Skip to comments.
REVEALED: HOLDER SAYS PRESIDENT COULD AUTHORIZE MILITARY DRONE STRIKES INSIDE U.S.
/www.theBlaze.com ^
| Mar. 5, 2013
| Billy Hallowell
Posted on 03/06/2013 8:56:26 AM PST by Yosemitest
REVEALED: HOLDER SAYS PRESIDENT COULD AUTHORIZE MILITARY DRONE STRIKES INSIDE U.S.
Mar. 5, 2013, by Billy Hallowell
This morning, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) told Glenn Becks radio team that he had some new information about the U.S. governments drone program information that some individuals might find troubling.
Later in the day, TheBlaze obtained letters that were sent to the senator by Attorney General Eric Holder and President Barack Obamas chief counter-terrorism adviser John Brennan.
It is select contents in Holders letter that citizens and political experts, alike, might find most problematic.
After Paul sent an inquiry to learn more about the governments drone program and to ask whetherthe 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,
he received a response that is sure to be scrutinized.
The senators inquiry was certainly specific, however the governments response was not so concise or at least not pointed enough to put critics like Paul at ease.
In a response dated March 4, 2013, Holder wrote that the U.S. governmenthas not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so.
The attorney general went on to note that federal officials believe that in areas where there is well-established law enforcement, these officials serve as the preferred mode of handling terrorist threats; military options inside U.S. borders are, thus, rejected.
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, the letter reads.
Hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts.
While this would likely set at ease anyone worried about the potential use of drones on U.S. land, Holder doesnt conclude there.
It is the next section of the letter that is the most contentious, as it leaves the door open for potential action in the event of large-scale terror attacks or other monumental disturbances.
The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no President will ever have to confront, the letter continues.
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.
Holder said that the president could be faced with such a situation (to authorize the military to use such force) if the need to protect the nation arose during an attack similar to Pearl Harbor or 9/11.
Were such an emergency to arise, I would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the President on the scope of his authority, he concludes.
View the document, below:
In a separate letter dated March 5, 2013, Brennan responded to Pauls request for the same information, taking a more conclusive stance one that affirmed that the CIA would not have the power to conduct attacks on American soil.
In his note, Brennan wrote that the Justice Department would respond to legal questions surrounding the presidents authority, but he made it clear that the agency he has been nominated to lead does not have the authority to conduct these drone attacks (the Senate Intelligence Committee voted this afternoon to approve Brennans nomination).
I can, however, state unequivocally that the agency I have been nominated to lead, the CIA, does not conduct lethal operations inside the United States not does it have any authority to do so, he wrote.
Thus, if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as CIA Director, I would have no power to authorize such operations.
Read Brennans letter to Paul in its entirety, below:
In the past, Brennan has been a staunch defender of drone strikes, as highlighted earlier today by TheBlaze. While he noted that they are used only as a last resort, he also said during his confirmation hearing that he had no qualms with the administrations decision to use the tactic against U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan.
Both of these men, killed in Yemen in Sept. 2011, were U.S. citizens.
Paul appeared this afternoon on Sean Hannitys radio show, where the congressman discussed the letters.
The two spoke candidly about Holders and Brennans responses to his questions.
He characterized the attorney generals answer as a maybe when asked about whether drone strikes would be acceptable on U.S. land.
In that letter, he refuses to rule out using drone stikes on Americans, on American soil, Paul told Hannity.
The reason this is troubling is that were not talking about someone holding a weapon, were not taking about someone with a grenade launcher.
Many of these drone strikes are against people who are walking and talking, sitting and eating or sleeping in their house.
Rather than attacking citizens who are suspected of terrorism or terror ties, Paul said that Americans need to be charged with something and get our day in court.
This is a breaking news story. Stay tuned for updates.
TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: citizen; drone; holder; kill
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-34 last
To: Yosemitest
Oh, he will still be alive and well. Only the good die young, My FRiend. and obama is far, fra, far from good. In fact, he would make Hillary seem to be a saint in comparison. The Clintons and their cohorts were crooks and a little bad. obama and his gang are pure unaldutrated evil.
21
posted on
03/06/2013 9:54:19 AM PST
by
sport
To: Yosemitest
I have a question for you, Holder. Please forward it to your boss: You cite September 11th and December 7th in your letter to Mr. Paul. Where were the retaliatory drone strikes after the attacks in Benghazi?
22
posted on
03/06/2013 9:56:04 AM PST
by
cld51860
(Oderint dum metuant)
To: Yosemitest
And we are to believe that the SPLC’s branding of people as terrorists, many of whom can be described as Tea Partiers, is just coincidental. As others have said, look for a gun collector to be the first zapped by a drone.
23
posted on
03/06/2013 9:58:45 AM PST
by
JimSEA
To: Yosemitest
It would make a great book...
To: baddog 219
That’s a great graphic. I think I’ll use it.
25
posted on
03/06/2013 10:14:49 AM PST
by
Yosemitest
(It's Simple ! Fight, ... or Die !)
To: Gator113
Because of what is happening to our country under Obama and the filthy democrats, I sometimes have to wonder how things might have been different....had the Japs won. Philip K Dick wrote an interesting book about that. Tell me that's not the direction this country is heading.
The Man in the High Castle.
26
posted on
03/06/2013 10:25:18 AM PST
by
Cyber Liberty
(I am a dissident. Will you join me? My name is John....)
To: Yosemitest
Uh, I thought we were promised drone strikes would never occur on US soil? Another promise that means nothing!!!
27
posted on
03/06/2013 10:34:04 AM PST
by
jda
("Righteousness exalts a nation . . .")
To: Gator113
Had the Naps won China, Vietnam, and Cambodia mightn’t have gone commie. Various other East Asian countries would be more Japanesey. Or maybe there would be no Japan, it having crumbled under its own weight. Whatever would have happened, I don’t think we’d be any different. It wasn’t ever their intention, so far as I know, to conquer us. Not that they could’ve.
We fought, basically, on behalf of China. They only smashed our navy because it was in Hawaii to back up the undeclared war we had started with the embargo, i.e. blockade.
To: Yosemitest
I have no doubt that a secret national security directive already authorized lethal drone strikes in the US to prevent “imminent” terrorist attacks and also to defend POTUS and other US and foreign VIPS...as in armed drones flying cap (in coordination with ARGUS-IS) over Air Force One take-offs and landings and over POTUS public appearances especially out-of-doors.
I expect that these armed drones and ARGUS-IS have a particular focus as a terrorist/assassin drone countermeasure. (with reference to my tagline scenario as one example of an asymmetric attack that could be defeated by sentinel armed drones to target attack drone swarm operators)
29
posted on
03/06/2013 11:52:06 AM PST
by
Seizethecarp
(Defend aircraft from "runway kill zone" mini-drone helicopter swarm attacks: www.runwaykillzone.com)
To: Admin Moderator
Wouyld you please tell me WHY you moved this thread OFF "Extended News" and onto "Bloggers" ?
This was on The Blaze News, On Fox News, and on Hannity Radio Show.
This is currently the topic on the Senate Floor now, with the fillerbuster.
30
posted on
03/06/2013 3:23:26 PM PST
by
Yosemitest
(It's Simple ! Fight, ... or Die !)
To: Jim Robinson
31
posted on
03/06/2013 4:00:36 PM PST
by
Yosemitest
(It's Simple ! Fight, ... or Die !)
To: Yosemitest
32
posted on
03/06/2013 4:13:05 PM PST
by
Jim Robinson
(Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!!)
To: Jim Robinson
Thank you.
I ran a title search, and it didn't show up under the titled I chose from "The Blaze".
I don't know why it didn't.
But that's why I posted it under "Extended News".
It makes me angry that moderators can just move it, especially with this being the subject on the Senate Floor, right now.
Thank you for your time.
33
posted on
03/06/2013 4:18:25 PM PST
by
Yosemitest
(It's Simple ! Fight, ... or Die !)
Comment #34 Removed by Moderator
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-34 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson