Holder: Drone Could Legally Kill American in U.S.

Wednesday, March 06, 2013

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 by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). "The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one 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," Holder wrote.

Posted by nullifidian at 06:50 PM | 76 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry |

Front Page
Breaking News
Comments
Flagged Comments
User Blogs
Write a Blog Entry
Create a Poll
Edit Account
Weekly Digest
Stats Page
RSS Feed
Back Page

Subscriptions

Read the Retort using RSS.

RSS Feed

Author Info

nullifidian

Joined 2004/11/08
Visited 2013/05/19

Status: exile

MORE STORIES

Elizabeth Warren Isn't Very Smart (46 comments) ...

Sanders to Fight Obama on Chained CPI (77 comments) ...

Obama Planning New Sellout to Corporations (108 comments) ...

NRC Ignores Flood Risk at 2 Nuke Plants (12 comments) ...

Patriots Protest Obama's Killing Program (7 comments) ...

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Personal attacks, profanity, abusive conduct and expressions of prejudice are not allowed. If you have comments about site moderation, contact the site publisher in email.

"The Obama administration, Holder said, rejected the use of military force where "well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat." But in theory, it'd be legal for the president to order such an attack under certain circumstances, Holder said."

If the President does it, it's not illegal.

#1 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-05 07:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

If the President does it, it's not illegal.

#1 | Posted by nullifidian

shouldn't that be in "quotes" and attributed to Nixon?

#2 | Posted by roadrunner22 at 2013-03-05 07:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

"shouldn't that be in "quotes" and attributed to Nixon?"

I figured the smart people that read this blog would get the allusion.

#3 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-05 07:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

#2 Airblogger?

This thread will die faster than the one where a diplomat wrote a article critical of Obama's foreing policy detachment.

#4 | Posted by Dalton at 2013-03-05 07:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

Nulli, he's just playing dumb so he doesn't have to comment on the droner in chief.

#5 | Posted by Dalton at 2013-03-05 07:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

It will be interesting to see if the Obama faithful will at lest show a little concern over this development.
Well at least we aren't water boarding them before we kill them from the sky.

#6 | Posted by paneocon at 2013-03-05 08:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

In theory?
The Bill of Rights is not a theory.

#7 | Posted by Diablo at 2013-03-05 08:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

Bush did it too! Oh, wait....

#8 | Posted by boaz at 2013-03-05 08:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

#8 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Man you killing me!

#9 | Posted by Federalist at 2013-03-05 09:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Holder is scheduled to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee for a Justice Department oversight hearing on Wednesday morning..."

Well at least the committee will be able to press him on this interpretation, right? Who has the eggs and the brains and the interest sufficient to do it though? Schumer? He might have the eggs and the brains but not the interest. Graham? He's got the brains and the interest but not the eggs to do it properly.

#10 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2013-03-05 09:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

I wonder what Bill Ayers thinks of this....

#11 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2013-03-05 09:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

Posse Comitatus Act.

Good luck Holder.

#12 | Posted by Federalist at 2013-03-05 09:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

#10 | POSTED BY HAGBARD_CELINE

Couldn't help but notice that you're not weighing in on this, Cat got your keyboard?

#13 | Posted by paneocon at 2013-03-05 09:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

Holder's March 4 letter
Literally and figuratively.

What's the big deal anyway? The government has been killing Americans on American soil for years. They're called the cops.

#14 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2013-03-05 10:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

Posse Comitatus Act.
Good luck Holder.

#12 | POSTED BY FEDERALIST AT 2013-03-05 09:32 PM | FLAG: Wishful thinking if more US citizens don't start educating themselves before it's too late.

It's already basically considered outmoded and ignored for anything within 100 miles of US borders. Next, there will be exceptions for within 100 miles of military bases. And/or airports. Nuclear power plants. If they even need to do that.

The United States Congress has enacted a number of exceptions to the PCA that allow the military, in certain situations, to assist civilian law enforcement agencies in enforcing the laws of the U.S. The most common example is counterdrug assistance (Title 10 USC, Sections 371-381). Other examples include:

The Insurrection Act (Title 10 USC, Sections 331-335). This act allows the president to use U.S. military personnel at the request of a state legislature or governor to suppress insurrections. It also allows the president to use federal troops to enforce federal laws when rebellion against the authority of the U.S. makes it impracticable to enforce the laws of the U.S.
Assistance in the case of crimes involving nuclear materials (Title 18 USC, Section 831). This statute permits DoD personnel to assist the Justice Department in enforcing prohibitions regarding nuclear materials, when the attorney general and the secretary of defense jointly determine that an "emergency situation" exists that poses a serious threat to U.S. interests and is beyond the capability of civilian law enforcement agencies.
Emergency situations involving chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction (Title 10 USC, Section 382). When the attorney general and the secretary of defense jointly determine that an "emergency situation" exists that poses a serious threat to U.S. interests and is beyond the capability of civilian law enforcement agencies. DoD personnel may assist the Justice Department in enforcing prohibitions regarding biological or chemical weapons of mass destruction. - www.northcom.mil

All they need to do is declare some sort of "emergency situation." I don't believe Obama is so far gone as to basically take dictatorial power - but as I said on one other recent thread, all we need is one silver tongued Hitler or Stalin to get elected and all the tools are there. With greater technology at their hand than any government in all of history has had at its fingertips. Not like anyone has ever lied about their intentions on the campaign trail...

#15 | Posted by zeropointnrg at 2013-03-05 10:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

Has anyone noticed that Holder addressed a "hypothetical?"

Another example of Holder as a poor AG. Lawyers tell their clients that when answering questions to respond only to the question and to not volunteer additional information. Here the answer should have been, "No." Wandering into the land of hypotheticals just opens up an can of worms. Bad lawyering.

#16 | Posted by et_al at 2013-03-05 11:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

surely this surprises no one..NOT WHEN You learn of HOLDER"S involvement in the killing of a LOT more Americans with not one shred of due process. It happened just outside of a small east central texas city called waco.
and ERIC HOLDER was the UGLY BROADS" right hand man

#17 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2013-03-06 02:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

and much MUCH MORE..

bluegrassbulletin.typepad.com

#18 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2013-03-06 02:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

WOW, never though they would admit it.

#19 | Posted by zack991 at 2013-03-06 04:48 AM | Reply | Flag:

This is news? Anyone ever heard of Dillinger? Bonnie and Clyde? Ruby Ridge? Waco? The government sanctions Americans killing other Americans who happen to be breaking into others homes or threatening their person----and the gun nuts cheer. Nothing new here except the method.

#20 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2013-03-06 05:08 AM | Reply | Flag:

#16 This wouldn't be the first time we have seen bad law practice from Eric Holder.

#21 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2013-03-06 06:08 AM | Reply | Flag:

#2 | POSTED BY BUFFALO_BOB

Your keen insight missed two little words there BoB, Due Process. You may of heard of it. "When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due-process violation, which offends against the rule of law."

#22 | Posted by paneocon at 2013-03-06 07:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

Where are the Obama supporters?

#24 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-06 07:13 AM | Reply | Flag:

#18 They ability to pay their internet bills and feed themselves has been impacted by the sequester. They are currently unplugged and unfed thanks to this tragedy created by Obama.

#26 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2013-03-06 10:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

The police state continues to grow.

#27 | Posted by 726 at 2013-03-06 10:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

Holder wishes for a Reichstag fire.

#28 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-06 10:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Pear Harbor or 9/11"

I hate to break this to you, Eric.
No Americans were involved in those attacks.

Seriously, how do people this miserably stupid get in power?

#29 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2013-03-06 11:08 AM | Reply | Flag:

It will be interesting to see if the Obama faithful will at lest show a little concern over this development.

#6 | Posted by paneocon

At the federal level, it will be interesting to see who authorizes and uses a drone to kill someone first, a democrat or republican president.

#30 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2013-03-06 11:15 AM | Reply | Flag:

Your keen insight missed two little words there BoB, Due Process. You may of heard of it.

Define "Due Process" please.

#31 | Posted by donnerboy at 2013-03-06 11:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

At the federal level, it will be interesting to see who authorizes and uses a drone to kill someone first, a democrat or republican president.

Well, the current potus has already used them to kill american citizens and has already allowed them the be propagated to law enforcement all over the country.

even if he doesn't pull the trigger, he's still responsible for the precedent.

And I thought dubya was a huge let down.

#32 | Posted by Axiom at 2013-03-06 12:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

"even if he doesn't pull the trigger, he's still responsible for the precedent."

Exactly. He's institutionalized drone warfare, the Patriot Act, etc. That's not the hope and change President Choomgang promised.

#33 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-06 01:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

Cool. I picture drones flying over the Waco.

#34 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2013-03-06 02:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

*next Waco

#35 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2013-03-06 02:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

Welcome to the core of what obama and company think about our country and our civil rights. Americans don't mean nothin!

#36 | Posted by moneywar at 2013-03-06 03:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Everything changed on 9-11"
"If you have done nothing wrong --- then you have nothing to worry about"

Sincerely
Every "conservative" [...] you had the misfortune of running into, pre 2008.

#37 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2013-03-06 05:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sorry but it is the lefty liberal who is attacking without due process. Apparently the fear is more on them then the rest of the nation.

#38 | Posted by moneywar at 2013-03-06 05:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

Define "Due Process" please.

#11 | Posted by donnerboy at 2013-03-06 11:57 AM | Reply | Flag

It's when someone commits a crime. They are charged. And then found guilty in a court of law.

#39 | Posted by Dalton at 2013-03-06 05:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

I don't remember "conservative" douches ever saying it was ok to order a drone strike in America on a American citizen? Maybe you can post an example? Or just admit you made it up.

#40 | Posted by Dalton at 2013-03-06 05:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

Part of the framework the administration established in targeting Anwar Al-Awlaki was that he was operating in a place out of government authority.

Holder's statement rejects that framework in favor of an anywhere, anytime model. That's dangerous and completely nuts.

#41 | Posted by rcade at 2013-03-06 06:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

"That's dangerous and completely nuts."

Posted by rcade at 2013-03-06 06:54 PM | Reply

No feces Sherlock.
Remember, we also agree on actually enforcing existing gun laws.

#42 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2013-03-06 06:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

What's the difference between using a drone and the FBI dropping a bomb from a helicopter onto MOVE's headquarters?

Or an FBI sniper sitting in a tree in Ruby Ridge? Or any other placed FBI snipers are used?

Oh, but it's a DRONE, so that's different.

For God's sake, it's still a human at the controls.

Now when they become AI killing machines, I might reconsider my opinion...

#43 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2013-03-06 06:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

I do remember "conservative douches" saying it's okay to send American citizens to Gitmo..

www.progressive.org

..which Rand Paul also opposed.

Holder is simply implying that current law may allow a drone strike in America, under certain circumstances. That is NOT an approval of such action by Holder or this administration. If someone doesn't like it, they should contact their representative and demand that any loophole allowing such action be closed. I know I will.

#44 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2013-03-06 06:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

#5 | Posted by paneocon at 2013-03-06 07:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

Ah---I stand corredted---IF----you can show me a trial transcript from Ruby Ridge or Waco or for Bonnie and Clyde. I missed the due process there.

How about the government supporting Americans killing other Americans simply for breaking and entering? I don't think you support due process at that point. It seems you value due process only when it suits your views.

#45 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2013-03-06 07:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

"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 like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001," Holder continued, referring to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Holder said he would "examine the particular facts and circumstances" if such an emergency were to arise."

One might recall the discussion after 911 as to whether the President could have ordered a terrorist controlled airliner shot down if it was headed for oh say, the Twin Towers, where thousands rather than hundred could be killed.

But context is such a boring consideration.

#46 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-06 07:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

#11...."The essential elements of due process of law are notice, an opportunity to be heard, and the right to defend in an orderly proceeding." Fiehe v. R.E. Householder Co., 125 So. 2, 7 (Fla. 1929).

#47 | Posted by gluon at 2013-03-06 07:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

of course it could. the government kills people all the time. due process is defined by fear. if the government agent fears you then you are sentenced to death.

#48 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2013-03-06 08:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

I have never heard a group of war hawks be so pathetic. Pan over there wet his panties. Pretty damn amazing.

It's bomb first and ask questions later in foreign countries for you folks.

But under no circumstances can we kill American citizens on US soil. Holding people hostage? No good, according to the Conservatives here. Threatening to blow up a building? Absolutely not! Sitting on a dirty bomb, trigger in hand? Better get them to Court first.

Not that certain situations haven't always authorized the use of deadly force... Idiots.

But don't worry...Torture still is perfectly fine without a trial.

#49 | Posted by Sycophant at 2013-03-06 08:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

Someone might rephrase the question for the Attorney General:

"Mr. Holder, does President Obama have the authority under the Constitution to use a drone to kill you?"

His answer would be most interesting to those of us who think this ideologue is unfit for that office. What an elitist! He views us as a separate class from him.

#51 | Posted by Diablo at 2013-03-06 10:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

What';s the difference between all your phone calls being intercepted, and terrorists dying in an FBI shootout?

The right to privacy?

#52 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2013-03-06 10:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

I told you.

#53 | Posted by truthhurts at 2013-03-07 06:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

If you have enough time to fuel, arm, and fly the drone to a target location, you have way more than enough time to just go arrest them.

#54 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2013-03-07 07:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

If you have enough time to fuel, arm, and fly the drone to a target location, you have way more than enough time to just go arrest them.

#54 | Posted by sitzkrieg

Dude, we used to keep small herds of nuclear-armed B-52s scattered around the US of A, all set to go fight WW3 on 15 or fewer minutes notice. Ditto all the Minuteman MIRV missles sitting in hardedned silos all across the nothern heartland states of the same US of A. My precious bodily fluids were safer when SAC ruled the world.

#55 | Posted by john47 at 2013-03-07 09:04 AM | Reply | Flag:

Now with their new listening facility almost complete, they can monitor your written and verbal communications. If you are considered a "threat" they can order a drone strike on you.

This is the United States the founders expected?

#56 | Posted by sames1 at 2013-03-07 09:27 AM | Reply | Flag:

That is not a determination at Holder's pay grade nor his Constitutional position. The legality of any policy is the sole domain of the courts and it is far past time for them to get involved in this. After these last 11 years of non-stop warfare, it is time the Executive Branch was neutered.

#57 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-07 09:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

Interesting piece at Salon by Marcy Wheeler, "Does Eric Holder Know the Law? The A.G. said today that Congress can't prohibit killings on U.S. soil. He should re-read that statute" (www.salon.com).

Holder is a remarkably unimpressive AG - and we've had a bunch of them (Ed Meese and Alberto Gonzalez instantly spring to mind) - who's never satisfactorily explained his performance in the sordid Marc Rich pardon affair.

#58 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2013-03-07 09:38 AM | Reply | Flag:

Why is it that the lowest of the low in every administration ends up as Attorney General?

#59 | Posted by nutcase at 2013-03-07 09:41 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Seeing how the left tied themselves in knots, because gw wanted to wiretap overseas calls....I would say the lack of response from those same usual suspects.....proves how dishonest the hardcore Dr left are."

I've been consistent through both Bush and Obama, the courts and Congress should get involved but they have been AWOL because they lack the courage to take real responsibility. Any reduction of the President's power could later be seen as the opportunity that allowed a terrorist strike to succeed. No one wants to be the one that created that opportunity so they gave the President virtually unlimited authority yet now complain that he has powers he should not have. Yesterday Rand Paul got up and spoke, one Democrat joined him but I didn't see any other members from either party saying that they would propose legislation to rein in the power of the Presidency, didn't hear the SC saying they would exercise their power to rein in the power of the Executive Branch. No, most in Washington just want to wash their hands and let the President decide for himself what powers he has and someday we will have a President to decides he has much more power than anyone will be comfortable with.

#60 | Posted by danni at 2013-03-07 09:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

Why is it that the lowest of the low in every administration ends up as Attorney General?

Because they will do the administrations bidding without question.

#61 | Posted by Daniel at 2013-03-07 09:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Why is it that the lowest of the low in every administration ends up as Attorney General?"

Have you spent much time around lawyers?

#62 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2013-03-07 09:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

I've been consistent through both Bush and Obama, the courts and Congress should get involved but they have been AWOL because they lack the courage to take real responsibility. "

Please, Congress, the Courts, Bueller, stop me before I kill again!
--Barack Obama

#63 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-07 10:04 AM | Reply | Flag:

#55 | Posted by john47 at 2013-03-07 09:04 AM | Reply | Flag:

... yes, cataclysmic Mutually Assured Destruction is exactly like executing a single American citizen with a drone strike.

....

#64 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2013-03-07 10:07 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Please, Congress, the Courts, Bueller, stop me before I kill again!"

I used to joke that Cheney was the type of guy who'd burn down your house with your family in it then say "now look what you made me do." I never thought I'd even get a whiff of that from the current President but here we are. I guess it's another failure of the imagination for me.

#65 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2013-03-07 10:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

Let's assume for a moment you actually trust Obama would never use this power...Obama only has 3 more years in office. The precedent will exist; Holder's statement will dictate policy long after Obama is out of power.

I tried to warn the Right about opening scary doors during the Dubya years and was always greeted with "But I trust Bush would never..." Well, now the RIght has actually learned what I was saying as they see Obama expand on what Dubya did. I only wish the Left remembered 2001-2009.

#66 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-07 10:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

#66

Good point. I myself, fell into this category during Dubya's first term.

#67 | Posted by Daniel at 2013-03-07 10:19 AM | Reply | Flag:

#66 | POSTED BY KANREI

If you think the Republicans will dismantle any of this stuff when they get back in office, I have some beach front property in Ohio so sell you.

#68 | Posted by paneocon at 2013-03-07 10:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Well, now the RIght has actually learned what I was saying as they see Obama expand on what Dubya did. I only wish the Left remembered 2001-2009."

But when I say Congress and the Courts are who bears the responsibility to set limits it is assumed by some that I am only speaking out of partisan defense of Obama. They should have set limits back when Bush was President and we wouldn't even be having this discussion today.

#69 | Posted by danni at 2013-03-07 10:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

If you think the Republicans will dismantle any of this stuff when they get back in office, I have some beach front property in Ohio so sell you.

Never claimed they would. Every person who seeks the office of the President runs on a campaign of condemning the current President's actions only to expand on them once they get power.

#70 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-07 10:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Every person who seeks the office of the President runs on a campaign of condemning the current President's actions only to expand on them once they get power.

nuh-uh, not every one. George Washington didn't.

#71 | Posted by kamakiri at 2013-03-07 10:41 AM | Reply | Flag:

"But when I say Congress and the Courts are who bears the responsibility to set limits..."

The limits are set forh in writing in the Constitution....but you're right, the executive branch is ALWAYS seeking to increase its power and it's up to the legislative branch and the courts to enforce those limits.

#72 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2013-03-07 10:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

George Washington didn't.

If the myths are true, then Washington was far beyond human as he also turned down a crown and walked away after two terms.

#73 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-07 10:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

George Washington didn't.

If the myths are true, then Washington was far beyond human as he also turned down a crown and walked away after two terms.

#74 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-07 10:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Have you spent much time around lawyers?"

yes, I have, Doc...WAYYYY too much. One of my criteria when voting is to vote AGAINST lawyer candidates whenever possible.

#75 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2013-03-07 10:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

danni i'm proud of for admitting the danger that this represents -maybe not now but in the future some president might use drones for other than kosher reasons

#76 | Posted by lastomykind at 2013-03-07 03:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

It may be UNLIKELY, but it's possible. Do remember that the first recent president to assert he's above the law was a guy named Richard Nixon. herm

#77 | Posted by herm at 2013-03-07 05:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

Again if this was Bush the left would be calling him a Dictator or Tyrant. It appears that our President is acting like he is a Dictator with many of his actions being very questionable. Whether it is Drones or the expanding the Patriot Act to be far more invasive. Now with his minions sending out emails stating that the underlings need to make it look like the President was telling the truth about the Sequester. I feel that it is ait is very disturbing the road he is taking us down. Where are the Democrats? Obama is doing the same things Bush was and the Democrats were up in arms. If Bush had pulled half the [...] Obama did after Benghazi, the left would have screamed for an impeachment. I personally would support the southern states seceding from the US, if the things don't change

Come on Democrats get on board and question Obama about the direction our country is heading in. Based on Obama's actions the Constitution is just a piece of paper.

#78 | Posted by RODEGLIDE at 2013-03-07 07:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

I feel like if this was President GW Bush, the left would be in the streets screaming. Where is the left? It was a relief that RCADE and Danni did agree that this issue needs specific answers cleared up. Denying an Americans due process and just executing them is very much against the Constitution. And just plain ole [...] UP.
Again if this was Bush the left would be calling him a Dictator or Tyrant. It appears that our President is acting like he is a Dictator with many of his actions being very questionable. Whether it is Drones or the expanding the Patriot Act to be far more invasive. Now with his minions sending out emails stating that the underlings need to make it look like the President was telling the truth about the Sequester. I feel that it is ait is very disturbing the road he is taking us down. Where are the Democrats? Obama is doing the same things Bush was and the Democrats were up in arms. If Bush had pulled half the [...] Obama did after Benghazi, the left would have screamed for an impeachment. I personally would support the southern states seceding from the US, if the things don't change
Come on Democrats get on board and question Obama about the direction our country is heading in. Based on Obama's actions the Constitution is just a piece of paper.
#78 | Posted by RODEGLIDE at 2013-03-07 07:56 PM

[bleeping] interface - I just lost my post.:[

In summary - during the final testimony I watched yesterday on C-SPAN, the question "if an American terrorist not posing an eminent threat would be the target of a drone strike" was answered definitively by Eric Holder as "no".

To my knowledge NO drone has ever killed just one target - they wipe out many people at a time. Always.

#79 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2013-03-08 03:07 PM | Reply | Flag: