• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White House admits it can't kill Americans with drones in US

Mr. Invisible

A Man Without A Country
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
5,517
Reaction score
3,927
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Two leading figures within the Obama administration now insist that the president of the United States does not have the authority to launch drone strikes on US soil.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) received a response from the Obama administration on Thursday afternoon after spending 13 hours demanding answers about the possible use of drones inside of the United States.



During a briefing Thursday afternoon, White House press secretary Jay Carney said, "The president has not and would not use drone strikes against American citizens on American soil.”



Mr. Carney also elected to read a statement penned by Attorney General Eric Holder earlier that day that had been sent to Sen. Paul. Mr. Holder’s entire statement, only 43 words, confirmed Mr. Carney’s remark.



“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,” wrote the attorney general.

More can be seen here: White House admits it can't kill Americans with drones in US ? RT USA


I must say that while this comes as a surprise, the words "can't" and "won't" are two different things. In addition to this, it states clearly "on American soil" so Obama can still kill you if you leave the country.
 
More can be seen here: White House admits it can't kill Americans with drones in US ? RT USA


I must say that while this comes as a surprise, the words "can't" and "won't" are two different things. In addition to this, it states clearly "on American soil" so Obama can still kill you if you leave the country.

yes, there was more of a point for him to address the death star question than to answer the republicans. There is nothing the guy can say that would make the right wing happy. Even if he resigned they would complain about something. You got your answer and it was no. rand paul pissed away his time over a statement that was pretty obvious. Actually i guess he didn't pee for 13 hours supposedly, but you get the jist of it. really, you got the exact answer you wanted from a stunt that delayed a senate appointment for no reason at all aside from spoiled brat politics and you are still not happy? It just shows how petty this all is and that you don't even care about the issues you claim to. this is just about complaining about obama. What is worse is it is not even a good reason to complain, and there are many actual good reasons to complain.
 
yes, there was more of a point for him to address the death star question than to answer the republicans. There is nothing the guy can say that would make the right wing happy. Even if he resigned they would complain about something. You got your answer and it was no. rand paul pissed away his time over a statement that was pretty obvious. Actually i guess he didn't pee for 13 hours supposedly, but you get the jist of it. really, you got the exact answer you wanted from a stunt that delayed a senate appointment for no reason at all aside from spoiled brat politics and you are still not happy? It just shows how petty this all is and that you don't even care about the issues you claim to. this is just about complaining about obama. What is worse is it is not even a good reason to complain, and there are many actual good reasons to complain.

You obviously don't know me well. I am not a "right-winger" or a "Republican." I just noted some of the problems with what Holder said. That was all.
 
Holder should never have equivocated about this question at all. His immediate response should have been "hell no".
 
You obviously don't know me well. I am not a "right-winger" or a "Republican." I just noted some of the problems with what Holder said. That was all.

Props to you, for real, Mr. I, for your consistency. You don't have to be right wing to have problems with the way this question was answered. In fact, everyone should be a little nervous about the response. There will always be some though, *cough*Tererun*cough* that will put partisanship above all else.
 
So if they do kill me with a drone, I can sue them. :)

I can see a time when the use of a drone on a US citizen at home might be the prudent thing to do----say they had a nuclear bomb they were threatening to detonate or something extreme like that.
 
yes, there was more of a point for him to address the death star question than to answer the republicans. There is nothing the guy can say that would make the right wing happy. Even if he resigned they would complain about something. You got your answer and it was no. rand paul pissed away his time over a statement that was pretty obvious. Actually i guess he didn't pee for 13 hours supposedly, but you get the jist of it. really, you got the exact answer you wanted from a stunt that delayed a senate appointment for no reason at all aside from spoiled brat politics and you are still not happy? It just shows how petty this all is and that you don't even care about the issues you claim to. this is just about complaining about obama. What is worse is it is not even a good reason to complain, and there are many actual good reasons to complain.

Your posts are soooo predictable. Like a too-sour lemon drop.

More can be seen here: White House admits it can't kill Americans with drones in US ? RT USA

I must say that while this comes as a surprise, the words "can't" and "won't" are two different things. In addition to this, it states clearly "on American soil" so Obama can still kill you if you leave the country.

This is good news. I am, frankly, very surprised this information came out of the White House. That's very good news and should make many people rest easier.
 
This is Obama, from Chicago, where people just disappear.
 
More can be seen here: White House admits it can't kill Americans with drones in US ? RT USA


I must say that while this comes as a surprise, the words "can't" and "won't" are two different things. In addition to this, it states clearly "on American soil" so Obama can still kill you if you leave the country.

The title of this thread does not match the content of the OP

According to the OP, the US can use a drone to kill american citizens on american soil........but only if they are engaged in an attack.
 
So if they do kill me with a drone, I can sue them. :)

I can see a time when the use of a drone on a US citizen at home might be the prudent thing to do----say they had a nuclear bomb they were threatening to detonate or something extreme like that.

Imminent threat, especially one so obvious, is and always had been an issue in which some level of government can make the decision to suspend constitutional due process. But that wasn't the issue at hand...the issue was two-fold:

1. Whether or not the president has the constitutional authority to order a military action within U.S. borders against a U.S. citizen, and
2. Whether or not the president can do so w/o the existence of an imminent or proven threat.

The memo released earlier re: U.S. drone strikes made the claim that neither an imminent threat nor evidence thereof need be present to utilize a drone strike against a U.S. citizen deemed to be a member of a terrorist group. One must only ascertain that membership exists, and few legal parameters exist that one must meet to "prove" membership....at least according to the paper.

So that, to me, is really the issue: the assumption that membership (even weakly supported) is enough to deem a U.S. citizen an "imminent threat" to the safety of the populace or the country at large. And as Paul and others said last night...it really isn't JUST about drones...it's about any technology that would allow its operator to suspend constitutionally protected rights by delivering a fatal blow to its target...controlled by the military at the instruction of the president, and WITHOUT proof of imminent threat. It just so happens that drones are the technology du jour, based largely on the leaked memos.
 
Imminent threat, especially one so obvious, is and always had been an issue in which some level of government can make the decision to suspend constitutional due process. But that wasn't the issue at hand...the issue was two-fold:

1. Whether or not the president has the constitutional authority to order a military action within U.S. borders against a U.S. citizen, and
2. Whether or not the president can do so w/o the existence of an imminent or proven threat.

The memo released earlier re: U.S. drone strikes made the claim that neither an imminent threat nor evidence thereof need be present to utilize a drone strike against a U.S. citizen deemed to be a member of a terrorist group. One must only ascertain that membership exists, and few legal parameters exist that one must meet to "prove" membership....at least according to the paper.

Not true. For one thing, it was a letter to Rand Paul, not a memo. For another, it said nothing about allowing the use of drones against a US citizen who was a member of a terrorist group. It only mentioned such use against someone engaged in an attack.

So that, to me, is really the issue: the assumption that membership (even weakly supported) is enough to deem a U.S. citizen an "imminent threat" to the safety of the populace or the country at large. And as Paul and others said last night...it really isn't JUST about drones...it's about any technology that would allow its operator to suspend constitutionally protected rights by delivering a fatal blow to its target...controlled by the military at the instruction of the president, and WITHOUT proof of imminent threat. It just so happens that drones are the technology du jour, based largely on the leaked memos.

Holder has explicitely stated that using drones is only allowed when the target is engaged in combat on american soil. It's right there in the OP
 
Not true. For one thing, it was a letter to Rand Paul, not a memo. For another, it said nothing about allowing the use of drones against a US citizen who was a member of a terrorist group. It only mentioned such use against someone engaged in an attack.



Holder has explicitely stated that using drones is only allowed when the target is engaged in combat on american soil. It's right there in the OP

More purposefully dishonest nonsense, or a blatant lack of understanding. I refer to the leaked memo, not Holder's letter dated today. Until you address reality don't expect further response.
 
Any action taken against US citizens should require due process. Period.
 
More can be seen here: White House admits it can't kill Americans with drones in US ? RT USA


I must say that while this comes as a surprise, the words "can't" and "won't" are two different things.


Nice to see that you are taking the title of a news article over the actual letter.


Clearly you didnt read the letter to R. Paul

wv5WwRx.jpg
 
More purposefully dishonest nonsense, or a blatant lack of understanding. I refer to the leaked memo, not Holder's letter dated today. Until you address reality don't expect further response.

The OP shows that the govt does not consider the use of drones on US soil against people who are merely suspected of being terrorists. It is dishonest to suggest otherwise.
 
More can be seen here: White House admits it can't kill Americans with drones in US ? RT USA


I must say that while this comes as a surprise, the words "can't" and "won't" are two different things. In addition to this, it states clearly "on American soil" so Obama can still kill you if you leave the country.


Honestly if a person is working with the enemy on enemy soil, I have no problem with a drone strike even if it is an American.

I agree with Sen. Paul about domestic use.
 
The OP shows that the govt does not consider the use of drones on US soil against people who are merely suspected of being terrorists. It is dishonest to suggest otherwise.

Are you aware of how time works? Do you know that "past" came BEFORE "present"? Prior to the letter, the leaked memo, which you have displayed no knowledge of provided a legal justification for the use of drones against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil without proof of imminent threat.

As I said, I'd actually do your research.
 
I'd like someone to at least stand up and represent folks like me who think that ALL domestic drone use should be permanently banned.
 
Are you aware of how time works? Do you know that "past" came BEFORE "present"? Prior to the letter, the leaked memo, which you have displayed no knowledge of provided a legal justification for the use of drones against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil without proof of imminent threat.

As I said, I'd actually do your research.

No, it did not and repeating your dishonest claim does not make it true.

Holder clearly stated that the president has no authority to do such a thing
 
No, it did not and repeating your dishonest claim does not make it true.

Holder clearly stated that the president has no authority to do such a thing

So this is your way of saying you won't actually researched the leaked memo?
 
It's my way of saying that you've got nothing to support your dishonest claim.

Except, you know, those little things called facts. And as I said in the other thread...when you'd like to research a few I'll be happy to talk. Until then you're welcome to spew your unsupported, false nonsense to somebody else.
 
Except, you know, those little things called facts. And as I said in the other thread...when you'd like to research a few I'll be happy to talk. Until then you're welcome to spew your unsupported, false nonsense to somebody else.

The facts you claim to have must be so tiny, they can't be posted.

So far, you haven't posted any facts.
 
Nice to see that you are taking the title of a news article over the actual letter.


Clearly you didnt read the letter to R. Paul

wv5WwRx.jpg

I stand corrected. However, that doesn't change the fact that he can kill you if you are not on American soil.

The title of this thread does not match the content of the OP

According to the OP, the US can use a drone to kill american citizens on american soil........but only if they are engaged in an attack.

Take that up with RT. I didn't write the article.
 
Back
Top Bottom