Holder: US has no authority to kill Americans with drones on US soil

[Molon Labe]

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill...#ixzz2MsjaSbzY

The U.S. does not have the authority to use a drone attack against a U.S. citizen not engaged in combat on U.S. soil, Attorney General Eric Holder told Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) in a Thursday letter.

White House press secretary Jay Carney reveled the letter at his Thursday press briefing. It was sent in response to a 13-hour filibuster Paul held on the Senate floor Wednesday to criticize the administration’s drone policy.

“The president has not and would not use drone strikes against American citizens on American soil,” Carney said.

The new letter from Holder is a slight shift in position from an earlier letter he sent to Paul last week. In that letter, Holder said it was unlikely the U.S. would use a drone attack against in American in the U.S., but that it was possible in response to a September 11, 2001-type attack.

Paul criticized the administration’s position in his filibuster, which he used to block a confirmation vote on Obama’s nominee to lead the CIA, John Brennan

Big win for the GOP folks.
Just established the GOP as better on Civil liberties than Progressives.

[SarasotaRepub]

And a predictable DUmmie answer...

Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #4)
Thu Mar 7, 2013, 02:04 PM

meow2u3
13. I see where this is going

Extraordinary circumstances = armed rebellion and/or insurrection. In other words, Obama can order military force (via the National Guard) be used to quash an insurrection by RWNJ teabagger traitors. That's why Rand Paul, Ted Cruz Missile, and the other far right teabaggers want to outlaw use of drones against right-wing hate groups--they either belong to one of them or sympathize with the anti-government hatriots.

[LukeEDay]

Whoa! Holder actually agrees? Wow ... I saw his testimony yesterday. I loved how they were calling him an idiot lol ...

[Elspeth]

Gotta give Rand Paul his due on this. Holder got forced into this decision.

[Odysseus]

And, in the words of our former Secretary of State, at this point, what difference does it make? Does anyone doubt that when the time comes, the Obama administration will have no problem finding a rationale for lethal drone strikes in CONUS, or that the media won't support them? How many MSM outlets have covered Holder's obvious embarassment? Has it been given anything remotely resembling the coverage of a ficticious Romney or Bush gaffe?

We live in a time of unbelievable corruption, and the admission by a partisan and corrupt hack shouldn't make us bolder unless it is followed by a change in personnel and policy.

[JB]

meow2u3 (13,559 posts)

13. I see where this is going

Extraordinary circumstances = armed rebellion and/or insurrection. In other words, Obama can order military force (via the National Guard) be used to quash an insurrection by RWNJ teabagger traitors.

Delusional projection at its finest.

You don't even see cops at a TEA Party event whereas every time some filthy hippies or OWS types get together you need a field army on site to keep the peace.

[Odysseus]

And, in the words of our former Secretary of State, at this point, what difference does it make? Does anyone doubt that when the time comes, the Obama administration will have no problem finding a rationale for lethal drone strikes in CONUS, or that the media won't support them? How many MSM outlets have covered Holder's obvious embarassment? Has it been given anything remotely resembling the coverage of a ficticious Romney or Bush gaffe?

We live in a time of unbelievable corruption, and the admission by a partisan and corrupt hack shouldn't make us bolder unless it is followed by a change in personnel and policy.

Okay, I'm going to eat my words. Paul's filibuster actually accomplished a lot more than I thought it would. The media took notice, and they couldn't spin it into some bizarre game. Paul took the civil liberties issue and put Obama and his administration on the defensive in a way not seen since he took office. American Thinker had a great take on it:

Rand Paul unveiled a conservative answer to the Left's Saul Alinsky tactics:

• Rand Paul shoved Obama's agenda off the public stage. Just getting the political world talking about Republicans' message instead of Obama's means Republicans are winning and Obama is losing.
• Rand picked his issue very carefully. He chose the hill he wanted his opponent to die on. Rand showed what happens when you wisely pick the right issue to defeat your opponent with.
• Yet Rand's issue seamlessly fit within his larger philosophy. He didn't just take a cheap shot. Rand chose an example that proves his larger point. As a caller to the Chris Plante show on Washington's WMAL said, "the biggest minority in America is the individual." Rand's filibuster fit within Rand's overall defense of individual liberty. The specific point created an effective argument supporting his larger theme.
• Rand advanced his strategic goal. The entire filibuster episode portrayed a radically different image of Barack Obama. Even among low information voters, Obama's public image just took a serious hit. Instead of being the cool guy who loves you, Obama is now the tyrant who reserves the right to kill you any time he feels like it. On an emotional level, Rand Paul undid in one day years of spin about Obama.
• Rand had a sense of the role of theatrical drama. Conservatives are rightly wary of selling an invalid argument. But even to promote the truth, one must understand that humans are emotional beings. Communicating a message in a crowded, busy world requires a feel for the dramatic.
• So Rand did this in a way difficult for the news media to ignore. In politics, if a tree falls in the forest and the news media doesn't report it, it never happened.
• Rand then hammered the issue perfectly. Who can defend U.S. Government drones assassinating American citizens inside America if they are not engaged in any violence? The issue is a blinding searchlight leaving the critters nowhere to hide. You can't say it doesn't matter. And there's no defense.
• Rand focused like a laser beam, anticipating the misrepresentation and caricatures he knew would be attempted. He repeatedly emphasized, probably a dozen times an hour, how modest his request was. He understood how his actions would be lied about, and cut the scoundrels off at the pass. He repeated what he wasn't demanding, what he wasn't arguing. He emphasized how he had voted for Obama's other nominees.
• Rand wasn't careless. His argument withstood scrutiny. And it got scrutiny. Yet he had a solid argument. Democrat Senator Dick Durbin asked about killing Osama Bin Laden. But Seal Team 6 was trying to arrest Bin Laden. It was Bin Laden's violence in resisting arrest that got him killed. Rand repeatedly emphasized that inside the USA the government should arrest people and question them, not assassinate them.
• Rand was nimble. He admitted that he hadn't planned the filibuster. But when the Obama Administration repeatedly confirmed that they believe the president has the authority to murder U.S. citizens inside the USA when they are not actively attacking anyone, Rand saw an opening and pounced. But he had the wisdom to know if it was a good opportunity or not.
• Rand Paul had guts.

Yet the GOP will be lost if it does not learn the lesson and follow Rand Paul's brilliant "teachable moment" example. Winston Churchill quipped: "Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on." We will see how thick-headed Republicans are if they miss the point.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/...#ixzz2MxMHJ4Cw
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

[Odysseus]