Holder Answers Rand Paul's Question

Friday, March 08, 2013

Attorney General Eric Holder has responded to the question that Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) asked numerous times during his 13-hour filibuster Wednesday. In a letter Thursday to Paul, Holder wrote, "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."

Posted by rcade at 07:38 AM | 47 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

rcade

Joined 2003/04/04
Visited 2013/05/25

Status: editor

MORE STORIES

Snooki Beefs with Chris Christie (6 comments) ...

Robinson: A Mission on Climate Change (5 comments) ...

Dem Senator: Immigration Bill Lacks Votes (11 comments) ...

California Details Obamacare Insurance Plan (7 comments) ...

Obama Shifts from 'Perpetual War-Footing' (4 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.

There should be no other answer considered.

#1 | Posted by NotMyRealName at 2013-03-08 08:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

Looks like these politicians from Kentucky all were breed by the same farm animal. What a bunch of religious control freaks.

#2 | Posted by truthteller101 at 2013-03-08 08:05 AM | Reply | Flag:

That was not Holder's first answer to the question. Hey Holder, when are you going to do your job and enforce our laws against fraud? Even you must know there is no statute of limitations on fraud or murder? I do know that many backroom deals have been cut wherein Banks paid 5 cents on the dollar for ill gotten profits, in lieu of disgorgement and jail. If everyone followed our Bankers business model, our economy would collapse overnight. This is wrong and you know it.

#3 | Posted by nutcase at 2013-03-08 08:06 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Hey Holder, when are you going to do your job and enforce our laws against fraud? "

The President's job is to enforce laws. If he and Holder won't do it, they should resign or be impeached.

#4 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-08 08:15 AM | Reply | Flag:

Well this very different response then he gave in his first written Response to Rand Paul. Sounds like he is covering his butt now.

#5 | Posted by zack991 at 2013-03-08 08:19 AM | Reply | Flag:

Holder is still playing semantics to a certain extent. "not engaged in combat on American soil". Hasn't the White House already established that Americans who have joined Al Queda are legally classified as "enemy combatants"? That means that their mere presence could be portrayed by our government as them conducting asymmetrical warfare (or terrorism, or combat) on American soil. Holder didn't say "we won't use drones to kill Americans on American soil", did he?

#6 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2013-03-08 08:21 AM | Reply | Flag:

Holder is still playing semantics to a certain extent. "not engaged in combat on American soil".

He's not engaging in semantics -- that's the question Rand Paul asked during the filibuster.

#7 | Posted by rcade at 2013-03-08 08:50 AM | Reply | Flag:

Looks like these politicians from Kentucky all were breed by the same farm animal. What a bunch of religious control freaks.

#2 | Posted by truthteller101

what a bigoted statement.

#8 | Posted by path at 2013-03-08 08:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

Hasn't the White House already established that Americans who have joined Al Queda are legally classified as "enemy combatants"?

6 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2013-03-08 08:21 AMFlag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

The Bush White House, yes. I'm with Lindsay.....Sortakinda too late for all this hoorah.

#9 | Posted by Zed at 2013-03-08 09:00 AM | Reply | Flag:

Looks like these politicians from Kentucky all were breed by the same farm animal. What a bunch of religious control freaks.

#2 | Posted by truthteller101

what a bigoted statement.

#8 | Posted by path

You just have to overlook him. He's an idiot savant, we just haven't figured out what he good at yet.

#10 | Posted by Daniel at 2013-03-08 09:04 AM | Reply | Flag:

10.
It is never too late to stop this unconstitutional behavior no matter who has started it. If it violates your rights then it should be stopped. Obama promised a lot of things and he is simply bush 2.0 on steroids.

#11 | Posted by zack991 at 2013-03-08 09:13 AM | Reply | Flag:

You just have to overlook him. He's an idiot savant, we just haven't figured out what he good at yet.

#10 | Posted by Daniel

LOL, yeah, I usually overlook obvious idiots posting in DR, but that one got my goat bucking.

#12 | Posted by path at 2013-03-08 09:15 AM | Reply | Flag:

Sorry I meant post 9

#13 | Posted by zack991 at 2013-03-08 09:15 AM | Reply | Flag:

Obama promised a lot of things and he is simply bush 2.0 on steroids.

#11 | Posted by zack991 at 2013-03-08 09:13 AMFlag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Nonsense.

After a bit of thought, it was clear to me that Paul was grand-standing. His behavior and tone of his arguments reminded me of what the beer and meth crowd like to post on right wing blogs.

#14 | Posted by Zed at 2013-03-08 09:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

Now, nine years ago Paul would have tarred and feathered by the Right for saying what he said. "Traitor" would be the kindest description of him. My, times do change.

#15 | Posted by Zed at 2013-03-08 09:21 AM | Reply | Flag:

I just don't see what the big deal is. How dare question Obama? Or Holder? Paul asked the AG a legitimate question and the AG gave a stupid answer. The AG should have just answered the original request with due process will be followed at all times on American soil. If Bush had said he could drone Americans in America these threads would have 3,000 post in them.

#16 | Posted by Dalton at 2013-03-08 09:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

Paul asked the AG a legitimate question and the AG gave a stupid answer.

Given Holder's record on issues such as Fast and Furious, Paul is lucky he got any answer at all.

#17 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-08 09:26 AM | Reply | Flag:

Was the Democrat Wyden grandstanding? He has raised these questions during hearings before and particiated in the filibuster.

#18 | Posted by Dalton at 2013-03-08 09:27 AM | Reply | Flag:

Given Holder's record on issues such as Fast and Furious, Paul is lucky he got any answer at all.

#17 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-08 09:26 AM | Reply | Flag
NW

#19 | Posted by Dalton at 2013-03-08 09:27 AM | Reply | Flag:

I am quite happy politically for the first time in a long time. Of course the Bushlings for Obama will still be Bushlings for Obama and will deflect and defend forever, but I see the tide turning among the masses: they seem to have woken up.

"All good people are asleep and dreaming"

They see Aunt Columbia is naked and are finally pointing it out. There is hope. We just might save ourselves afterall.

#20 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-08 09:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

Was the Democrat Wyden grandstanding?

#18 | Posted by Dalton at 2013-03

I didn't hear Wyden. Perhaps he was. Ultimately, however, I thought this was just another in a long line of faux-outrage issues some of you like to pummel Obama with.

#21 | Posted by Zed at 2013-03-08 09:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

#18 should be participated. Not enough caffeine yet.

#22 | Posted by Dalton at 2013-03-08 09:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

If Bush had said he could drone Americans in America these threads would have 3,000 post in them.

#16 | Posted by Dalton at 2013-03-08 09:25 AMFlag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

If Paul had filibustered Bush on this same issue, someone would have been waiting in a shopping mall for him with a one-hundred round drum.

#23 | Posted by Zed at 2013-03-08 09:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

So, I'm attacking Paul's fundamental sincerity. Not that a Libertarian would ever demagogue anything.

#24 | Posted by Zed at 2013-03-08 09:37 AM | Reply | Flag:

How did Holder change his answer? How is the use of drones on US soil against US citizens Unconstitutional?

Since the beginning of our country, we've called out the armed forces in times of insurrection or lawlessness. The use of a drone against a citizen on US soil attempting the violent overthrow of the government or attempting to cause significant damage and/or death is of course perfectly legal. It's called law enforcement. You're quibbling about the tool.

Holder first said under certain circumstances it can be legal. Now he said those circumstances do not include times when US citizens are not engaged in combat on US soil. Perfectly fair, legitimate response inline with current law enforcement rules.

How is this a story?

#25 | Posted by Sycophant at 2013-03-08 09:38 AM | Reply | Flag:

Holder is being evasive on purpose.

#26 | Posted by sames1 at 2013-03-08 09:38 AM | Reply | Flag:

" Ultimately, however, I thought this was just another in a long line of faux-outrage issues some of you like to pummel Obama with."

Yeah, I bet you did. If Bush did half of Obama's outrages you'd be shaking your hypocritical little fist and demanding his impeachment.

Obama: A disaster for civil liberties
Op-Ed
He may prove the most disastrous president in our history in terms of civil liberties.
articles.latimes.com

#27 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-08 09:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

No one has pummeled poor Obaman. Brennan is the architect of the drone program as well as the secret kill list. Paul asked about the admin policy regarding drone strikes and the AG screwed it up when he said "yes Obama can kill Americans on American soil. I think most Americans would accept deadly force if the attack was in progress as with any police action. But, the drones and kill list work very different than police action. You can read stories daily about "militant aged boys" that appear to be burying something on a road in Afghanistan and thus taken out by drone strike. With nothing more than "they look suspicious" as the reason to do so. He wanted to clarify the policy for the homeland. To me the time to do that is when the guy that carries the kill list around is up for nomination to the CIA. After Holder corrected his answer Paul said he was fine with it.

#28 | Posted by Dalton at 2013-03-08 09:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

How is this a story?

It's a story because Holder hedged and dodged the question over and over without a clear answer.

#29 | Posted by sames1 at 2013-03-08 09:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

#26 And in those cases a judge was involved. Say, Ruby Ridge or Waco. The point with the drones is that Brennen and Obama are deciding who goes on it and when they are struck with no oversight. I mean dead is dead. Doesn't matter if it were the FBI or a drone strike at the end of the day but, the government has to get warrants and those pesky things to send a small army in the case of Waco. People knew about it their was some oversight. Those situations may have been handled horribly but, other people knew what was happening.

#30 | Posted by Dalton at 2013-03-08 09:48 AM | Reply | Flag:

Dear Syc,

Because there is no due process, no habeaus corpus, all this has been abandoned under Shrub and most of it continued under Obama. It is one part of a Presidential power grab.

#31 | Posted by nutcase at 2013-03-08 09:49 AM | 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.

#34 | POSTED BY CORKY AT 2013-03-07 04:46 PM

"The answer to that question is no."

roflmao.... one wonders if Paul could see Holders smile as he wrote that.
Holder originally spoke in the context of a situation like Pearl Harbor or 911, as he stated in his comment.

But as we all know, context is a 4 letter word to rwingers and inbred Obama Haters in general.

As I mentioned, there was much conversation after 911 as to whether the Pres had the authority to order the downing of a plane full of American citizens, and it was to that context Holder said he would, "examine the particular facts and circumstances" if such an emergency were to arise.".

Which of course means that he and Obama are just waiting for an opportunity to murder them sum 'Merican babies first chance they get.

Mole hills/mountains/Show Boats/morans

#61 | POSTED BY CORKY AT 2013-03-07 06:39 PM |

#32 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-08 09:50 AM | Reply | Flag:

How is the use of drones on US soil against US citizens Unconstitutional?

Because the names on a kill list are kept secret and the US Constitution gives protection to US citizens. They have the right to face their accusers and answer the charges; they are entitled to fight said charges in a court of law; to see the evidence against them and answer it. They are protected that they may not face cruel or unusual punishment from the government and I would say a missile firing at your car from the government on US soil ain't usual.

Do I really need to go on?

#33 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-08 09:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

Do I really need to go on?

#33 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-08 09:54 AM | Reply

Probably. But, still won't help.

#34 | Posted by Dalton at 2013-03-08 10:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

Paul's questions to John Brennan in his earlier letters were valid questions, and the Administration's responses were muddled at best. If you think these questions have been adequately answered, you're a hack.

* Do you agree with the argument put forth on numerous occasions by the Executive Branch that it is legal to order the killing of American citizens and that it is not compelled to explain its reasoning in reaching this conclusion? Do you believe this is a good precedent for the government to set?
* Congress has been denied access to legal opinions and interpretations authorizing placement of U.S. citizens believed to be engaged in terrorism on targeting lists, thus denying Congress the ability to perform important oversight. Will you provide access to those opinions, as well as future opinions?
* Would it not be appropriate to require a judge or court to review every case before the individual in question is added to a targeting list? Please describe the due process requirements in place for those individuals being considered for addition to a targeting list.
* Would you agree that it is paradoxical that the federal government would need to go before a judge to authorize a wiretap on a U.S. citizen overseas, but possibly not to order a lethal drone strike against the same individual? If not, please explain why you believe something similar to the FISA standard should not be applied in regards to lethal actions against U.S. citizens.
* Of those individuals who have been but are no longer included in the disposition matrix (or other targeting list), how many have been killed and how many have been removed from the list by other means?
* How many individuals remain in the disposition matrix (or other targeting list) today and how does that number compare to the number in prior years? Is the number growing, shrinking, or static?
* How many U.S. citizens have been intentionally killed by U.S. drone strikes since 2008? How many have been unintentionally killed by U.S. drone strikes during the same period?
* In how many countries has the U.S. executed a drone strike against a presumed terrorist?

Many more at www.paul.senate.gov

#35 | Posted by JOE at 2013-03-08 10:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

Do you believe this is a good precedent for the government to set?

That is the MOST IMPORTANT of all questions. Just because one trust Obama with said power, that doesn't mean all future Presidents can be trusted with the same power.

Don't open scary doors!

#36 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-08 10:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

#35 ADEQUATELY answered? Hell, they haven't even ATTEMPTED to answer most of them!

#37 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2013-03-08 10:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

Well this very different response then he gave in his first written Response to Rand Paul. Sounds like he is covering his butt now.

#5 | Posted by zack991

No, Raul's first question was could an American on America soil get droned in a police action, ie. while committing a terrorist act. The follow-up was could get get droned while watching TV.

Different reasons.

Sort of like can a black guy get shot by the cops for running from the scene of a crime? Happens every day.

can a black guy get shot by the cops for standing on a street corner. happens, but is generally frowned upon.

#38 | Posted by northguy3 at 2013-03-08 11:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

The follow-up was could get get droned while watching TV.

"This is not really, as Holder writes, "an additional question."

www.newyorker.com

#39 | Posted by JOE at 2013-03-08 11:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

He may prove the most disastrous president in our history in terms of civil liberties.
articles.latimes.com

#27 | Posted by nullifidian

Nulli, I usually don't agree with some of your posts, but I certainly do on this one. Very interesting article from Sept. 2011 too. If that writer re-wrote that article today, he'd have many more examples to cite.

We need to tie his other hand behind his back come mid-terms

#40 | Posted by path at 2013-03-08 11:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

"We need to tie his other hand behind his back come mid-terms"

How? By electing Republican douchebags who despise civil liberties?

#41 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-08 11:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

by not electing Democrats who turn the other way

#42 | Posted by path at 2013-03-08 11:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

3rd Party. The more 3rd parties, the better. Let ideas become law based on the merits of the bill and not the party that introduced it.

#43 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-08 11:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

#43 | POSTED BY KANREI AT 2013-03-08 11:43 AM | FLAG: AMEN BROTHER

#44 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2013-03-08 12:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

Do I really need to go on?