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

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...one-strikes-to-kill-Americans-on-US-soil.html

By Jon Swaine, Washington6:52PM GMT 06 Mar 2013
President Barack Obama has the authority to use an unmanned drone strike to kill US citizens on American soil, his attorney general has said.

Eric Holder argued that using lethal military force against an American in his home country would be legal and justified in an "extraordinary circumstance" comparable to the September 11 terrorist attacks.

"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.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure where to start on this one, so, I'll just put it out there, and see what others comments are?

BmanMcfly said:

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

I'm not sure where to start on this one, so, I'll just put it out there, and see what others comments are?

Click to expand...

On the surface, I don't disagree with the statement. If we had a drone up in the air and it was known that the airplane was going to crash into a building I would not fault an administration with shooting down the plane full of American citizens to save thousands more.

On the surface, I also don't have a problem with the killing of a known American terrorist that aligned themselves with Al-Qaeda.

The main problem I have is how this can end up being abused by another president down the road. I don't think Obama would use this against the "common" protestor but I do believe down the road another president could. That's the dangerous part and why I think this would set a deadly precedence and shouldn't be allowed.

We need to have a better mechanism for deciding "who" is an enemy of the state and "why".

What happened to the right to a fair trial? I do not like this simply because of the implications it has for the future.

hailthorn said:

What happened to the right to a fair trial? I do not like this simply because of the implications it has for the future.

Click to expand...

If you are in the act of killing people, or attempting to, you get stopped and the fair trial will come if you live.

There's an identically titled thread two hours older.

TheNextEra said:

On the surface, I don't disagree with the statement.

Click to expand...

Nor do most people I think. It is a long practiced tenant of the US justice system that crime in progress that is a danger to innocent life with deadly force, is stoppable with deadly force by law enforcement. But that isn't what Holder, and the WH are, or were claiming up to yesterday is it?

If we had a drone up in the air and it was known that the airplane was going to crash into a building I would not fault an administration with shooting down the plane full of American citizens to save thousands more.

Click to expand...

Wait a minute, "if we had a drone up in the air"? Armed I assume....Why would that be? Just out flyin' around on a joy trip? You didn't like Bush tapping into phone calls from abroad to people here from known AQ members without a warrant, but an armed drone with missiles is just fine with you?

On the surface, I also don't have a problem with the killing of a known American terrorist that aligned themselves with Al-Qaeda.

Click to expand...

If they are on American soil don't they get to face their accusers? I guess not....Ya know, we are flying OBL's son in law to the US to stand trial, and giving him his miranda rights, instead of flying him to GITMO where he belongs to extract intel, but an American citizen that allegedly aligns themselves with AQ, or is labeled a terrorist can be blown off the street without arrest, or trial? How's that make sense?

The main problem I have is how this can end up being abused by another president down the road. I don't think Obama would use this against the "common" protestor but I do believe down the road another president could.

Click to expand...

Why don't you think Obama would use it? Because he says so and that is good enough for you?

That's the dangerous part and why I think this would set a deadly precedence and shouldn't be allowed.

Click to expand...

I agree, it shouldn't be allowed.

We need to have a better mechanism for deciding "who" is an enemy of the state and "why".

Click to expand...

We have one for this country. It's called a trial.

hailthorn said:

What happened to the right to a fair trial? I do not like this simply because of the implications it has for the future.

Click to expand...

When Americans decided it was ok to deliberately target an American for death. Oh, it was ok because he was overseas working with our enemies, right?

Yeah.

Remember after 9/11 when all the Conservatives were supporting the Patriot Act based on the notion that 24 (the show) type scenarios were possible? Reap what you sow.

Hatuey said:

Remember after 9/11 when all the Conservatives were supporting the Patriot Act based on the notion that 24 (the show) type scenarios were possible? Reap what you sow.

Click to expand...

... though, without regard to party affiliation, I do not think the POTUS gets to be judge, jury and executioner on an American citizen, here or abroad. That said, the CIA has been carrying on such covert operations for decades... now we have a machine that does it.

Hatuey said:

Remember after 9/11 when all the Conservatives were supporting the Patriot Act based on the notion that 24 (the show) type scenarios were possible? Reap what you sow.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but drone strikes on noncombatant Americans on American soil (or anywhere else) was not authorized by the Patriot Act or even dreamed of by Congress. Trying to draw an equivalence is pure obfuscation.

BmanMcfly said:

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



I'm not sure where to start on this one, so, I'll just put it out there, and see what others comments are?

Click to expand...

In a situation in which Americans have joined with foreign combatants to make war on the US those persons become foreign combatants. They have basically renounced their US citizenships. They can be taken out militarily any way possible, by sniper, land mine, tank, howitzer, drone or whatever, with no due process beyond identification (friend or foe). It doesn't matter where the military activity is taking place. These have always been the rules of war; it is not a new development due to the war on terror.

LowDown said:

Sorry, but drone strikes on noncombatant Americans

Click to expand...

Is that what Erick Holder is arguing for?

Hatuey said:

Is that what Erick Holder is arguing for?

Click to expand...

That possibility is what Rand Paul was trying to get a response from Holder about. Paul was concerned about drone strikes against political dissidents while they were having lunch at a café and the like.

It might be reasonable to ask about that at a time such as now, when leftists are calling Tea Party members and others who they simply disagree with terrorists. Does Holder ascribe to that appellation? I wouldn't put it past him.

I thought Holder's original response was clear enough and ruled out that kind of thing, assuming a reasonable definition for the word "terrorist". But is Holder reasonable?

LowDown said:

That possibility is what Rand Paul was trying to get a response from Holder about. Paul was concerned about drone strikes against political dissidents while they were having lunch at a café and the like.

It might be reasonable to ask about that at a time such as now, when leftists are calling Tea Party members and others who they simply disagree with terrorists. Does Holder ascribe to that appellation? I wouldn't put it past him.

I thought Holder's original response was clear enough and ruled out that kind of thing, assuming a reasonable definition for the word "terrorist". But is Holder reasonable?

Click to expand...

It was a simple yes or no answer. Is that what Erick Holder is arguing for?

A) Yes.
B) No.