Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Holder: Obama could order lethal force in U.S.
Politico44 A Living Diary of the Obama Presidenc ^ | 3/5/13 | JOSH GERSTEIN

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist; cnsf; cw2; dhs; doj; drones; efad; ericholder; guncontrol; holder; murder; possecomitatus; randpaul; secondamendment; shtf; styg
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-119 last
To: itssme

Looks like O-Bozo’s getting ready to play Cowboys and Communists.

On another bent, Alexander with a force of 50,000 men beat ten times as many Persian’s and took over their empire with a fraction of the fancy high tech military gear.

There is a lot of effect in integrity and honor in war, something O-Bozo got a severe lack of.


101 posted on 03/06/2013 2:07:36 PM PST by American in Israel (A wise man's heart directs him to the right, but the foolish mans heart directs him toward the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: DugwayDuke
Dont think that will hold up in court, had to murder them for the sake of the children. It was a difficult choice.

DHS target's


102 posted on 03/06/2013 2:23:41 PM PST by American in Israel (A wise man's heart directs him to the right, but the foolish mans heart directs him toward the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Girlene

What about drone SURVEILLANCE WITHOUT A WARRANT? That’s unconstitutional as well.


103 posted on 03/06/2013 5:05:13 PM PST by Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America (PRISON AT BENGHAZI?????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

Don’t forget...... Bubba did it with grenades and fire.

The dyke gave the order to kill Americans at Waco


104 posted on 03/06/2013 5:08:41 PM PST by bert ((K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 .....The fairest Deduction to be reduced is the Standard Deduction)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring

Drones are irrelevant. The question is whether there are circumstance where the military could use lethal force against an American Citizen. And, the answer is of course there are.


105 posted on 03/06/2013 6:07:45 PM PST by DugwayDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: jeffc
Trial balloon. Testing the waters. Watching the responses.

That's been a hallmark of the regime.

I also think they like to actively cultivate a response. Could also serve as psyops against their enemies (bitter clingers, tea partiers, etc.).

106 posted on 03/06/2013 7:58:11 PM PST by SIDENET
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

Holder: Obama could order lethal force in U.S.

And yet, he couldn't bring himself to order lethal force in Benghazi...

107 posted on 03/06/2013 10:46:05 PM PST by piasa (Attitude adjustments offered here free of charge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DugwayDuke

The Constitution gives Congress the power to call out the militia to suppress insurrections, not the President.

Doing so, however, would be an acknowledgement that a Civil War was in progress, and be likely to provoke a reciprocal response.


108 posted on 03/07/2013 7:15:18 AM PST by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America
"That’s what the DHS’ 2,700 Special Response Team (SRT) troop carriers are for."

They have to come out of them sooner or later.

109 posted on 03/07/2013 9:10:56 AM PST by pigsmith (Now I understand why America is not mentioned in the end times.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: piasa

He only orders lethal force against his enemies.


110 posted on 03/07/2013 9:25:34 AM PST by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring

The Constitutional also makes the President Commander in Chief. As such, he is responsible for defending the United States.

Consider an American Citizen flying an airliner inbound towards the White House who proclaims his intent to crash that airliner into that building. Do you believe the President could order that airliner shot down?


111 posted on 03/07/2013 3:02:24 PM PST by DugwayDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: DugwayDuke

You’re being obstinate - of course he can respond to an imminent threat, just like I personally can respond with deadly force to a deadly threat to me or anyone else.

The administration’s claim is that they can drone Americans on American soil, who do not at the time pose any imminent threat to anyone, without trial.


112 posted on 03/07/2013 6:07:26 PM PST by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring

“The administration’s claim is that they can drone Americans on American soil, who do not at the time pose any imminent threat to anyone, without trial.”

Not true. The administration (Holder) said; 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.

That is not the same thing you claimed.


113 posted on 03/08/2013 4:57:50 AM PST by DugwayDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: DugwayDuke

Obviously you believe your definition of “extraordinary circumstance” is the same as their definition of “extraordinary circumstance”.


114 posted on 03/08/2013 5:09:33 AM PST by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

What’s his take on Vicky Weaver? Was she part of a Pearl Harbor event? Cause she sure is dead now.


115 posted on 03/08/2013 5:13:43 AM PST by Sirius Lee (All that is required for evil to advance is for government to do "something")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring

I believe that there are “extraordinary circumstances” where the federal government can use lethal force against an American citizen whether that citizen is within or outside of the US.

I gave an example that no one has been able to refute until and unless you can disprove my example, my point stands. It doesn’t matter if the lethal force involves a drone or some other form of lethal force.

Also, as an aside, I believe Rand Paul to be only slightly more sane than his father. Rand Paul created a straw man argument where he made false claims about the position of the US Government.

Perhaps you might want to read this article:

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/03/has-rand-paul-not-seen-red-dawn/


116 posted on 03/08/2013 5:26:32 AM PST by DugwayDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: DugwayDuke
has “no intention of doing so,” U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder

You don't seem to understand.

That means he plans on doing so.

117 posted on 03/08/2013 5:31:15 AM PST by ROCKLOBSTER (Hey RATS! Control your murdering freaks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER

So, if you told me that you had “no intention of jumping off a bridge this afternoon”, I should ‘understand’ you plan on doing so?


118 posted on 03/08/2013 6:00:38 AM PST by DugwayDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: DugwayDuke

No.

But if a RAT told you that, you better start watching the obituaries.


119 posted on 03/09/2013 6:17:59 AM PST by ROCKLOBSTER (Hey RATS! Control your murdering freaks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-119 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson