Eric Holder has lost his mind

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by kygator

Hypothetical scenario:

Five years from now, we have another president. Multiple planes have been hijacked and are being crashed into buildings, packed football stadiums, etc. Should the POTUS have the legal authority to use the military to shoot down remaining hijacked planes? If not, what should be done to stop them?

The military was looking for them in 2001. The jets just didn't get there in time. Seems like I read at the time that there was going to be an order to intercept and engage if they could have found them.

Tough stuff.

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by G8trGr8t

An airline pilot just reported that he saw a drone on his approach to JFK. Combine this with the MRAP and munitions purchases and it really makes you wonder.

How long before Holder authorizes Obama to use the military against us citizens without due diligence. Why isn't the House moving to impeach Holder and have him removed from office?

What say ye libs...should Obama be able to kill us citizens with drones on us soil without due diligence? Where are you going to take a stand to protect the constitutional rights that our forefathers died for?

Saw a news blurb on this tonight, CBS, I think, showing drones similar to the one described by the Italian pilot, which are available to the public and can reach an altitude of one mile. They can hover for extended periods of time, and of course can be fitted with GPS, cameras, infrared devices, etc.

Hey terrorists, can you dig it ?

[jdrgator]

Originally Posted by HALLGATOR

As one who did not like the Patriot Act at all this is the kind of thing which should give all of us pause. He may be within the framework of the constitution if the need to use it arises but that doesn't necessarily translate into good sense or sound judgment. With respect to Holder's response to Paul, I learned a long time ago that the best thing to say on some occasions is absolutely nothing.

I think the USAPA is bad policy and hated it too, but I am glad the letter was made public. We need a robust discussion about it, without which the public is left speculating while the government can then hide behind a facade of secrecy. But really, this is not about the USAPA at all. It's much bigger, yet simple to me.

I think what needs to happen is a much clearer policy for drones covering both lethal force situations and non-lethal/surveillance situations, basically due process in all its forms, because we all know we are way behind the tech on this. Having a public debate can force this to happen since as kygator and northcaptiva posit two situations which would call into question reflexive claims of unconstitutionality.

[tegator80]

Originally Posted by RealGatorFan

The Patriot Act is nothing more than the act that Hitler instituted when he took over. Notice how country is replaced with homeland? I'm expecting one of them to screw up and blurt out Motherland.

Remember it was Bush's bill. And as I have inferred in several posts, it wouldn't surprise me that the "left" and "right" are playing on the same team (Megaworld-Corp?) and that "we the people" are being caught in a pincer move. And if we are, it is pretty much over.

[g8trjax]

Go man on the street, and 75% have no idea what a drone is. Very few will care.

[gator85jd]

Originally Posted by g8trjax

Go man on the street, and 75% have no idea what a drone is. Very few will care.

As long as they continue getting their free money and stuff from the government, you're right, they're not going to care. See -- obama phones do serve a useful purpose. Continue to placate the masses.

[wargunfan]

It is one thing to posit the use of a drone to stop a terrorist from firing an RPG at the White House. I want to know how we react to the President declaring a citizen on US soil an enemy combatant and using a drone to take his house out with him and his family in it. It sounds like AG Holder is saying the President has that authority. That gives the President the power of life and death over the populace without due process and sounds very unconstitutional.

[pecks]

As the Japanese Admiral in WW2 famously said "you cannot invade America because there will be a gun behind every blade of grass." Thanks to our dear leader Obama, there are now three guns behind every blade of grass. They (the powers that be in Washington DC) best be on their toes gentlemen. The rumble is turning into a roar!!

[geauxgator1]

Obama has been a godsend for the arms manufacturers and dealers. Talk about unintended consequences. The irony is should I say it... "delicious"

[jdrgator]

Originally Posted by wargunfan

It is one thing to posit the use of a drone to stop a terrorist from firing an RPG at the White House. I want to know how we react to the President declaring a citizen on US soil an enemy combatant and using a drone to take his house out with him and his family in it. It sounds like AG Holder is saying the President has that authority. That gives the President the power of life and death over the populace without due process and sounds very unconstitutional.

That is why a robust debate and legal structure needs to be created. We've been living and operating in the wake of 9/11 still, under a terrible piece of legislation (USAPA) in which these types of issues could conceivably become manifest.

Personally, if we all have a right to defend ourselves against grave danger, as do the police, then I don't see why the president wouldn't as well should that danger be of a large magnitude like an imminent terrorist attack.

On the other hand, no way, no how should this ever be expanded out to a simple declaration of "enemy combatant" in which that person is then summarily executed when no one is in immediate danger. Though I have no problem with drones overseas. And if you are an American and you are fighting against the US overseas, well, tough luck. You made that choice.

I am also concerned about the use of drones--maybe even much more concerned given the widespread, constant implications in the use of surveillance. That is a police state, maybe even more so than the former issue.

[HALLGATOR]

I think we are moving into uncharted territory here and how it is handled will have strong implications for the future. I'm not one to see many boogy men but this and other considerations in the use of drones worries me.

[jdrgator]

Originally Posted by HALLGATOR

I think we are moving into uncharted territory here and how it is handled will have strong implications for the future. I'm not one to see many boogy men but this and other considerations in the use of drones worries me.

Actually, we've been in uncharted territory for quite awhile. Let's not forget the torture memos etc..., which is not wholly distinct from this issue. I for one am glad Rand brought it up. The discussion needs to happen, and really, it's beyond even just drones. It's technology writ large, particularly in surveillance.

The SCOTUS pushed back just recently, thankfully, on a few issues recently such as police using GPS to track people without a warrant or for long period of time.

[madgator]

If Obama ever uses a drone strike against a US citizen he should immediately be arrested and tried for not only murder and civil rights violations but also treason for violating his oath of office.


he is the people's representative. he is supposed to be a guarantor of the bill of rights. our government is founded upon being of the people, for the people, by the people.


let's hope this all ends up being hypothetical discussion




but at the same time, I would be curious to see (if something did happen) how the democrats and obama-ites would respond

[jdrgator]

Originally Posted by madgator

If Obama ever uses a drone strike against a US citizen he should immediately be arrested and tried for not only murder and civil rights violations but also treason for violating his oath of office.


he is the people's representative. he is supposed to be a guarantor of the bill of rights. our government is founded upon being of the people, for the people, by the people.


let's hope this all ends up being hypothetical discussion




but at the same time, I would be curious to see (if something did happen) how the democrats and obama-ites would respond

What if that person were trying to blow up the capitol?

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Originally Posted by NorthCaptivaGator

Guy aiming rocket launcher at White House, drone has him in sights, shoot or wait for trial?

What is all the fuss about?

This isn't really analogous. The police have the same right when there is imminent danger to other human lives. That doesn't mean a guy with a shotgun who's at home typing on a computer, or a man with a murder plot shopping at the grocery store.

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by jdrgator

Setting aside my reflexive visceral response, is this really all that different from police using deadly force when there is a life at stake, whether their own or some civilian? What about what happened on 9/11; what would those jet fighters have done had they gotten to NY in time?

I am not saying that I agree with Holder, but it reads to me that he is positing a hypothetical in which it could be that such an extraordinary terrorist situation might make it necessary just as it happens when police are sometimes forced to use deadly force, or even when individual citizens is forced to use it. Besides, why would we give the power of deadly force to police or even any one of us in the name of protecting someone(s) from death or extreme harm but then not also give that power to the leader of the free world should such a situation come about? Does not the president have this power and responsibility to protect against all enemies "foreign and domestic?"

**Sorry kygator. Didn't see your earlier post when I asked a similar question. But the hypothetical you pose is actually really important to the discussion.

Exactly(**). I'm not really worried about this President using this "power," but someone 5, 10 or 20 years from now. It's a slippery slope that, IMO, needs to be addressed. I give Paul props for standing on his principals on this and I think he deserves the "clarity" on this issue that he's demanding.

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by jdrgator

What if that person were trying to blow up the capitol?

It seems rather implausible that we would find this person only at the moment prior to pushing the button and would have no other choice than having the President issue this kind of order. Not that hard, or time consuming, to get a court order to approve of such actions.

As for the RPG scenario, again there would seem to be more effective measures that are already in place. For instance, a sniper (which I would assume are in the area) seems more effective than scrambling a drone to shoot a guy standing on Pennsylvania Ave.

[kygator]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

This isn't really analogous. The police have the same right when there is imminent danger to other human lives. That doesn't mean a guy with a shotgun who's at home typing on a computer, or a man with a murder plot shopping at the grocery store.

I think we can all come up with scenarios, such as a guy at home on his computer, where it shouldn't be legal for the President to authorize a military strike on a US civilian. The question is whether there are extreme situations, such as a 911 scenario, where it would be legal. Situations where local or state authorities would not have the ability to stop the imminent danger. This is a discussion that needs to happen. Rand Paul asked the right question but it can't stop with just that question and Holder's answer.