Saturday, March 9, 2013

SO WHICH WAY DOES HE BELIEVE?


Uh, yes. Uh no.

In a one-page letter dated Monday, Holder said: "The U.S. government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so." The attorney general argued that law enforcement is best suited to resolve such threats "in this country."

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."

Then, on Tuesday March 5, 2013, in a letter from Eric Holder to Sen. Paul this afternoon, the attorney general said that the president could use lethal force against American citizens on U.S. soil in “an extraordinary circumstance,”

On Wednesday, March 06, 2013 , testifying before a Senate panel, Holder was prodded repeatedly about this assertion by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX). Holder eventually admitted that it would not be constitutional to execute an American citizen without due process.

Really? An American citizen should not be prosecuted without due process with, say, a drone?

Holder had to be pressured to come to this conclusion?

Why?

Shouldn't that be so basic as to not even be questionable?

7 comments:

donniesthoughts said...

Did you ever see such crap in your life as this

http://adventurenotes.blogspot.com/

Z said...

The WH has NO PLAN, NO STRATEGY..it's "what's today? Oh, OK..we can drone today!"

Sort of like "What's today? Oh, OK, we can bring an enemy combatant into New York and try him there today.."
Unlike months ago when we decided that's not a good idea.

We are in SUCH TROUBLE, Joe...I never thought it could get this bad in America. :-(

Xavier Onassis said...

I absolutely DO NOT support the idea of armed drones patrolling America's skies taking out American citizens without any form of due process. That's crazy.

But I'm curious about the Right Wing response to this.

You support rounding up so called "enemy combatants" ('so called' because no one gets to see any evidence that they actually WERE enemy combatants. We're just supposed to take the governments word for it. And you hate and mistrust the government, so that's weird and intellectually inconsistent), you support locking them up in cages on a corner of Communist Cuba (yes, that's where Guantanamo is) forever with no due process, no evidence being presented and no end in sight. You seem to support the idea that they will all just die there and good riddance to bad rubbish. So you clearly have no respect for Human Rights.

You support our armed drones violating the airspace of our allies in the "War Against Terror" to take out the bad guys you are all so scared of (exactly how many '#2 Leaders' does al Qaeda have? Because we've killed, like, 50 of them).

So I'm curious.

Suppose we had Predator drone technology in 1995.

Suppose the government got a tip that Timothy McVeigh (an American citizen) was on his way to the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in a truck filled with explosives.

He would be there in 30 minutes.

What would you Right Wing "24 Hours" fans do?

Would you allow the Federal Government to use a drone strike assassinate an American citizen without any due process or would you let all of those American citizens in Oklahoma City die at the hands of a domestic Right Wing terrorist?

I'll be anxious to see how Fredd and G.E.C. and Lisa and Jo Joe try to project any sort of intellectual consistency in the house of cards they call their core beliefs.

Joe said...

Z: It is the strong conviction of the Flip-Flop in Chief calling the shots.

XO: "But I'm curious about the Right Wing response to this."

I am as opposed to the drones as I am to the so-called Patriot Act.

I support the round up of legitimate enemy combatants, so long as they are treated humanely until their role is determined. (They are treated better in Gitmo than they were among their "friends" in the homeland).

They are not American citizens, and do not have the rights of citizens.

As for Tim Mc, if we had word ahead of time we should have surrounded him, taken him in and let him stand trial.

We didn't.

I would not support drones without a specific court order for him at that moment in time, and I'm not certain I would then.

"You seem to support the idea that they will all just die there and good riddance to bad rubbish."

You just made that up. I have never supported that idea.

Xavier Onassis said...

Jo Joe - ""You seem to support the idea that they will all just die there and good riddance to bad rubbish."

You just made that up. I have never supported that idea."

Then what is your position on the Guantanamo detainees?

The Republican House has prohibited any funds being spent on closing Guantanamo and bringing the prisoners to the United States.

Current rules and laws prohibit extending American due process to the prisoners.

From a Conservative, Christian perspective, what should become of the human beings held in cages by the self proclaimed "greatest country in the world"?

Joe said...

XO "Current rules and laws prohibit extending American due process to the prisoners."

They are not Americans and no due process is due them. They are suspected enemies of war and their detention is for the purpose of extracting information about those who would kill you if they had 1/2 a chance.

Since when do you care about my Christian perspective? When I exercise it, you ridicule it. When I don't you complain. You are behaving two-faced.

Xavier Onassis said...

Jo Joe - "They are not Americans and no due process is due them. They are suspected enemies of war and their detention is for the purpose of extracting information about those who would kill you if they had 1/2 a chance."

Well, here are several problems with that position.

"They are not Americans and no due process is due them."

That's a complete crock. We arrest foreigners all the time, charge them with crimes and extend due process to them not because they are American citizens but because they are subject to our judicial system.

"They are suspected enemies of war..."

Only Congress can declare war. Section 8, Article 11. Look it up.

We are NOT in a State of War as defined by the Constitution, that document that you love so much.

"...their detention is for the purpose of extracting information about those who would kill you if they had 1/2 a chance."

Seriously? These folks have been held in ISOLATION FOR 12 YEARS!

Do you really think any of them have any information regarding alleged plots and attacks against America that would still be relevant 12 years later???

What? Some terrorists sitting in a cave back in 2001 were making plans to attack us in 2013?? Are you insane?

We are holding those prisoners out of pure spite and vengeance with absolutely no evidence that any of them have participated in plots against the United States.

If there is evidence, bring it forth! Charge them! Try them! Convict them or acquit them!

If there is no evidence, release them and close Guantanamo.

There is no Constitutional, American, Christian, strategic or tactical justification for keeping these human beings in cages for 12 years with no end in sight. This is barbarism! It debases our entire society and lowers us to the level of those who attacked us.