White House can use 'lethal force' on American citizens on US soil

The US government has the right to use military force on American citizens, even at home - but only in "extraordinary circumstances," the attorney general has stated in a letter to Senator Rand Paul.

Paul had threatened to filibuster the nomination of John Brennan, US President Barack Obama's pick for CIA director, "until [Obama] answers the question of whether or not the President can kill American citizens through the drone strike program on U.S. soil."


Brennan was confirmed by the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday, March 5, the same day Attorney General Eric Holder sent Paul the letter. Brennan now faces overall Senate approval.



The CIA boss nominee told Paul Tuesday that "the agency I have been nominated to lead does not conduct lethal operations inside the United States—nor does it have any authority to do so," advising the Senator that the Justice Department would better suited to answer his inquiry regarding whether American citizens could be assassinated on home soil.




In Holder's Tuesday letter to Paul, he explains that as the country's leadership has never carried out a drone strike at home and has no plans to, "The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront. 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 authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States."



For example, Holder says, "the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001."



In a February Google+ Hangout, President Obama avoided the topic when asked to directly address whether he had the authority to assassinate Americans, leading observers to assume he did.

http://rt.com/usa/white-house-lethal-force-878/

Not looking good.

Always said, unchecked state power, esp of this kind, that cares not for nation, it has a really horrible history for turning in the way.

 

sounds entirely reasonable to me.

what's the problem. A hypothetical situation like preventing a pearl harbor or a 9/11 is reasonable and as holder said, it could be constitutional and legal.

You are aware of the oath the president takes and what his numero uno priority function is over all else don't you?

 

I keep getting the feeling Obama read Ender's Game as a child but got the wrong lesson from it.

 

What's the problem?

The Fifth Amendment, for one thing.

Article II, for another.

The commie-libs sure have gone a long way from whining about imaginary "death-squads" under Reagan....


Let's....the President's primary job...

...I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”...

Oh, look! His principle job is to uphold and defend the Constitution.....

Because the United States is a nation supposed ruled by law, not fascist king-wannabes like Obama.

 

Yes, to the constitution of the United States which clearly says the right to Habeus Corpus should not be suspended except for a period not to exceed months time, and that this must be done through legislation!

 

"fascist king wannabes" - just luv the nonsensical labels used to describe the president. totally divorced from reality.

I was wrong on the oath of office.

I guess the phrase "hypothetical" and "extraordinary circumstances" should be ignored and Obama should be condemned for something he hasn't done nor contemplated nor said.

typical logic from the far right.

 

Paul knew the answer before he asked the question. He just wanted to force Holder to say it so he could play politics.

It's not the administration, it's the law.

 

Please someone point out where the government is sending drones out to kill Americans? Now if a Citizen gets into a gunfight with law enforcement I see no problem with using a drone, what is the difference between them being stopped using a drone or a Swat Team shooting them down, clue the answer is: NONE.
As for "citizens" that have moved to the ME and are actively involved with a war on America and it Citizens they have given up any rights they may have had by declaring war on this Nation, just like every other Traitor has, and I have no problem taking them out using a drone if they cannot be arrested/put on trial/hung.

 

These infiltrators hate your Republic, and they want to totally destroy your constitution.

 

There has been an incident in which some crazy FMOTL farmer started shooting at cops trying to serve a warrant, and the cops sent a drone to do surveilance, and the crazy SOB tried to have the charges against him thrown out because the cops used illegal tactics against him.

What a freaking moron. Too bad they didn't have weapons mounted on the drone.

There are radical domestic terrorist groups preparing for an armed rebellion against the US government, and the use of drones would save the lives of sane Americans caught behind any lines that the whackjob militias might establish.

I'm all for practice runs on Hayden Lake, Idaho.

 

Rand Paul has been leading the filibuster for hours now:

http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/

Thank God for politicians like Paul.

 

The Patriot Act and Banking reform under Bush took away many of our guarentees of the consitution and bill of rights. But we wanted security over freedom I guess because nobody said a thing.

 

Rather foolish, since you shall end up with neither.

 

Can those responsible be held criminally accountable?

 

I am so happy we have a dictator in America. We are one of the few western countries that has not had one. Now we all know about the collateral damage done by the Drones. Anyone who thinks that this can be used responsibly is naive. The white house would not stop, no matter the casualty count to end "terrorism". Has anyone looked up what the government considers terrorism? Obama is now Judge, Jury and Executioner. Pure madness. If this is allowed to continue, kiss your rights and constitution goodbye.

 

For what?

- - - Updated - - -

He is a puppet that takes orders.

 

Reality Check~ The military has always been able to legally use lethal force on American Citizens.

So do the Police, Park Rangers, Bank Guards, Homeowners, and a variety of others under extreme circumstance.

 

Thanks for bringing reality to the thread.

 

What reality?

What are you going to source the civil war as the military killing American citizens on US soil?

Is that all you got?

There is no precedent for this!!

 

Agree with pimptight. Name one example of where the MILITARY used force to kill a USA citizen (legally or illegally). Any response should result in that imbecile Holder immediately starting a trial against the politician that authorized it.

 

I suppose Ft.Hood would be the most recent as far as military, thought he did not die.

 

And this is the little nuance you are conviently ignoring.

If the cops try and arrest you, and they use deadly force in the process, that is legal.

If the cops make no attempt to arrest, show up at your door and shoots you in the face, because they say you broke the law, this is illegal.

 

I'm sorry, I had assumed you could comprehend the written world when clearly stated in English:

But if you prefer, we could simply go by what you just typed, as it says the same damn thing.

 

Well then perhaps I should use the report button for the 3rd time on this sight, and report you for being off-topic, as that has jack shi# to do with the thread topic!