>>>And the source of your “understanding” is what exactly —— thin air?
Uh, no, it was the letter Holder sent to senator Paul:
Dear Senator Paul,
On February 20, 2013, you write to John Brennan requesting additional information concerning the administration’s views about whether “the President has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil,
and without trial.”
As members of this Administration have previously indicated, the US government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and have no intention of doing so. As a policy matter, moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat. We have a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad. Hundreds of individual have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts.
The question you have posed is entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur and 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. For example, the president could conceivably 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 Dec. 7, 1941 and Sept. 11, 2001.
***Were such an emergency to arise, I would examine the particular facts and
circumstances before advising the President on the scope of his authority.***
Sincerely,
Eric Holder,
Attorney General
[See last paragraph of letter.
And apologies, House Atreides, if your post was an unsuccessful attempt at an intelligent reply. I had presumed — incorrectly — that you had some abilities in that regard.]
GoodDay, the letter under instant discussion in the posting to which you directed your comment (to which, in turn, I commented—apparently in a manner that upset you) was the “Thursday letter”. The “Thursday letter” is, character by character, as follows:
*************
The Attorney General
Washington,D.C.
March 7, 2013
The Honorable Rand Paul
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Paul:
It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: “Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?” The answer to that question is no.
Sincerely,
Eric H. Holder, Jr.
********************************
And that “Thursday letter” was what I had in mind when I commented on your posting (specifically post # 170 in which YOU brought forward the words “Thursday” & “letter”, so a logical reader might well think that was the letter to which you were directing your comment). You’ve NOW posted an EARLIER letter which you’ve apparently confused with the Thursday letter. Clarity in thinking and writing is a virtue. Have a GoodDay.
And, by the way, I apologize for lacking your ability to successfully produce “an intelligent reply”.