• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Eric Holder: Drone strikes against Americans on U.S. soil are legal

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Attorney General Eric Holder can imagine a scenario in which it would be constitutional to carry out a drone strike against an American on American soil, he wrote in a letter to Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.


“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,” Holder replied in a letter yesterday to Paul’s question about whether Obama “has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial.”
Here we go.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Nothing he said in your quotation of his words is not true. My fear is not that they will do it. I, too, can imagine "extraordinary circumstances" where military force could be used against a domestic threat. My fear is that they will do it more ordinary circumstances where military force shouldn't be used, such as in law-enforcement actions.

Again, folks must distinguish in their minds the difference between law enforcement actions and military actions (to which the government may resort "without trial"). This was a silly trap set by Senator Paul, into which the Obama administration blindly and happily stepped, blissfully unaware how bad the answer had to sound, no matter how correct it was.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Nothing he said in your quotation of his words is not true. My fear is not that they will do it. I, too, can imagine "extraordinary circumstances" where military force could be used against a domestic threat. My fear is that they will do it more ordinary circumstances where military force shouldn't be used, such as in law-enforcement actions.

Again, folks must distinguish in their minds the difference between law enforcement actions and military actions (to which the government may resort "without trial"). This was a silly trap set by Senator Paul, into which the Obama administration blindly and happily stepped, blissfully unaware how bad the answer had to sound, no matter how correct it was.

While I see your point, but I kinda think its really the highly objectionable scenario.

This is the same bunch that has already killed an American citizen and an American minor in two separate attacks. This is the same bunch that knew nothing about Fast and Furious. This is the same bunch that said Obamacare is a tax is a penalty is a tax. This is the same bunch that...ad infinitum. Its not like they let the constitution get in their way on other stuff.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
While I see your point, but I kinda think its really the highly objectionable scenario.

This is the same bunch that has already killed an American citizen and an American minor in two separate attacks. This is the same bunch that knew nothing about Fast and Furious. This is the same bunch that said Obamacare is a tax is a penalty is a tax. This is the same bunch that...ad infinitum. Its not like they let the constitution get in their way on other stuff.

I have no doubt that large numbers would find such a military action horrific. However, it is possible for the overwhelming majority of folks to be behind such an action were they to perceive the target to be an enemy making war on the nation.

Again, the problem is not whether military force can be used, but whether or not it is a constitutional action that has the overwhelming support the American People. I do not trust this administration to act constitutionally.
 

Deanimator

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
2,083
Location
Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
Nothing he said in your quotation of his words is not true. My fear is not that they will do it. I, too, can imagine "extraordinary circumstances" where military force could be used against a domestic threat. My fear is that they will do it more ordinary circumstances where military force shouldn't be used, such as in law-enforcement actions.

Again, folks must distinguish in their minds the difference between law enforcement actions and military actions (to which the government may resort "without trial"). This was a silly trap set by Senator Paul, into which the Obama administration blindly and happily stepped, blissfully unaware how bad the answer had to sound, no matter how correct it was.

  1. The ONLY, and I do mean ONLY plausible example I can imagine is:
  2. attack/invasion by military forces of a hostile foreign nation
  3. U.S. citizen acting as part of those forces as in the case of U.S. citizens who served in the German and Japanese forces in WWII
  4. drone strike carried out as part of military action carried out to repel that attack/invasion

Of course Maj. Nidal Hassan was apparently acting on behalf of a foreign terrorist organization (Al Qaeda), but the regime chooses to treat that terrorist act as "workplace violence", as if he'd shot up the office because his co-workers made fun of the Hello Kitty wallpaper on his PC.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
  1. The ONLY, and I do mean ONLY plausible example I can imagine is:
  2. attack/invasion by military forces of a hostile foreign nation
  3. U.S. citizen acting as part of those forces as in the case of U.S. citizens who served in the German and Japanese forces in WWII
  4. drone strike carried out as part of military action carried out to repel that attack/invasion

Of course Maj. Nidal Hassan was apparently acting on behalf of a foreign terrorist organization (Al Qaeda), but the regime chooses to treat that terrorist act as "workplace violence", as if he'd shot up the office because his co-workers made fun of the Hello Kitty wallpaper on his PC.

I could probably come up with variations on that scenario. But the point is that such scenario(s) exist. That is all the reply to the senator says.

Again, though, we have demonstrable examples of egregious violation of the Constitution by this administration. We should not trust them to make the determination of whether military force would be constitutional. I am sure that they will use military action on political enemies.

Deanimator! DUCK!!
 

SFCRetired

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
1,764
Location
Montgomery, Alabama, USA
Wouldn't the use of military force against American citizens on U.S. soil run afoul of the Posse Comitatus Act?

And I find the thought of Hassan's terror attack being classified as "workplace violence" utterly reprehensible. I also refuse to give him the title of "Major". He forfeited the privilege of that honorific when he carried through his cowardly attack.

As concerns Eric Holder: I am appalled that a United States Attorney General could be as clueless as he apparently is. Not to mention as completely ignorant of the Constitution and Bill of Rights as both he and his boss are.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Wouldn't the use of military force against American citizens on U.S. soil run afoul of the Posse Comitatus Act?...

Not necessarily. Only if the armed forces are used for law enforcement, and even that proscription has exceptions (bolded).

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...der-for-refusal-to-rule-out-drone-strikes-in/

There's a link to an actual article on this subject. As for the topic at hand, I can see certain situations where military action would be plausible. But my issue is that I don't trust the current government to poperly exercise such power and that there would be a gross abuse of power should strikes start happening inside the boarder. I also agree that Holder's response was inadaquate for the question as he seems to try to just side-step and not answer the question.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Wouldn't the use of military force against American citizens on U.S. soil run afoul of the Posse Comitatus Act?

And I find the thought of Hassan's terror attack being classified as "workplace violence" utterly reprehensible. I also refuse to give him the title of "Major". He forfeited the privilege of that honorific when he carried through his cowardly attack.

As concerns Eric Holder: I am appalled that a United States Attorney General could be as clueless as he apparently is. Not to mention as completely ignorant of the Constitution and Bill of Rights as both he and his boss are.

To the violation of Posse Commitatus, yes.

Neither Holder nor his boss are clueless. They know exactly what they're doing. Your charitable diplomacy is to your credit, though. :)
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I quoted Posse Comitatus above. It IS legal to use the military to enforce the law. There are exceptions built into the act.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I quoted Posse Comitatus above. It IS legal to use the military to enforce the law. There are exceptions built into the act.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Well, yes. But, those cases are not in question.*

*I'm thinking disaster relief, rebellion, Nat'l Guard preventing looting after a hurricane, etc.


None of those exceptions, except maybe anti-looters, applies to the current concerns. Is this just a case where you fell for the deliberately vague answer from Holder? He knew what was being asked. He gave the vague answer--probably to avoid stirring up criticism. Too bad for him if others can fit objectionable situations into his vagueness.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Well, yes. But, those cases are not in question.*

*I'm thinking disaster relief, rebellion, Nat'l Guard preventing looting after a hurricane, etc.


None of those exceptions, except maybe anti-looters, applies to the current concerns. Is this just a case where you fell for the deliberately vague answer from Holder? He knew what was being asked. He gave the vague answer--probably to avoid stirring up criticism. Too bad for him if others can fit objectionable situations into his vagueness.

Considering that we are addressing Holder's answer to Rand's question, my point that Posse Comitatus does not prevent all LE activity by the military is spot on in helping to establish that, while it scares the [stuff] outta me, Holder is speaking the truth.
 

Ca Patriot

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
Messages
2,330
Location
, ,
A war has been started. One side has been striking the other side for many years.

When the other side decides to start striking back it will get interesting.

Until that time we'll just complain on the internet.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
I think there should a distinction be made between the "regular army" and the "national guard." I suspect that to the casual observer there is no distinction, but a distinction there is. As has been note previously there is no constitutional mandate to maintain a regular army. I disagree given the realities of today's world, but the premise retains merit.

I postulate that the state(s) to which such a hypothetical "strike" would be subjected to would be informed before hand. I will not hold my breath though.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Considering that we are addressing Holder's answer to Rand's question, my point that Posse Comitatus does not prevent all LE activity by the military is spot on in helping to establish that, while it scares the [stuff] outta me, Holder is speaking the truth.

Reporter: "Attorney General, what did you know about Fast and Furious; and when did you know it?"

USAG: "The sun is shining."

He told the truth, he told the truth! Even if its pouring rain outside that press conference, the sun must be shining somewhere on planet earth, so he told the truth!


C'mon, Eye. You're better than that. I know you are. I've seen you do it.
 
Last edited:

SFCRetired

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
1,764
Location
Montgomery, Alabama, USA
If, God forbid, the government moves to use military force against American citizens, then we will, I believe, see a guerrilla war, fought on American soil, that will make the late unpleasantness in Vietnam look like a Sunday School picnic. What I do think will happen is that the government will use agencies like BATFE, the Marshal's Service, or some of the alphabet agencies to strike at individuals and small groups over a period of time until the majority of citizens are living in a constant state of fear.

Once that has been achieved, an "incident" will be engineered to give an excuse for the seizure of all weapons from private individuals. Think the Reichstag fire of 1933. When the confiscation starts, anyone who resists will be labelled as a terrorist, or worse. That will turn that fearful majority against those who would stand up for their rights.

I wish someone could make me believe that my predictions are totally baseless, but I've studied far too much history not to think the way I am thinking.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
If, God forbid, the government moves to use military force against American citizens, then we will, I believe, see a guerrilla war, fought on American soil, that will make the late unpleasantness in Vietnam look like a Sunday School picnic. What I do think will happen is that the government will use agencies like BATFE, the Marshal's Service, or some of the alphabet agencies to strike at individuals and small groups over a period of time until the majority of citizens are living in a constant state of fear.

Once that has been achieved, an "incident" will be engineered to give an excuse for the seizure of all weapons from private individuals. Think the Reichstag fire of 1933. When the confiscation starts, anyone who resists will be labelled as a terrorist, or worse. That will turn that fearful majority against those who would stand up for their rights.

I wish someone could make me believe that my predictions are totally baseless, but I've studied far too much history not to think the way I am thinking.

Well, yes.

But, I think Rand was referring to government "droning" select citizens. I would be expecting next the murder of someone who could plausibly (based on slim evidence) be labelled a terrorist. Its the natural next step for usurpation. Kill a couple citizens overseas who were labelled terrorists by the government, then drone a few on US soil.

Then ratchet up the rhetoric and expand your list of killable people.

If history is any guide, the event that will really mark the turn is when the politicians start going after each other in the courts. When a politician here and there is tried by by charges brought by political enemies. Ancient Rome supplies the examples. The elites and politicians were plenty willing to oppress the common man with selfish legislation and policy--the decay of the Republic was already well under way by this point. But, things didn't really get hairy until some politicians were looking out for their own ambitions to the point they disregarded what little was left of the Roman constitution and started arranging charges and trial of political enemies. This was the final period of disregard for the constitution that ultimately led to the tyranny of the emporers. Of course, now that government has a well-trained, covert intelligence arm, we might also see a few unexplained disappearances or deaths of polticians.
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I don't get all this "citizen" crap. Whether or not someone gets droned is neither justified nor outlawed by their citizenship. Constitutional rights are protected for "People," not just for "citizens."

Citizens have some privileges that non-citizens do not (for example, voting), but rights to life, Liberty, due process, privacy, etc. belong to all People.

That being said, it also works both ways. If a non-citizen can be targeted by a drone lawfully, then so can a citizen if all other circumstances are the same.

If a citizen becomes an enemy combatant, then the military is justified in making them a military target. Law enforcement may have an interest in the person also, but if the military gets there first...

I don't trust anyone in the Obama administration to make these decisions correctly. But the American People (stupidly, IMO) vested them with these powers. God help us.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 
Top