{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
originally posted in:Secular Sevens
3/6/2013 1:15:59 AM
19
Eric Holder: Drone Strike To Kill U.S. Citizen On American Soil Legal, Hypothetically
[quote]WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration believes it could technically use military force to kill an American on U.S. soil in an "extraordinary circumstance" but has "no intention of doing so," U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said in a letter disclosed Tuesday.[/quote]So, according to the Attorney General, the President of the United States of America believes he has the authority to disregard the Constitution, the supreme law of the land which he is sworn to uphold, and violate the inalienable rights of American citizens. He thinks that the checks placed around his branch of government are irrelevant and that it should the the Executive, not the Judiciary, branch that interprets the law and condemns American citizens to death without a fair trial.
I'm sure this speaks for itself. It is disgusting, it is scary, and this man, Barack Obama, should not be in the office of the most powerful position on Earth. Isn't this essentially the precursor to fascism and militarized law enforcement? It's an absolute disregard for the rule of law and the idea of a limited government with a separation of powers.
-
-
16 Replies[quote] I'm sure this speaks for itself. It is disgusting, it is scary, and this man, Barack Obama, should not be in the office of the most powerful position on Earth. Isn't this essentially the precursor to fascism and militarized law enforcement? It's an absolute disregard for the rule of law and the idea of a limited government with a separation of powers.[/quote] Wait, so if the government kills someone who is attacking them, then it's fascism and militarized law enforcement?
-
It's happening.
-
3 RepliesWell when [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Heemeyer#Rampage]this[/url] happened they were considering calling an airstrike on it. If something completely crazy happens it could be necessary. I highly doubt they'd just blow up random citizens.
-
1 ReplyWhen will people understand what "Clear and Present Danger" means?
-
1 ReplyI'm pretty sure Obama is the one that represents the Obama administration, not the U.S. Attorney General.
-
So is this just in case people start a coup? Or are they going to do something really upsetting next that no one will like and this is to keep people down? Just speculating
-
3 Replieslol 'murica
-
'murica, the only country that has enough hypocrisy to gun down it's own citizens with drones without any trial and after that say how free and equal they are. What a joke.
-
The problem I have with this is that they define the strikes as only being pursued under "extreme circumstances", yet vaguely define what these circumstance would be.
-
But he said he wouldn't do it! He pinky swore!
-
Edited by Seggi: 3/6/2013 7:18:24 AMSurely the police already have the authority to incapacitate people, despite a significant possibility of killing them, should straight-forward attempts to arrest somebody put the arresting officers or innocent people at a significant risk; all this does is bring that to a military scale. If it were my country, and there was a choice between risking the lives of dedicated police officers or soldiers and, essentially, summarily executing people who are open threats to national security, I'd much prefer the latter.
-
6 RepliesHow could they have no intention of doing so if they've thought of it? Maybe they have no plans of killing individuals at the present time. How about we just let the police handle domestic disputes, they do a pretty good job at that. There is no point in giving people anxiety that the military is going to bomb them.
-
5 RepliesThe problem isn't drones. You could replace that with something else. The circumstance placed within the hypothetical would be like a group of U.S. citizens forming a violent or terrorist organization within the U.S. and launching a large scale attacks against the U.S. government and its people (maybe like the IRA but bigger). In that situation, I believe the U.S. government can and should have the authority to use immediate lethal action, whether it be drones or troops. In my mind it's no different than the police using force against an armed man. In no way does it suggest flying 200 drones over suburbs launching predator missiles to every other playground.
-
2 RepliesYeah I'm really doubting the constitutionality of this.
-
What a silly thread.
-
1 ReplyWhat Mad Max said.
-
5 RepliesDid you even read the article you posted? [quote]"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," Holder wrote. "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," Holder continued, referring to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Holder said he would "examine the particular facts and circumstances" if such an emergency were to arise[/quote]
-
10 RepliesI'm not too up to date on constitutional law, but I don't recall there to be any mention of drone strikes.
