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

[Imnukingfutz]

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


Yup, I had to put this in the Non-MSM section because our own media wont cover it...

So the Ass-Hat in chief has authority to use drone strikes to kill Americans on US soil.......a clear violation of the Constitution & our Bill of Rights.

Acting as Judge, jury and executioner, Obama Administration can now not only arrest you and take you away and put you in a dark locked room never to be heard from again...without trial and without reason but they can now drop a bomb on you from a drone...ON AMERICAN SOIL.


OK Obamabots and Obama defenders....I would love to see you defend this. Get your long sticks handy because you are going to have to dig pretty deep in the pile of manure to come up with a defense for this one.

 

[Helix]

no, he does not have that authority, and the "mainstream" media is covering it. the issue made the nightly news last night. you should de-fox yourself for a week or two; you might find it refreshing. I did it around '05, and I never went back.

 

[tech30528]

So then he's going to stop using drones to kill people then? Pinky swear?


And what about those he has already killed this way?

"Oops, my bad".

 

[jmotivator]

How about you tell us how the story was covered on that nightly news broadcast, Helix. I mean, if the president steals a lollipop from a toddler it doesn't count as coverage if the MSM presents it as Dr. Obama saving a child from cavities.

 

[HonestJoe]

This strikes me as an entirely manufactured controversy. The administration were asked a leading question and gave a perfectly reasonable answer based on their interpretation of the law. A key point is that they didn't say Obama has the authority, they said the President has the authority - that applies equally to other Presidents past and future. This isn't a change in the law or even policy, just a statement of an uncomfortable fact that has always been true. They also stated that the circumstances where this would happen are highly unlikely. They didn't need to state that even if such an act would be legal, it would be massively unpopular without a very clear and strong reason for it.

This should be seen in the context of the laws permitting law enforcement officers to kill people if they believe it's necessary to protect themselves or other people and for citizens to kill trespassers. You can also consider the 9/11 example, where the very real prospect of military aircraft shooting down a hijacked passenger plane before it reached a populated area could have come up, with plenty of people agreeing that it could have been the correct (and legal) course of action.

Incidentally, whether the target is a US citizen or not shouldn't make the blindest bit of difference to the morality or legality of the act.

 

[sangha]

This strikes me as an entirely manufactured controversy. The administration were asked a leading question and gave a perfectly reasonable answer based on their interpretation of the law. A key point is that they didn't say Obama has the authority, they said the President has the authority - that applies equally to other Presidents past and future. This isn't a change in the law or even policy, just a statement of an uncomfortable fact that has always been true. They also stated that the circumstances where this would happen are highly unlikely. They didn't need to state that even if such an act would be legal, it would be massively unpopular without a very clear and strong reason for it.

This should be seen in the context of the laws permitting law enforcement officers to kill people if they believe it's necessary to protect themselves or other people and for citizens to kill trespassers. You can also consider the 9/11 example, where the very real prospect of military aircraft shooting down a hijacked passenger plane before it reached a populated area could have come up, with plenty of people agreeing that it could have been the correct (and legal) course of action.

Incidentally, whether the target is a US citizen or not shouldn't make the blindest bit of difference to the morality or legality of the act.

It has been known for many years that the govt has deployed anti-aircraft missiles to be used to defend the White House from an attack by air. If attacked by air, this form of military defense would be used even if the attacker were a US citizen.

Drones are just a different form of military defense which can be used to thwart an attack, by a citizen or non-citizen, on domestic soil. I don't see why the anti-aircraft defenses bothers no one but the potential use of drones get so many in a tizzy.

 

[MaggieD]

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

Yup, I had to put this in the Non-MSM section because our own media wont cover it...

So the Ass-Hat in chief has authority to use drone strikes to kill Americans on US soil.......a clear violation of the Constitution & our Bill of Rights.

Acting as Judge, jury and executioner, Obama Administration can now not only arrest you and take you away and put you in a dark locked room never to be heard from again...without trial and without reason but they can now drop a bomb on you from a drone...ON AMERICAN SOIL.

OK Obamabots and Obama defenders....I would love to see you defend this. Get your long sticks handy because you are going to have to dig pretty deep in the pile of manure to come up with a defense for this one.

This is much ado about nothing. Rand Paul grandstanding to what supposed end? He says it's until President Obama assures the American public that he would never authorize a drone strike against an American citizen on American soil.

Well. That's not going to happen. The President will never say never. Nor should he.

 

[TheNextEra]

On the surface, 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".

 

[MaggieD]

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.

So it's okay if it was just Obama had this authority because, apparently, you would trust him not to use it except in extraordinary circumstances. But it's not okay for other Presidents to have this authority because they might abuse it.

That line of thinking is unbelievably naive. I don't care which side of the argument one's on.

 

[TheNextEra]

So it's okay if it was just Obama had this authority because, apparently, you would trust him not to use it except in extraordinary circumstances. But it's not okay for other Presidents to have this authority because they might abuse it.

That line of thinking is unbelievably naive. I don't care which side of the argument one's on.

Don't know what got your panties in an uproar, but please re-read what I said again. Here, I'll even quote it for you since you didn't bother to read what I said:

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

That better sweeheart?

 

[MaggieD]

Don't know what got your panties in an uproar, but please re-read what I said again. Here, I'll even quote it for you since you didn't bother to read what I said:

That better sweeheart?

And I'll quote what I consider to be the your naivety:

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.

Either POTUS has the authority or doesn't have the authority. It's about the POTUS not who happens to sit in the chair. Your faith in Obama isn't the point.

*She says as she tugs on her Victoria Secrets*

 

[TheNextEra]

And I'll quote what I consider to be the your naivety:



Either POTUS has the authority or doesn't have the authority. It's about the POTUS not who happens to sit in the chair. Your faith in Obama isn't the point.

*She says as she tugs on her Victoria Secrets*

And what I THINK Obama will do or won't do is IRRELEVANT since I said that it shouldn't be allowed.

 

[MaggieD]

And what I THINK Obama will do or won't do is IRRELEVANT since I said that it shouldn't be allowed.

That's exactly why you shouldn't have included it in your post.

 

[tech30528]

It has been known for many years that the govt has deployed anti-aircraft missiles to be used to defend the White House from an attack by air. If attacked by air, this form of military defense would be used even if the attacker were a US citizen.

Drones are just a different form of military defense which can be used to thwart an attack, by a citizen or non-citizen, on domestic soil. I don't see why the anti-aircraft defenses bothers no one but the potential use of drones get so many in a tizzy.

Because one is a defense against a credible attack and the other is an offensive attack against an unsuspecting citizen.

 

[sangha]

Because one is a defense against a credible attack and the other is an offensive attack against an unsuspecting citizen.

Holder has clearly stated that drones could not be used on american soil unless the target was engaged in combat

I don't see how someone "engaged in combat" could fail to suspect that they might be attacked

 

[tech30528]

Holder has clearly stated that drones could not be used on american soil unless the target was engaged in combat

I don't see how someone "engaged in combat" could fail to suspect that they might be attacked

Holder dodged the direct question numerous times before he finally got backed in to a corner. Now it just comes down to what his department defines "combat" as.

 

[sangha]

Holder dodged the direct question numerous times before he finally got backed in to a corner. Now it just comes down to what his department defines "combat" as.

Please post proof that Holder was ever directly asked "Can drones be used on american soil to kill americans who are not engaged in combat?"

 

[Imnukingfutz]

This is much ado about nothing. Rand Paul grandstanding to what supposed end? He says it's until President Obama assures the American public that he would never authorize a drone strike against an American citizen on American soil.

Well. That's not going to happen. The President will never say never. Nor should he.

Much ado about nothing? Really?

The Attorney General said it was legal for the President to use drone strikes in the US against American citizens...with out trial, pretty much with the same accountability & intel they use for drone strikes on Americans abroad...which is little to none.

So the President...and every future President...now has the legal ability, not through law passed by Congress but just by the OK given to him by his own Administration, to use drones to kill Americans on American soil.

And thats much ado about nothing?

You really will defend this administration to the ends of the earth.

 

[Imnukingfutz]

no, he does not have that authority, and the "mainstream" media is covering it. the issue made the nightly news last night. you should de-fox yourself for a week or two; you might find it refreshing. I did it around '05, and I never went back.

Who watches any TV news anymore?

 

[Imnukingfutz]

It has been known for many years that the govt has deployed anti-aircraft missiles to be used to defend the White House from an attack by air. If attacked by air, this form of military defense would be used even if the attacker were a US citizen.

Drones are just a different form of military defense which can be used to thwart an attack, by a citizen or non-citizen, on domestic soil. I don't see why the anti-aircraft defenses bothers no one but the potential use of drones get so many in a tizzy.

Because the anti-aircraft missiles are a defensive tactic and are used to defend against an incoming present attack....the drone strikes are an offensive tactic, they send them out to kill you.

 

[tech30528]

Please post proof that Holder was ever directly asked "Can drones be used on american soil to kill americans who are not engaged in combat?"

Show a little initiative and look it up. He was asked 4 times before he finally gave an answer. I heard the audio yesterday.

 

[MaggieD]

Much ado about nothing? Really?

The Attorney General said it was legal for the President to use drone strikes in the US against American citizens...with out trial, pretty much with the same accountability & intel they use for drone strikes on Americans abroad...which is little to none.

So the President...and every future President...now has the legal ability, not through law passed by Congress but just by the OK given to him by his own Administration, to use drones to kill Americans on American soil.

And thats much ado about nothing?

You really will defend this administration to the ends of the earth.

Futz, I didn't vote for Obama. Don't agree with his style or most of his policies. I could critique him negatively and be infracted for "fair use." So please. Don't tell me I'd defend him to the end of the earth.

Did you even read the letter that started the controversy? Well, I did. Here it is: http://www.paul.senate.gov/files/documents/BrennanHolderResponse.pdf Unfortunately, it's a pdf and I can't copy relevant portions here.

It's filled with qualifiers...ending with "Should such an emergency arise, I would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the President on the scope of his authority."

It's not much more than a gotcha game.

 

[sangha]

Because the anti-aircraft missiles are a defensive tactic and are used to defend against an incoming present attack....the drone strikes are an offensive tactic, they send them out to kill you.

And the use of drones in this case are limited to defending against attacks; they are not to be used offensively.

 

[sangha]

Show a little initiative and look it up. He was asked 4 times before he finally gave an answer. I heard the audio yesterday.

Rand Paul showboated with a filibuster because he didn't get an answer to a question he didn't ask

 

[rocket88]

You really will defend this administration to the ends of the earth.

Maggie will defend Obama to the ends of the Earth? :lamo :lamo :lamo