Holder admits drone strikes on US citizens in US possible
Ex-PH2 sends us a link to NBC News in which they report that, in a letter to Rand Paul, Eric Holder admitted that it is possible that this administration could find justification for using drone aircraft against US citizens within our borders;
“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 of a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on Dec. 7, 1941 and Sept. 11, 2001.”
Paul calls it a “frightening” admission, and I sort of agree, although I’m not at all surprised. I’m more surprised that they’d admit it.
Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden
Actually, Hondo, I was using the Jewish Women’s Archive as a reference. Wiki’s stuff can be questionable. The JWA fails to mention espionage as the reason for exectuion, only Judge Kaufmann’s statement: ‘When conferring the death penalty on the Rosenbergs, Judge Irving Kaufman described the defendants’ crime as “worse than murder … causing the communist aggression in Korea with resultant casualties exceeding 50,000 and who knows but what that [sic] millions more, innocent people may pay the price of your treason….” ‘
Nowadays, the Rosenbergs would likely be sent to Gitmo, along with the other members of their spy ring and Semenov (if anyone could find him).
I am distressed that my post above does not exceed spiffy’s. But, on the other hand, I’m not an opinionated attention whore.
@50 Don’t get all logical, when Bush said that it was inherently evil. When Obama says that it’s inherently necessary for the common good and the general welfare. When are you going to get it through your head that Bush was the devil and Obama is the light?
For future reference:
Waterboarding under Bush = torture…
Denial of rights enumerated under the Bill of Rights through non-legislative executive action under Obama, absolutely okay, necessary and to be endorsed…
These simple tips will help the inexperienced right of center folks to understand the necessary re-education promoted by the left to advance the general welfare.
Did the US suspend Posse Comitatus or would that even apply to air strikes?
“extraordinary circumstances call for extraordinary measures.”
OK … let’s net this out.
If a USPERS is about to use a WMD and/or conduct an operation that will concievably result in mass casualties (imminent threat) and the FBI has an open case on this USPERS … you can bet the warrant is clear and good to go.
That person will be taken out. DEADLY FORCE is authorized. The means (drone launched weapon or whatever) is not the issue it is the level of force that is authorized!
But that is just the way I see it!
Here’s something from Wiki on Posse Comitatus. Don’t know how reliable it is, but it does have citations: The Posse Comitatus Act is the United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) that was passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction and was updated in 1981. Its intent (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) was to limit the powers of Federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce the State laws. Contrary to popular belief, the Act does not prohibit members of the United States Armed Forces from exercising Law enforcement agency powers within a State, police, or peace officer powers that maintain “law and order”; it requires that any authority to do so must exist within the United States Constitution or Act of Congress.[1] Any use of the Armed Forces under either Title 10/Active Duty or Title 10/Reserves at the direction of the President will offend the Constitutional Law also known as Public Law prohibiting such action unless declared by the President of the United States and approved by Congress. Any infringement will be problematic for political and legal reasons. The Bill/Act as modified in 1981 refers to the Armed Forces of the United States. It does not apply to the National Guard under state authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within its home state or in an adjacent state if invited by that state’s governor. The U.S. Coast Guard, which operates under the Department of Homeland Security, is also not covered by the Posse Comitatus Act, primarily because the Coast Guard has both a maritime law enforcement mission and a federal regulatory agency mission. Here are two recent uses of the military in civilian society: On December 10, 2008, the California Highway Patrol announced its officers, along with San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department deputies and US Marine Corps Military Police, would jointly staff some sobriety and drivers license checkpoints.[12] However, the Marines at the checkpoints did not arrest individuals or enforce any state or county laws, which would be a violation of the Posse Comitatus… Read more »
DoD assets with special capabilities are authorized. In fact hey are used all the time INCONUS!
In Danny Coulson’s book “No Heros”, he specifically mentions using Delta snipers in one operation (Federal prison riot, 1985ish).
So, Master Chief, if I put a new roof on my house with the sig “MOLON LABE, YOU S.O.B.”, the Marines will show up at my front door?
Let me know when! That will be a hell of a party.
Ex-PH2: the term “treason” is very often misused, because treason is one term whose legal and common definitions differ widely. Legally, the crime of “treason” is very different than its commonly-understood meaning (betraying one’s country, betraying a trust).
This dates to the adoption of the Constitution. Under English law, the definition of treason was quite elastic and often was abused for political purposes. This is one reason (and quite probably the prime if not sole reason) why treason is the only crime explicitly defined in detail in the US Constitution.
Because of the specific Constitutional requirements for conviction (min 2 witnesses to same overt act or admission in open court), treason also is an exceptionally difficult crime to prove. That’s why it’s virtually never prosecuted as such. The acts in question also generally violate another law which is easier to prove.
Along with youth, the difficulty in finding two credible witnesses to the same act was reputedly why the “American Talibam” John Walker Lindh was never prosecuted for treason. What Lindh did met the Constitutional definition of treason. However, after Mike Spann died at the Qala-i-Jangi prison uprising in Nov 2001, finding a second witness to corroborate Lindh’s treasonous behavior became extremely problematic.
What the Rosenbergs (and every other US spy) has done meets the common-sense definition of treason (betraying their country), but virtually never meets the legal definition. The Constitution defines treason so specifically and sets the burden of proof for proving treason so high that most acts of espionage either don’t qualify or can’t be prosecuted successfully as treason.
James Willard Hurst did a study in the early 1970s called “The Law of Treason in the United States”. For anyone with interest (historical or legal) in US and English Law regarding treason, it’s absolutely fascinating. It’s available on-line at
http://www.constitution.org/cmt/jwh/jwh_treason.htm
@ EX-PH2 … No, No, No … please don’t do that. Just in case!
I am sure they would do a “wants and warrants” check on you and see that you are clear!
@Insipid, yes the US Army was used within the US to fight a war against an organized Army…or if you prefer to phrase it “put down a rebelion” fine. But AFTER the Civil War there was a Federal Law enacted commonly called “The Posse Comitatus Act.” Any use of the military (Title 10) to “enforce law and order” must come from a Presidential request WITH congressional approval. The question specifically metions military drones…I suppose that DHS could feel the need to purchase a bunch of “military style” drones and Hellfire missles then it is no longer a question of a military drone strike.
@60 – Master Chief, it may be protected under the First Amendment – free speech. Without specifically addressing someone (who is the SOB, anyway?), it’s just another way of expressing oneself. It’s the same as saying “Futue Te Ipsum”. 🙂
In fact, there is the DHS list of naughty words and phrases that the DHS uses (e.g., pandemic, bomb, emergency response) when monitoring cell phone traffic. I have used them all (as have all of us) in ordinary conversations and e-mails, and no one has knocked on my door so far.
However, if the Marines show up at my front door, I hope they let me know ahead of time, so that I can stock the pantyr and get a big screen TV and a DVD/Blueray player. I have two seasons of “Tour of Duty” to watch.
Note that Posse Comitatus says, “enforce law and order.” After 2001’s Authorization for Use of Military Force, the war on terror is not about law and order.
There’s nothing to prevent the military being used in the war, even when terrorists arrive here. That could include Islamists who are U.S. citizens.
BTW: This issue reminds me of the critics of Guantanamo who pretend that detainees either need to be tried or released.
Note that some lefties stopped whining about GTMO when Obama was elected, but others (mostly on the far left who hate America more than they like Obama) are still whining about it. The lefties who still oppose GTMO under Obama are the same ones who protest drones.
Sorry, the real issue is that we can’t trust Obama. But that doesn’t mean we can limit presidential wartime powers. We’ll need those the next time we get a decent president.
I have some aquaintances like Insipid and other defenders of the Drone. They were very loud about the abuses of power under Republican presidents, and there were many, but Lord High Obama can do no wrong. For he loves us all so.
Here’s the latest on the drone stuff:
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/06/17210879-citing-drone-policy-paul-filibusters-cia-pick-brennan?lite
Filibustering may be a lost art. Rand Paul may wear himself out on this one.
@66 And of course, in the comments on the MSM article, the libs’ idea of a threat is the Tea Party and militias with dirty bombs.
Nice to know who are enemies are. /sarc off
“…who OUR enemies…” sorry.
Not that I am wild about Holder or Obama making this kind of decision – I’m not – but at what point does that become due process? Or can it ever?
Me, I am sure I saw Sean Penn smuggling a dirty bomb under his shirt. Imminent threat if you ask me.
I’m dropping this in here because Rand Paul appears to be getting bipartisan support from at least one Democrat, and from other Republicans.
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/06/17210879-citing-drone-policy-paul-filibusters-cia-pick-brennan?lite
Maybe we should send him support e-mails? He raises some good points – not without due process, etc.
There is one thing no one is addressing and that is this: what if a target is selected, but the person targeted is not at the target, or the address is incorrect and people who had nothing to do with the perceived problem are killed? I’m not talking about just collateral damage, but complete incompetence and incorrect information. What about that? No one is addressing this.
This will put you on his contact page:
http://paul.senate.gov/?p=contact
Send him something.
Ace links to a twitter user who asks: Would the criteria for targeting Awlawki have applied to Bill Ayers 40 yrs ago? Why not?
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!
link-https://twitter.com/verumserum/status/309410138425524225
Oh, if only we’d had drones back then.
Well, we did. They were remote-contolled toy airplanes. But no one thought about putting explosive weapons on them back then. They were toys.
Now they are corrupt.
Holder’s Letter to Rand Paul: ‘No,’ the U.S. Can’t Use Drone to Kill Citizen Not Engaged in Combat on U.S. Soil
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/holders-letter-rand-paul-no-us-cant-use-drone-kill-citizen-not-engaged-combat-us-soil_706587.html
MCPO observation: I ain’t no lawyer, but I ain’t an ediot either!
Holder asks: “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.
MCPO re-phrases and asks: “Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American who is engaged in combat on American soil?” The answer to that question is yes.
You guys are going to love this. There is no money for border patrol agents — they all have to take furloughs, but there is enough money to pay UAV operators to drive drones with missiles that can be fired on American citizens.
http://news.newsmax.com/?K6OvaYd76h0rLRNEvfkKtnuv23sfblIAK&http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/union-furloughs-border-patrols/2013/03/07/id/493747?s=al&promo_code=12B54-1