Print 82 comment(s) - last by thurston2.. on Mar 9 at 1:18 PM

Holder argues Congressional authorization is unnecessary to kill Americans, Executive Branch can do what it wants

President Barack Obama's (D) Attorney General, Eric Holder, dropped a bombshell this week, revealing [PDF] that he did consider it acceptable to kill Americans with drone deathstrikes on U.S. soil, but only under "extraordinary" circumstances.  

I. A Time to Kill?

He says that such plots had never been performed in the homeland to date.  But several Americans have reportedly been killed with drone strikes in the Middle East during the Obama regime was elected into power in 2008.

AG Holder's comments came in response to Sen. Rand Paul (R-Tenn.).   Sen. Paul had promised to stall the nomination of John Brennan to become director of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency.  Mr. Brennan is a controversial figure who helped mastermind the program of drone deathstrikes and "enhanced interrogation" (torture) programs in the Middle East.

Eric Holder
AG Eric Holder told Sen. Rand Paul that "hypothetically" drone strikes could be used on U.S. soil to kill Americans. [Image Source: AP]

In his letter to Sen. Paul, seeking to clarify when drone strikes would be allowed, AG Holder writes:

The question you posed is.... 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 goes on to point to Pearl Harbor and the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001 as examples of the kinds of threats that might require Americans to be ordered killed by the President.

II. Armed and Ready, Flying Over Your Backyard

Since the middle of the last decade, military-grade drones have been flying over U.S. states, ostensibly for use in countering drug trafficking and other forms of crime.  Of late, some of these drones have been reportedly armed.

Reaper drones
Reaper drones are currently being used over U.S. airspace. [Image Source: The Real Revo]

There are currently no formal laws passed by Congress governing whom and be killed and when – if the President's premise that death strikes on Americans does not violate Constitutional due process holds true.  Further, such strikes appear entirely at the discretion of the President, the military, and the national intelligence agencies -- Congress is not in the loop.

That seems rather curious.  The Constitution is unequivocal in that Congress alone has the power to authorize the use of deadly military force.  Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, the foundation of the U.S. government, clearly grants Congress the power:

U.S. Constitution
[Image Source: EL Civics]

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

However, according to President Obama and his staff's logic, that power has now been transferred to the executive branch, and what's more, it can be used to kill Americans without a trial on U.S. soil.

Obama upset
The Obama administration argues sometimes American citizens may need to be killed without due process, both abroad and at home. [Image Source: Matt Ortega/Flickr]

The Obama adminstration executed a similar privilege overseas at least once -- ordering a drone strike that killed suspected al-Qaeda terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki, who happened to also be a New Mexico-born U.S. citizen.  Other Americans were also killed in other drone strikes, but it is unclear whether those killings were ordered or mere inadvertent attrition.

III. Some Upset About Obama's New Power to Kill Americans

Sen. Paul was not happy with the Obama administration's plan to grant itself the power to kill, and to cut Congress out of the loop.  He comments, "The U.S. attorney general's refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening. It is an affront to the constitutional due process rights of all Americans."

Predator missile
Some in the Senate feel the President shouldn't have the power to order the killings of Americans on U.S. soil. [Image Source: Drone Wars UK]

But some of his colleagues weren't so harsh.  Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.) praised the President's decision to hand over memos detailing when drone strikes were allowable.

The Obama administration had previously asked its press secretaries to lie about the existence of the memos, claiming they didn't exist.  In light of the disclosure, the Senators say in a joint statement, "We are pleased that we now have the access that we have long sought and need to conduct the vigilant oversight with which the committee has been charged. We believe that this sets an important precedent for applying our American system of checks and balances to the challenges of 21st century warfare. We look forward to reviewing and discussing these documents in the days ahead."

The Senate now moves on to debate Mr. Brennan's confirmation, following his confirmation by the Senate Intelligence Committee.  There will likely be lively debate from Sen. Paul, et al., during Mr. Brennan's confirmation hearing before the full Senate.

The debate brings to mind the words of George Orwell in an essay on wartime Britain, who wrote, "As I write, highly civilized human beings are flying overhead, trying to kill me."

Sources: Sen. Rand Paul [PDF], [Press Release], Sen. Wyden, et al.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Can Someone Explain?
By Spookster on 3/6/2013 1:25:22 PM , Rating: 2
Although I didn't vote for Obama and don't like him this is just sensationalism as you stated. You could pose the same question to any of the previous presidential administrations and have gotten or would get the same response that they would use the US military to defend against any terroristic threat that occurs within our own borders. And the fact that they are using drones in this article is silly. You can replace the word "drone" with any other aircraft or weapon system in the US arsenal and get the same response to this question. It just happens that drones are the media buzzword of the year so they are required to use it to meet their quota of using buzzwords that stir up controversy. If they had said the US is going to use F-15 strikes on US soil everybody would be like, mmm ok whatever but when you use the word drone everybody is like "oh my gosh it's so much scarier it's a drone. Eek."

RE: Can Someone Explain?
By TSS on 3/6/2013 8:36:43 PM , Rating: 1
Any of the previous administrations didn't sign a bill into law that authorizes the infinite detention of american civilians without trial on american soil. Nor try and justify such a thing by "well i won't use it", or (succesfully) defend it in the courts. Obama did all these things.

And yes, a drone is definitly scarier. The operator, if any because these things are moving closer and closer to automation, is further removed from the actual killing then ever before. When you're talking a F15 you're talking a highly trained, highly intelligent individual having to come to terms then to decide to fire on american citizens. You don't need all that to fly an quadrocopter with a cam.

The legislation carries as much for quadrocopters with a handgun as for predator drones carrying missiles. I'd hardly think they'd use this legisation to just blow a house up outright, otherwise it'd be done with fighter jets already. And police forces in the US have jumped on surveilance drones as much as civilians have.

Then there's the administration, both this and the previous's spotty record and defining exactly who's a terrorist and who's not. Or have we collectively forgotten those airport terrorist watchlists with old grandma's and young children on it?

Look, obviously the administration isn't picking people off the streets to dissapear forever in some dungeon somewhere. But the legislation they are passing or trying to pass is pointing very clearly towards that direction instead of the opposite one. You better speak up and think about this now while everything is still relatively peachy.

Because what will the administration decide when the economy *really* tanks because of hyperinflation? They will get lynched first chance the people get so they will defend themselves. Anybody who's a threat to the regime will become a "terrorist" and suddenly, there's already a framework in place to kill whoever they want.

And hyperinflation *is* going to happen. To the tune where even mainstream propaganda channels are already talking about it:

Mind you that's the same site that 2 articles later claims house prices are "finally back to normal".

Think up and think hard. This couldn't even be a possibility 20 years ago. It was conspiracy theory talk, those who belived it where nuts. The fact that it's moved from the realm of impossible to reasonably likely, should worry you and everybody enough to do something about it.

RE: Can Someone Explain?
By MadMan007 on 3/6/2013 8:49:34 PM , Rating: 2
Haha, that article! I saw it repeated on another site. They couldn't have started with a worse example of 'middle class' though
...considering her husband's 112-mile daily round-trip commute to his job as a pharmacist
A pharmacist's salary alone puts a household firmly above 'middle class'.

Not that I disagree with the rest of the article, but it's more about the increasingly unequal distribution of income (note *increasingly*) than it is about inflation. The 'rising tides raise all ships' that people have been fed is a lie and it blows my mind when people defend the very practices and policies that are hurting them.

RE: Can Someone Explain?
By thurston2 on 3/7/2013 9:35:04 PM , Rating: 2
As Stephen Colbert said 'rising tides raise all ships' as long as you have enough money to buy a ship.

RE: Can Someone Explain?
By Spookster on 3/7/2013 12:30:14 PM , Rating: 2
Do you use the heavy duty aluminum foil or just double wrap with regular?

"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." -- Sony BMG attorney Jennifer Pariser

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Laptop or Tablet - Which Do You Prefer?
September 20, 2016, 6:32 AM
Update: Samsung Exchange Program Now in Progress
September 20, 2016, 5:30 AM
Smartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki