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

[Dr. Blutarsky]

One step closer to 1984.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9913615/Barack-Obama-has-authority-to-use-drone-strikes-to-kill-Americans-on-US-soil.html


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

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.

His statement was described as "more than frightening" by Senator Rand Paul, a Republican from Kentucky, who had demanded to know the Obama administration's position on the subject.

"It is an affront the constitutional due process rights of all Americans," said Mr Paul, a 50-year-old favourite of the anti-government Tea Party movement, who is expected to run for president in 2016.

Mr Holder wrote to Mr Paul after the senator threatened to block the appointment of John Brennan as the director of the CIA unless he received answers to a series of questions on its activities.


Mr Paul on Wednesday evening took to the floor of the Senate to launch an old-fashioned filibuster in an effort to delay a vote on the approval of Mr Brennan for CIA director. ?I won?t be able to speak forever, but I?m going to speak as long as I can,? he said, before embarking on several hours of criticism of Mr Obama's compliance with the US constitution.

Mr Obama has been sharply criticised for the secrecy surrounding his extension of America's "targeted killing" campaign against al-Qaeda terrorist suspects using missile strikes by unmanned drones.

The secret campaign has killed an estimated 4,700 people in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. A quarter are estimated to have been civilians prompting anger among human rights campaigners.

According to research by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, drone strikes killed between 474 and 881 civilians ? including 176 children ? in Pakistan between 2004 and last year.

Criticism within the US has focused on the implications for terror suspects who are also US citizens, after Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical cleric born and educated in the US, was killed in Yemen in 2011.

The administration claims it has the legal authority to assassinate Americans provided that they are a senior al-Qaeda operative posing an imminent threat and it would be "infeasible" to capture them.

This justification emerged only last month in a leaked memo from Mr Holder's department of justice. Mr Obama this week agreed to give Congress his full set of classified legal memos on the targeting of Americans.

Civil liberties campaigners accuse the president and his aides of awarding themselves sweeping powers to deny Americans their constitutional rights without oversight from Congress or the judiciary.

Mr Holder stressed in his letter that the prospect of a president considering the assassination of an American citizen on US soil was "entirely hypothetical" and "unlikely to occur".

Yet "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 authorise the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States," he wrote.

Appearing in front the Senate judiciary committee on Wednesday, Mr Holder reiterated that "the government has no intention to carry out any drone strikes in the United States".

Senator Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, told him his reference to "extraordinary circumstances" such as September 11 or the 1941 bombing of Pearl Harbour were "extremely concerning".

"It is imperative that we understand the operational boundaries for use of such force," Mr Grassley said. "American citizens have a right to understand when their life can be taken by their government absent due process."

Daphne Eviatar, a senior counsel at Human Rights First, said: ?It?s hard to see how authorities could not be in a position to arrest someone yet be able to kill them.

?The administration should publish all its legal memos on targeted killing. Classified information can be redacted if necessary. There is no reason for legal opinions justifying ongoing US programmes to be kept secret.?
 
      

[One.In.A.Million]

I was watching this debate on Hannity, and there's arguments on both sides about the wording of such an action. For example, if something needs to be taken out which is a cause for national security and there is no other way than to use a drone on US soil.

But then you have people arguing by saying that this action is already covered by some national security law which was passed ages ago.

I live in the UK, so I'm not as clued up on this as some of you may be... but I do enjoy watching the debates on programs such as Hannity and Bill O' Rielly. 

[pilferk]

Rand Paul, during his filibuster a couple days ago, repeatedly asked the question "Does the administration have the authority to use drone strikes to kill Americans on US soil".

The Attorney General sent Sen. Paul this response, yesterday:

"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."

Short, sweet, and to the point.  And, to be even clearer, this ADMINISTRATION doesn't think they have the right to do it.

The original question by Sen. Paul was not nearly as specific.  It was whether or not the US could use drones, in any scenario, on US soil.  The Attorney General, in his initial response, address that broad question and was specifically referring to a case where there were enemy combatants that had entered US borders (Peal Harbor being the best example).  In such an unusual case, the administration COULD use drones against those combatants, who would be on US soil.

[raindogs70]

The DOD can just subcontract and get around audits and oversight committees.

I read that drones are going to being launched up the road from Axl .. Pt Mugu. I think about 40 miles.   

[One.In.A.Million]

That filibuster Rand Paul did was kind of epic wasn't it?, went on for something like 12 hours. 

[Dr. Blutarsky]

 It's too bad it had to come to that just to get clarification from  AG Eric Holder
 that the president cannot use a drone to kill a noncombatant American on U.S. soil.

[pilferk]

It's too bad it had to come to that just to get clarification from  AG Eric Holder
 that the president cannot use a drone to kill a noncombatant American on U.S. soil.

I agree, to a point.

But also realize this:

Holder answered the actual question Paul initially asked: Can this administration use drones on US Soil?

Now, I'll grant you, given the public conversation going on, Holder probably should have taken the broader intent of the question...and you have partisan politics (on BOTH sides) penchant for twisting and turning their opponents words at every turn possible to thank for him taking that bent.  But the worst you can accuse Holder of is playing coy.  He wasn't being obstructionist to Paul getting information or obfuscating the truth (which were both accusations Paul leveled at Holder and the administration in his filibuster).

But Paul didn't actually ask the full, verbose, version of the question to anyone, in an official capacity, UNTIL he had begun his filibuster. That is, he didn't ask "Can the US use drones against it's own non-combatant citizens on US soil" until he had taken over the floor of the Senate.  At that point, it becomes a part of the official record, and Holder can take that as an official request for information....and he answered within 24 hours of the question being posed.

There was certainly gamesmanship going on, on both sides.  Holder was being coy and "exacting" Paul on his terminology/phrasing.  Paul was grandstanding, at best, and certainly using the issue for his own political gain.

[norway]

I hope weaponmanufacturers boycott weaponsales to states that enforce gunlaws.

[pilferk]

I hope weaponmanufacturers boycott weaponsales to states that enforce gunlaws.

To be clear: You hope that corporations, who's sole purpose is to make as large a profit as possible, will sacrifice some segment of that profit for principal?

You have about as much chance of that occurring as you do of having dinner with Father Time, Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny.

They'll complain, they'll moan, they'll lobby, and they'll do everything their pocketbooks will allow them to legally circumvent, undermine, or change the laws.  Which, FYI, I'm 100% fine with.  That's not meant as a knock..simply an expression of how the system works.

But they will certainly not stop selling guns in those states.

Incidentally...doing so would actually force them to stop selling guns in ALL states, since every state in the union has a law on the books prohibiting certain types of guns (automatic, those that distribute explosive ordinance, etc).  But I'm assuming you mean "new" gun laws.

The fact is: Gun and weapon laws are nothing new.  You have ordinance laws (the banning of explosive ordinance, fully automatic weapons, etc) that span the length and breadth of this countries history.   The SC has said, time and again, this does not violate the 2nd Amendment.

Look, I'm a firm believer in the 2nd amendment.  I think we all have the right to bear arms.  But the courts have made it known what their interpretation is on the amendment, and it's not like the Gun industry/lobby/NRA doesn't know what that interpretation is.  And they'll work within the system provided to them (and try to change it, if they think it's necessary) to maximize their potential profits.  That's just the way it works.

[norway]

To be clear: You hope that corporations, who's sole purpose is to make as large a profit as possible, will sacrifice some segment of that profit for principal?

1: The bolded part is a gross generalisation.

2: I hope weaponmanufacturers boycott weaponsales to states that enforce gunlaws.

You have about as much chance of that occurring as you do of having dinner with Father Time, Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny.

  300% Increase of Gun Makers Refusing Sales to State Governments that Ban Guns

http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/update-number-us-gun-makers-refusing-sales-govt-firearms-equality

That's not meant as a knock..simply an expression of how the system works.

Thats how the system works. It doesn't say anything about how the people work.

My comment was more like expressing my stand on those US gunlaws tho.

[pilferk]

1: The bolded part is a gross generalisation.

2: I hope weaponmanufacturers boycott weaponsales to states that enforce gunlaws.

1) No, actually, it's not.  It's a statement of fact.  Corporations are entities and their sole purpose is to make as large a profit as possible.  It's actually their reason for creation and existence...that's Econ 101.  That's not a partisan interpretation, it's not a knock (though we can certainly have a conversation arguing the pros and cons of having an entity with that sole purpose), it's just the truth.  There are exceptions (very small corporations owned by a sole stock holder and/or their family members, for example) who don't ACT that way.  But they are really operating more like LLC's taking advantage of corporate tax breaks, rather than "true" corporations.  And they are very much the exception, not the rule.

2) To States (as in, the State Governments)?  Or to states (as in, directed toward being sold to consumers in certain states).  The capitalization makes very different points.

  300% Increase of Gun Makers Refusing Sales to State Governments that Ban Guns

http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/update-number-us-gun-makers-refusing-sales-govt-firearms-equality

The article says they're not selling directly to State Governments...not "to states", in sum total. 

The two are very different things. If that was your point, it was not clearly expressed in your first post.

If you look at the actual list the article is using as a source, in most cases, it's not even that the manufacturers won't sell ANYTHING to the State Governments.  It's simply the fact they refuse to sell, to the State Governments, anything that can not be purchased by the regular citizens of that state. In other words, if there is a law on the books that restricts the sale of extended mags to citizens, they won't sell extended mags to the State Government agencies.  That's not the same as "not selling to them".  It's restricting WHAT they will sell to them.  In some cases, where the company offers a very narrow product line, it might amount to the same thing...but not nearly for all the companies on that list.

Also note that very few, if any, of the larger manufacturers are on that list.  In other words, the manufacturers that the various Governments actually WANT to do business with, directly...are actually still selling to them (and happily taking the cash).  Not incidentally, all those large manufacturers? Corporations...especially LARGE corporations.  And those smaller corporations (which are usually owned by a sole stockholder and/or their family members) and LLC's that have a unique product (Barett comes to mind) that Governments want can be aquired through a secondary supplier (ie: the supplier buys from Barett and then sells to the State Government).

Thats how the system works. It doesn't say anything about how the people work.

My comment was more like expressing my stand on those US gunlaws tho.

But it's how the system works, and you were opining for the SYSTEM to change.   Which it won't.

I would be shocked to see the people not just, eventually, swallow the changes, too (where they are implemented).  They did when pretty much the exact same proposals were enacted with the Clinton Assault Weapon ban (after much complaint).  Now, the political climate is a lot more contentious, and both sides a hell of a lot more radicalized, but I don't expect to see country wide, or state wide, political unrest on a scale that would effect changes.

I got your point (you're against any new gun laws).  But there are flaws in the suggestion you made in which to make that point....if not in it's underlaying premise, then in the way you phrased/presented it, initially.

Honestly, you probably don't have to worry about any Federal laws.  The law coming through committee in the Senate is SO flawed that it likely wouldn't pass vote, and even if it did some of the provisions in there are well beyond what the SC has viewed as acceptable gun control.

State laws are different and, the fact is, the laws being put in place are in the more "blue" states.  States where a majority of the citizens have voted for liberal State Representation who, largely, have made their support of gun control known.  I can't take offense when those elected officials do what they have said they would do, and what their people elected them to do.  Sandy Hook brought this issue to the forefront, and made it a priority to a certain segment of the populace.  It's hard to say that state governments should not, provided they are operating within what the SC has established as legal, be able to legislate the way they (and their constituency) want them to.

[norway]

Corporations are entities and their sole purpose is to make as large a profit as possible. 

I disagree, it's not the sole purpose of corporations.

But it's how the system works, and you were opining for the SYSTEM to change. 

 

Not opining for the system to change, but for people to take ethical directions.

  Sandy Hook brought this issue to the forefront, and made it a priority to a certain segment of the populace. 

I think Sandy Hook should have brought up the issue regarding 'mental illness' and psychological/emotional suffering, not gunlaws. Look at Mexico, they banned guns. Does it work? In China they have both extensive surveilance and control, but recently some lunatic killed a ton of children with some kind of long knife.

So with a gun-ban you can 'possibly' make it harder for massmurderers to obtain weapons with high damage-capacity, but whats the point? Politicans and adults showing off their ability to be concerned and take action? The effect of a gunban to affect those rare massmurderers is neglible.

I think a focus on mental illness and harassment would have to be more extensive than how it is today. It would have to recognise peoples right to defend themselfs physicly when subjected to psychological violence and verbal abuse. I also don't think sissychildren should have to be put to jails and youthhomes if they defend themselfs against bullies with weapons.

Psychological violence to children is often systematic and could for example be the case of destroying their favorite toys, so one should really consider the consequence on childrens and youths health/social welbeing when criminalising violent videogames, perceived sexism in media, removing toyguns from kindergarten/schools etc

Yes, I am a bit heathen and have a more nuanced view on usage of violence/destructve force.

[pilferk]

I disagree, it's not the sole purpose of corporations.

Then you're disagreeing with reality.

It's their stated, legal, sole purpose....at least if you're talking about a "corporation" as it's used in the US and not the UK.

It is an entity unto itself, with it's own liabilities, powers, obligation, and term of existance whose (and yes, that's the the right pronoun..they are recognized like individuals) purpose is to clear revenue, cover expenses, and turn a profit (even if that profit is then to be reinvested in the corporation and it's growth, either internal or shareholder value).

Again, Econ 101.

Not opining for the system to change, but for people to take ethical directions.

The issue, really, isn't one of ethics. Because reasonable people have different OPINIONS on the subject and neither is concretely right or wrong.  So it's not like this is a cut and dry moral compass issue.

And, again, what you're suggesting has little to do with "people" and more to do with "business" and "profit".

Which is entirely the point.

You're giving "people" far too much credit, and assuming they have far too much influence, on the system. Or that they'd use the influence in remotely the manner you suggest.  Mostly, the "people" you're talking about are more concerned with other things (like making sure their shareholders (many of them institutional) see their obligatory profit margin, and share value increase, for the year so that the "people" don't lose their jobs, making millions in salary and bonuses, running the corporations).

I think Sandy Hook should have brought up the issue regarding 'mental illness' and psychological/emotional suffering, not gunlaws. Look at Mexico, they banned guns. Does it work? In China they have both extensive surveilance and control, but recently some lunatic killed a ton of children with some kind of long knife.

Many people think it's both.  I agree, there is a larger issue regarding mental illness, treatment, identification, and our system's ability to respond to it, though.  But guns are a much easier, much more politically "sexy" issue for them to deal with.  It's also a whole lot cheaper than a complete restructuring of our medical system, first responders, etc to better deal with those that may be mentally ill.

You can argue why the reforms would have a larger effect...and I'd agree with you.  But the above is the reality.

So with a gun-ban you can 'possibly' make it harder for massmurderers to obtain weapons with high damage-capacity, but whats the point? Politicans and adults showing off their ability to be concerned and take action? The effect of a gunban to affect those rare massmurderers is neglible.

Agree and Agree with the last two points.  As an aside, I'm not sure, if you can only make a "negligible" effect on mass murder, that instantly makes it not worth doing.  There's a case to be made that ANY effect, ANY prevention of loss of life in those situations, is a worthwhile undertaking.  Because, even if "negligible" is 4 or 5 people per incident...that's 4 or 5 lives you're saving.  I agree with your implication: It's an awful lot of effort for a relatively small effect.   "Worth" is then the debate. 

But, again, in the states where legislation has passed (or looks like it's going to pass), I don't really feel I have any (except, maybe, in my own state) right to direct their legislative muscle.  What they're doing is within the parameters of what the SC has said is legal restriction.

I think a focus on mental illness and harassment would have to be more extensive than how it is today. It would have to recognise peoples right to defend themselfs physicly when subjected to psychological violence and verbal abuse. I also don't think sissychildren should have to be put to jails and youthhomes if they defend themselfs against bullies with weapons.

I agree with the first part.  But I also recognize that it's an expensive proposition.  And, as far as the politicians go, it won't sway voters (much).  If you look at our political system...it's all about gamesmanship and "winning".  Sad, but true.

I disagree with the 2nd.  That's what the authorities are for.  I don't think children should be carrying weapons to and from school, for any reason.  Their judgement is just not yet refined enough, and their decision making process is not (usually) evolved enough for that kind of responsibility.

Now, if you're talking about allowing a kid to fight back with whatever happens to be handy when attacked (be it fists, rocks, or whatever)...I think that's a no brainer.

Psychological violence to children is often systematic and could for example be the case of destroying their favorite toys, so one should really consider the consequence on childrens and youths health/social welbeing when criminalising violent videogames, perceived sexism in media, removing toyguns from kindergarten/schools etc

I'm an avid gamer.  I'd say you leave games along because there is no good research that says they have anything to do with violent behavior.  In fact, many studies show the opposite (they're a cathartic outlet, they develop problem solving skills, hand eye coordination, etc).

I have no issue with allowing kids to play "Cops and Robbers" or "Cowboys and Indians" (or the modern equivalent).  Having a toy gun isn't going to warp a kid, or desensitise them.  I do agree with the US law that says the weapons have to LOOK like toys (coloring or modeling), since thats a public safety issue. You want "toys" to obviously be toys so someone doesn't get shot for brandishing their cap gun.

[norway]

I mention it since feminism seems to ban masculinity.

Making money and what I pointed out is not mutually exclusive btw

I disagree with the 2nd.  That's what the authorities are for.  I don't think children should be carrying weapons to and from school, for any reason.  Their judgement is just not yet refined enough, and their decision making process is not (usually) evolved enough for that kind of responsibility.

I didn't mean that. What I ment was that sometimes sissies, emo's, fags etc can get pretty rough treatment and in many cases they are not strong enough to fight back, which means that they have to use weapons, stealth and cunning to make it stop. In those cases they are labeled extremists and are put away. I object to that.

Imo, those responsible for the harassment are the ones the 'system' should take action against, but often they have high status parents (politicians, lawyers, celebrities etc) and justice is therefore not done.

[cineater]

What's the thoughts on the North Korea situation?  Any chance we wake up tomorrow and the North Korean military has taken over?  Is there a rebel force we can support?  Small missile transportation accident?  This guy needs to go.

[westcoast_junkie]

What's the thoughts on the North Korea situation?  Any chance we wake up tomorrow and the North Korean military has taken over?  Is there a rebel force we can support?  Small missile transportation accident?  This guy needs to go.

Not any chance they're taking over anything. Doesn't USA have a bigger military budget than the rest of the world combined? Can Kim make some serious damage? That's a real concern....

Regarding drone-strikes on own soil. Of course Obama need that possibility with all those crazy private armies inside that crazy country. And many of them are right wing "extremists". BTW, haven't you watched season 7 of 24?