DHS target's
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 ...
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.
DHS target's
What about drone SURVEILLANCE WITHOUT A WARRANT? That’s unconstitutional as well.
Don’t forget...... Bubba did it with grenades and fire.
The dyke gave the order to kill Americans at Waco
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.
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.).
And yet, he couldn't bring himself to order lethal force in Benghazi...
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.
They have to come out of them sooner or later.
He only orders lethal force against his enemies.
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?
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.
“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.
Obviously you believe your definition of “extraordinary circumstance” is the same as their definition of “extraordinary circumstance”.
What’s his take on Vicky Weaver? Was she part of a Pearl Harbor event? Cause she sure is dead now.
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/
You don't seem to understand.
That means he plans on doing so.
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?
No.
But if a RAT told you that, you better start watching the obituaries.
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.