Posted on 03/05/2013 2:35:12 PM PST by ColdOne
However, Holder says that in situations akin to the 1941 assault on Pearl Harbor or the September 11, 2001 attacks, the president might have to order the use of deadly force in the U.S.
"The question you have posed is entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no President will ever have to confront," Holder wrote. "It is possible, I supposed, 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 concievably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances of a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001."
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
(Cuss it all, do I HAVE to put in the /sarc tag?)
You do if you don’t want to be on “the list” as well.
“Uh...last I heard those two incidents were cases of U.S. citizens being attacked by an enemy. Exactly which Americans would 0bama order the military to shoot in these circumstances?”
Hypothetical question. Suppose an American Citizen had been one of the 911 terrorists and suppose that citizen was flying one of those airliners towards the World Trade Center. Exactly how would you propose stopping that aircraft without using lethal force against the American Citizen flying the aircraft (let alone all the American Citizen passengers)?
That was Jamie Gorelick. Holder came on board afterward. Same group of people though. Same type.
Yup! And it’s funny how them ricochets happen.
No immediate intent, but future intent, for sure.
This is impeachable. This is a crime against the Constitution and the Republic. The appropriate response to this statement is one for which I could get arrested or become the target of a drone strike.
It was also used during the anti-war and race riots of around 40 years ago. Every company called to clear a riot had a designated marksman.
You're against using troops to defend an attack on american soil? BTW, this has already been done, i.e. the Civil War.
Your question is sound - one couldn't. Mind you, blowing away an airliner full of hostages in order to prevent potential damage at the other end would not be a choice I'd care to make.
I think, though, that Holder was being highly disingenuous by referring to those incidents. The question was clearly focusing on the sort of drone attack used so often in Afghanistan and elsewhere. I hope I'm not being entirely paranoid by reading Holder's answer as "In an emergency the President can blow away anyone he likes."
Yes, and you conveniently left out Waco and Ruby Ridge, Conrade. (TROLL)
“Uh...last I heard those two incidents were cases of U.S. citizens being attacked by an enemy. Exactly which Americans would 0bama order the military to shoot in these circumstances?”
FDR incarcerated Americans of Japanese descent after Pearl Harbor. After Iran strikes, the Bummer could authorize a drone strike on Dearborn...Oh, wait, the Muzzies there are his own people...
He’s definitely keeping his options open.
Been there, done that...
There are many instances where the Feds/States have used Military forces to"quell" "insurrection"...
Most of them are in the early years of the Republic but it happens and its totally against the Constitution but hey When you are the guys in charge you tend to do what you damn well please if you think you can get away with it. And when the Media is running interference for the guys in charge there is little hope of stopping them.
If an airliner is taken over again and headed for a skyscraper, I certainly hope the President will authorize military force to protect American citizens on the ground.
And I don’t really care whether those who took over the airliner are American citizens or not.
bkmk
An aspect of the 2A that is often overlooked is how formidable a force an armed citizenry is. We’re all guessing, but let’s say 300M guns and 10’s of billions of rounds of ammunition all hiding behind any door. An invading (or DHS) force would find it impossible to even get a line formed and supplies flowing.
That alone should prevent the scenario described here, provided they leave us be.
Yup Ruby Ridge was the same deal. They tried to railroad the guy over a shotgun which they claimed was 3/4 of inch too short (not the barrel but the overall length of the weapon) which meant he owed a 200 dollar tax on it (the gun was valued under 100 dollars) they tried to use this as leverage to make him spy on a group of skinheads. He refused and things escalated to the point his 14 year old son and the Boy's Mother were shot to death by Federal Goons running around in secret on his property in clear violation of his Constitutional Rights. No one in government responsible for that decision chain was every prosecuted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.