Atty Gen. Won`t Rule Out U.S. Drone Strikes [Pic+]

Submitted by: Squrlz4Sale 4 years ago in

Says ""it"s possible"" that U.S. citizens will be killed on U.S. soil by drones without a trial. Concerned yet?
There are 37 comments:
Male 15,832
John McCain is a dickhole.
0
Reply
Male 884
That would be the same Senator McCain who was dining with Obama while Rand Paul was doing his job?

Incidentally, Paul fulfilled your wish, instead of getting congress to approve drone strikes, he got the executive branch to say they wouldn`t engage in them.
0
Reply
Male 5,010
"He did better than that, he got them to say No."

Hurray! He wasted a day and a half of time on something that Sen. John McCain called ridiculous. McCain is a Senator who will take every opportunity to slam President Obama so you know this is exceedingly ridiculous. That makes every supporter of this waste of time equally ridiculous.
0
Reply
Male 5,010
"All I can say is that I don`t think that what happened yesterday is helpful to the American people," Sen. John McCain (R), said on the Senate floor.

"Somehow to allege that the United States of America - our government - will drop a drone hellfire missile on Jane Fonda, that that brings the conversation from a serious discussion about U.S. policy to the realm of the ridiculous," Sen. John McCain (R)

"To my Republican colleagues, I don`t remember any of you coming down here suggesting that President Bush was going to kill anybody with a drone," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R). "They had a drone program back then. So what is it all of a sudden that this drone program has gotten every Republican so spun up? What are we up to here?"
0
Reply
Male 2,694
0
Reply
Male 884
He did better than that, he got them to say
"No"
0
Reply
Male 5,010
Hey Rand Paul instead of wasting the Senates time with a 13 hour filibuster why don`t you introduce a bill that would require any drone air strikes on American soil to be approved by congress. You found a problem that, as ridiculous an idea it is, should be fixed. So fix it. That is your job. Or is this just for posturing?
0
Reply
Male 884
I see, just like they only use The Patriot Act in those kind of cases.
0
Reply
Male 5,010
"I watched the Holder video. Contrary to what you are saying, he would not state that it was out of the realm of possibility for the government to ASSASSINATE a US citizen without trial."

Holder gave a very level headed response in his letter, "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, 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."
0
Reply
Male 5,010
"I watched the Holder video. Contrary to what you are saying, he would not state that it was out of the realm of possibility for the government to ASSASSINATE a US citizen without trial. No matter what kind of spin you put on it, this is wrong."

Everything they are talking about here is from Holder`s letter in response back to Rand. I gave a link to the letter and I showed the progression of how they made Holder`s quote of Rand`s to seam like Holder said it. How is that spin on my part? And where`s your link? For all I know you could have watched some kind of out of context Brietbart video.
0
Reply
Male 1,866
Any other guesses why they want to take our guns?
0
Reply
Male 573
The executive branch killing Americans on American soil without a trial or due process is just disgusting.
0
Reply
Male 71
markust123

I watched the Holder video. Contrary to what you are saying, he would not state that it was out of the realm of possibility for the government to ASSASSINATE a US citizen without trial. No matter what kind of spin you put on it, this is wrong.
0
Reply
Male 5,010
"I`ve seen time and again something being introduced as one thing, and play out entirely differently. Precedent setting measures are introduced innocuously and are then very powerful where they cannot be undone."

Completely agree but we`re talking about something here that would bring such a sh*tstorm down on any President who attempted it that it is not based in reality. The public backlash would be swift and more severe than the strike itself. This is something that would bring on the demand from the whole nation for the immediate resignation of the President. It would never happen under any US President. The idea is ridiculous.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
Can you even IMAGINE if Alberto Gonzales had said this?
0
Reply
Male 1,745
Markust I hope you`re right but write down your thoughts here and read them again in a few decades. I`ve seen time and again something being introduced as one thing, and play out entirely differently. Precedent setting measures are introduced innocuously and are then very powerful where they cannot be undone.
0
Reply
Male 5,010
Eric Holder`s opening of his response to Rand Paul, "On February 20, 2013, you wrote to John Brennan requesting additional information concerning the Administration`s views about "whether the President has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial.""

Then the CNN blog twists Holder repeating Rand Paul`s question to make it sound like Holder said it, "Attorney General Eric Holder Tuesday stopped short of entirely ruling out a drone strike against an American citizen on U.S. soil without trial."

And then whoever came up with the tag line here twists it even further, "Atty Gen. Won`t Rule Out U.S. Drone Strikes. Says `it`s possible` that U.S. citizens will be killed on U.S. soil by drones without a trial. Concerned yet?"

Concerned yes. Concerned that people believe all this crap.
0
Reply
Male 5,010
Here`s Mr. Holder`s example of this hypothetical situation happening - if we are attacked on our own soil, "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, 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."
0
Reply
Male 5,010
Not once in Eric Holder`s letter does he state that it`s possible that U.S. citizens will be killed on U.S. soil by drones without a trial. Another example of the media leading the blind into an opinion with the power of suggestion.
0
Reply
Male 1,745
Tyranny is the default unless it is stopped. But tyrants realized if you do it quickly, folks stand up. Nowadays this stuff rolls in slowly, over generations, so by the time you realize poos really different, you`re too old or soon dead. The new generation is raised to the new reality. This will first happen in some kind of "justified" scenario, like a Christopher Dorner. But eventually any opposition to the tyranny will be eliminated.
0
Reply
Male 15,261
Collateral damage is going to be fun. Imagine calling in a hoax and Homeland drones-strikes the whole neighborhood like they do in Pakistan.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
People should be a little more concerned about the precedent this sets. If you can do it within America, to an American, when he`s not an imminent threat, this is an erosion of the constitution. The idea that they could, for example, identify a drug lord and blow him up as he pulls out of his driveway is not good development.
0
Reply
Female 6,381
Thissuz dumb. The CIA cannot legally conduct operations within the US. If loony American (or Canadian or English) Muslims decide to go to the middle east and make bombs or whatever, I don`t care if they get "droned."
The far bigger issue is all the innocent civilians being blown up by some guy sitting on a comfy chair and sipping a Coke in an air-conditioned trailer.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@markust123

Now who gave him executive privilege again??
0
Reply
Male 1,497
I for one think it would be fun if they responded, "what about zombies?"
0
Reply
Male 5,010
"Like those people who dug up Operation Fast and Furious just to embarrass the administration."

Really, your going to bring up this again? The program spanned two Administrations. Operation Fast and Furious was part II of a horrible idea that both sides share fault. But why let the truth get in the way of a partisan attack. This kind of crap is the exact reason why congress can`t work together.
0
Reply
Male 5,010
Hurray! CNN is getting into the Fox News/MSNBC sensational news game. Say goodbye to the Standards of Journalism and hello to ratings.
0
Reply
Male 884
Like those people who dug up Operation Fast and Furious just to embarrass the administration.
0
Reply
Male 2,694
Eric Holder had to pinned to the floor to finally admit that if a citizen posed no imminent danger then "NO, use of a drone attack would not be appropriate".

Sorry if I find it unnerving that the AG of the country can`t just answer a simple question about the constitutionality of a certain act.
0
Reply
Male 2,376
they`ve already killed 2 americans for talking with the "wrong ppl". one was only 16. what makes you think they will stop there?
0
Reply
Male 6,227

@CaptKangaroo: You expressed my thoughts perfectly. Thanks.

In a saner world, the executive branch and the AG would have stated the targeting of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil for remote-controlled assassination without trial is not, and never will be, on the table for consideration--if nothing else, as a gesture of respect to the U.S. constitution and the rule of law.
0
Reply
Male 3,908
@Gerry1of1 - My thoughts exactly.

I had this conversation with a few people last night. The way the story is presented, once again, is the media attempting to create mass hysteria & paranoia like they`ve been doing with all this misleading "assault weapon" talk.

All he`s saying is that if a situation arose where a UAV could be used to prevent an attack carried out by an American on American soil it could be used.
0
Reply
Male 3,208
So, this point get`s conceded, then the debate to clarify who qualifies to be targeted, how they qualify, who makes the determination, who gets to administer the program, who gets to give the fire order- you know congress isn`t going to let any president have all the fun.
To go with all this, new laws will be debated and legislated to force citizen`s to accept, comply and conform to the new laws regarding these new losses of liberties and rights.
Our government- like any other- has this belief that they rule, instead of govern, and any challenge- no matter how peaceful- to this disbelief is met with violence. If that violence is returned, one is- at best- branded a criminal, at worst- and far more common these days- a terrorist.
McCarthy- our little Hitler who never was- would have eaten this stuff up.
0
Reply
Male 39,908

So? This was a "what if" scenario by the president`s parties opposition. Clearly just some new digging to embarrass the administration to help insure a Republican victory in 2016. Or to just stall yet another nominee of Obamas. The Atty General just took the safe road and "never say never".

Nothing to see. Move along.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
0
Reply
Male 6,227
Link: Atty Gen. Won`t Rule Out U.S. Drone Strikes [Pic+] [Rate Link] - Says ``it`s possible`` that U.S. citizens will be killed on U.S. soil by drones without a trial. Concerned yet?
0
Reply