S. citizens for potential correlations to terrorism, even if the U.S. citizens targeted have no known ties to terrorism? Please describe in detail the steps you have taken as Assistant to the President, as well as transparency measures you would support as Director of the CIA, to improve the transparency of the administration’s counterterrorism policies. I understand that this is a significant amount of information relating to sensitive operations and procedures. However, answering these most basic of questions—especially those dealing with the power of the federal government to kill its own citizens under secret authorizations never to be seen by the public—is a necessary step in the examination of our conduct around the globe, the protection of our Constitutional rights and our values, as well as your suitability to oversee these priorities as the Director of the CIA. I also believe that we can provide appropriate transparency and have a productive dialogue on the direction of our counterterrorism policies without weakening our national security. In fact, many of the matters I address in this letter have already been publicly disclosed and widely discussed. With this in mind, I respectfully request you provide an unclassified written response to the questions I have included by the time the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence begins consideration of your nomination on February 7th, 2013. I will consider your cooperation in this matter when the full Senate begins formal debate on your nomination, especially in regards to procedural matters requiring unanimous consent. The president has described you as “an advocate for greater transparency in our counterterrorism policy, and adherence to the rule of law,” and this is a perfect opportunity to demonstrate your commitment to both. I further trust that I can count on your cooperation not only during your confirmation process but, should you gain confirmation, throughout the duration of your tenure at the CIA. Thank you for your prompt attention to these questions, and I look forward to your response. Sincerely, Rand Paul, M.D. United States Senator
February 12, 2013 John O. Brennan Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. Brennan, I understand that you are in receipt of my letter dated January 25, 2013, requesting answers to a set of questions relating to your nomination to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) is now considering, and which the full Senate may soon debate. I hope you are working expeditiously to answer that letter, as I initially asked that you provide a written response before SSCI’s initial hearing on your nomination, which was held on February 7th. In addition to the first questions I submitted, I would also like to submit a few more questions in light of the recent release of a Department of Justice (DOJ) white paper on the use of lethal force against those suspected of terrorism: • 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? What about the use of lethal force against a non-U.S. person on U.S. soil? • Do you believe that the prohibition on CIA participation in domestic law enforcement, first established by the National Security Act of 1947, would apply to the use of lethal force, especially lethal force directed at an individual on a targeting list, if a U.S. citizen on a targeting list was found to be operating on U.S. soil? What if the individual on the targeting list was a non-U.S. person but found to be operating on U.S. soil? Do you consider such an operation to be domestic law enforcement, or would it only be subject to the president’s wartime powers? • Would such a discovery as described above invalidate any previous secret indictments against a U.S. citizen related to their disposition? In other words, if a U.S. citizen had already been indicted on terror-related charges in secret, could that indictment be used as a basis for lethal force, even if they were later discovered to be operating on U.S. soil? • One of the criteria outlined by the DOJ white paper as necessary before the use of lethal force would be authorized is that capture must be “infeasible.” Therefore, are there any circumstances under which it might be considered “infeasible” to capture a terrorism suspect operating on U.S. soil? Would it matter if it was deemed infeasible to capture a suspect operating on U.S. soil who is also a U.S. citizen? • How would the criteria for disposition be modified, if at all, if a person on a targeting list was found to be operating on U.S. soil?
• Do you believe that the Posse Comitatus Act, or any other prohibition on the use of the military in domestic law enforcement, would prohibit the use of military hardware and/or personnel in pursuing terrorism suspects—especially those on a targeting list—found to be operating on U.S. soil? If not, would you support the use of such assets in pursuit of either U.S. citizen or non-U.S. persons on U.S. soil suspected of terrorist activity? • Do you believe that the Insurrection Act provides sufficient legal basis for using military hardware and/or personnel to pursue U.S. citizens on U.S. soil if it is believed they are participating in terrorism-related activities? What if they had previously been placed on a targeting list? • Have you personally been involved in either the decision to place a U.S. citizen on a targeting list, or the decision to set criteria by which U.S. citizens may be placed on a targeting list?
As I relayed in my previous letter, these issues must be discussed openly so that the American people can understand what constraints exist on the government’s power to use lethal force against its citizens. Before you are confirmed to head the CIA, it must be apparent that you understand and will honor the protections provided to every American by the Constitution. For that reason, I request again that you answer the questions I have submitted, both in this letter and the one before it, and I will object to all unanimous consent requests relating to your nomination until you have done so. For your reference, I have included a copy of my previous letter. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Sincerely, Rand Paul, M.D. United States Senator Enclosure
_________________ “The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am Posts: 15740 Location: Combat Information Center
Quote:
Do you believe that the prohibition on CIA participation in domestic law enforcement, first established by the National Security Act of 1947, would apply to the use of lethal force, especially lethal force directed at an individual on a targeting list, if a U.S. citizen on a targeting list was found to be operating on U.S. soil? What if the individual on the targeting list was a non-U.S. person but found to be operating on U.S. soil? Do you consider such an operation to be domestic law enforcement, or would it only be subject to the president’s wartime powers?
Note that the 1947 prohibition is still in place, hence the question. CIA cannot participate in domestic law enforcement.
I will also point out that the questions are disingenuous. Every one of them is phrased, essentially, as a yes or no question. They make no exception for invasions or insurrections, both of which the government is empowered and obligated to defeat with the full national military power.
Hence Holder's use of examples of foreign attacks such as Pearl Harbor. If the Japanese were to invade Guam today would you seriously suggest that the government could not use drones in repelling them because it is U.S. soil?
These men are politicians. They know exactly how to play the game to ask disingenuous questions in order to create a panic over nothing if it will energize people who support them. The fact that Holder is a fool and taking the bait, and gives irrelevant answers because he's also a politician does not change that.
The drone boogeyman is not coming to get you.
_________________ "Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."
If the Japanese were to invade Guam today would you seriously suggest that the government could not use drones in repelling them because it is U.S. soil?
No, because we would be using the drones against invading Japanese nationals.
This is about using drones on US nationals absent proper due process.
I don't think it is likely to happen either, but with this government... one never knows.
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am Posts: 15740 Location: Combat Information Center
One knows. It is not going to happen with this government. This is pure fantasy wanking. It is fashionable for people to act like tyranny and ruin are just around the corner these days.
Note that the Senators made no exception for foreign military in their questions. That was intentional; they knew Holder would have to qualify his answer to include the obvious, but they asked "yes" or "no" anyhow.
People need to stop worrying about tyranny. If it comes from somewhere, it's going to come from people giving up their rights because of the hystrionic morons arguing that every little thing is an infringement. If your freedom were in real danger this forum would be dead because everyone would be afraid to comment on anything.
_________________ "Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."
Its really simple. Since the White House won't deny that they'll use drones on citizens in the US, it means they're reserving the right to actually use drones on citizens in the US.
And Holder is making it worse by saying "Yeah, its legal. Sure. We can totally do that"
To make it go away, all they have to do is say "No, drone strikes against the US populace would be unconstitutional, and we would never even consider such a thing. Especially in light of Posse Comitatus and Due Process. Drones against citizens on US soil are completely off the table"
It's not even that they won't do that. It's that they're willing to suffer headline news (on every major site except CNN, lol) bringing this whole thing to the public's eye rather than do that.
Paul has made it clear -- he's not trying to block a vote on the nomination. His filibuster will end the moment Holder commits, in writing, NOT to do this. A one or two sentence statement, signed, and this is all over and could've been swept under the rug by the media.
_________________ "Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee "... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades
Attorney General Eric Holder says the president does not have the authority to use a drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on U.S. soil, according to a letter he addressed to Sen. Rand Paul on Thursday.
"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," the letter states.
Attorney General Eric Holder says the president does not have the authority to use a drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on U.S. soil, according to a letter he addressed to Sen. Rand Paul on Thursday.
"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," the letter states.
Seriously, the administration has better things to do with their time than pander to the tinfoil hat fears of the opposition party.
Clearly they don't.
Cause they could have resolved this in about an hour. Or less. A month ago.
But they decided to hem and haw and prevaricate and make themselves look like they're hiding something. Whether or not they are, that's the appearance.
Seriously, the administration has better things to do with their time than pander to the tinfoil hat fears of the opposition party.
What is so tinfoil hate fear about the Attorney General of the United States saying something tantamount to "**** your 5th, 6th and 14th Amendment Rights" and people wanting an explanation?
Please since you are so unbiased and have proven time and time again to look at things without a preconceived opinion... tell us how that is pandering?
Yes I am a cock, this is nothing new... it really isn't
_________________ Darksiege Traveller, Calé, Whisperer Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 49 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
