Eric Holder: Drone Strike on Americans in U.S. Conceivable

[huntrights]

I just sent a thank you to Senator Rand Paul.  He is definitely a defender of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

[thatkidwho]

I think the root question is: Does the  Administration believe they have the authority to use the military against US citizens on US soil?

From their statements it sounds like they do believe that.

This is one of the major concerns the founding fathers had. Everyone should be concerned today despite your political leanings. Once a precedent is set, rarely is it repealed.

Don't be sidetracked by drones, drones are a tool. We must look at the people using the tool, the military complex. It should also be noted the administration is constantly expanding the definition of enemy combatant, terrorist, etc. to include fringe thinkers. Groups that are currently not hostile to the government but are opposed to their policies.

[xd2005]

I think the root question is: Does the  Administration believe they have the authority to use the military against US citizens on US soil?

From their statements it sounds like they do believe that.

This is one of the major concerns the founding fathers had. Everyone should be concerned today despite your political leanings. Once a precedent is set, rarely is it repealed.

Don't be sidetracked by drones, drones are a tool. We must look at the people using the tool, the military complex. It should also be noted the administration is constantly expanding the definition of enemy combatant, terrorist, etc. to include fringe thinkers. Groups that are currently not hostile to the government but are opposed to their policies.

Holder has now gone on record to indicate that the Administration does not have the authority to conduct a drone strike on a non-combatant American on American soil.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/03/07/obama-holder-paul-drone-strikes/1970819/

[huntnphool]

You see, this is the kind of ignorance by the Republican Party that drives me absolutely nuts, this is a classic example of the difference between the two party's. You NEVER see a Democratic Senator being belittled or contradicted by another Democrat, regardless whether the one speaking is right or wrong, not saying that Rand Paul is wrong, I'm just making a point.

When are the Republicans going to wake the hell up and realize that they are their own worst enemy.

SENATOR McCAIN ON DRONES AND THE FILIBUSTER ON THE FLOOR OF THE U.S. SENATE 3-7-13

"WASHINGTON -- One of the Senate's leading hawks, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), took to the Senate floor Thursday to fire back at Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), saying the Kentuckian's rant against extrajudicial drone killings was "simply false."

Quoting extensively from a Wall Street Journal editorial that mocked Paul, McCain also argued that Paul had belittled the growing use of drones to kill terrorism suspects by invoking the name of Jane Fonda and suggesting a drone could have killed her when she was a Vietnam War protester.

Paul took to the floor Wednesday for nearly 13 hours, hoping to pressure the White House to declare whether or not it might use a drone to strike an American citizen in the United States.

McCain, a former Vietnam prisoner of war, was not impressed.

"I watched some of that, quote, debate, unquote, yesterday," McCain said. "I saw colleagues who know better come to the floor and voice some of this same concern, which is totally unfounded.

"I must say that the use of Jane Fonda's name does evoke certain memories with me, and I must say that she is not my favorite American. But I also believe that, as odious as it was, Ms. Fonda acted within her constitutional rights, and to somehow say that someone who disagrees with American policy -- and even may demonstrate against it -- is somehow a member of an organization which makes that individual an enemy combatant is simply false," McCain said, hitting his lectern for emphasis. "It is simply false."

McCain said it was "ridiculous" and "a stretch of the imagination" to "allege or infer that the President of the United States is going to kill somebody like Jane Fonda, or somebody who disagrees with the policies."

The Wall Street Journal editorial he quoted was even more scathing, declaring, "Give Rand Paul credit for theatrical timing, as a snow storm descended on Washington. The filibuster filled the attention void on Twitter and cable TV. If only his reasoning matched the showmanship."

The editorial also complained that Paul should not be shocked that the United States might kill a citizen by drone strike within its own borders, arguing that the Obama administration is well within its rights to kill enemies of the country, wherever they may be.

Paul has vigorously opposed the growing use of drones by the administration, saying the strikes violate due process guaranteed under the Constitution and permit the president to act as judge, jury and executioner.

[CP]

I think the root question is: Does the  Administration believe they have the authority to use the military against US citizens on US soil?

From their statements it sounds like they do believe that.

This is one of the major concerns the founding fathers had. Everyone should be concerned today despite your political leanings. Once a precedent is set, rarely is it repealed.

Don't be sidetracked by drones, drones are a tool. We must look at the people using the tool, the military complex. It should also be noted the administration is constantly expanding the definition of enemy combatant, terrorist, etc. to include fringe thinkers. Groups that are currently not hostile to the government but are opposed to their policies.

Google “whiskey rebellion” and you will see that the first US President to use the military against US citizens on US soil was George Washington.  I believe he was one of our founding fathers.

[thatkidwho]

The army was not used, it was gathered and marched but not used. My understanding is Hamilton imposed the tax, people refused to pay, Washington was sent to "collect".

It also is a first example of the same thing going on now. Statists vs individualist. On a positive side the right to assemble was unchallenged by the federalist/statists after that.

[thatkidwho]

Xd2005

Do you know how combatant is currently defined for US citizens?

Regarding overseas a combatant is anyone of age to serve in the military in vensinty of a drone attack.

[xd2005]

I should state that the use of the term "combatant" was probably not appropriate on my part. The actual language states "engaged in combat."

[CP]

The army was not used, it was gathered and marched but not used. My understanding is Hamilton imposed the tax, people refused to pay, Washington was sent to "collect".

It also is a first example of the same thing going on now. Statists vs individualist. On a positive side the right to assemble was unchallenged by the federalist/statists after that.

Casualties and losses:
3–4 rebels killed
0–1 soldiers killed in action; about 12 died from illness or in accidents

2 civilians accidentally killed by government troops

If George were President today he’d march the army south and take Tim & Tickle back to DC in chains by bayonet point. 

You'd better stock up:

[xd2005]

I'll admit, I had to chuckle at Michael Medved's FB post today:

#randpaul's victory ends danger that US citizens will be zapped by drones. No danger last week either, but still...

[JJD]

I should state that the use of the term "combatant" was probably not appropriate on my part. The actual language states "engaged in combat."

Regarless of the exact wording, would Ruby Ridge and / or Waco TX qualify?  Would the Fed consider these folks engaged in combat?  Would anyone who opposed the Fed using more than the pen, be considered engaged in combat?

[csaaphill]

I like Rand Paul as well hope he runs on 2016 if we get that far