Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Obama doctrine claims the right, it does not preclude signature strikes anywhere in the world.
Was AG Holder's response to Sen. Paul separate from the "Obama doctrine", because Holder's response said "under the Constitution and applicable lawsof the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States." There are laws that govern when the military can be used within the United States borders.
We already do that. Why is it that the president needs to be able to do it with absolutely no oversight?
I don't agree with this in the first place. But just to answer the question - because nobody has access to the information the President has access to and so his decisions cannot be adequately judged by another in this situation. We could of course set up a body to review such decisions, but as it stands I do not believe anybody does. Many people may have access to some of the information he uses to make his decisions, but I don't believe anybody has access to all of it. Army intelligence may know something the CIA doesn't, who may know something the NSA doesn't, who may know something the FBI doesn't, etc.
Was AG Holder's response to Sen. Paul separate from the "Obama doctrine", because Holder's response said "under the Constitution and applicable lawsof the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States." There are laws that govern when the military can be used within the United States borders.
CIA and DHS ain't military - both have drones and CIA has already used them in signature strikes in Yemen.
One should know that just because someone can make a claim on the internet it does not make that claim factual.
Its unclear which claim you are referring to, but from the link you just provided.
The request from the lawmakers comes a week after their Senate colleagues remained notably absent from a historic protest questioning the administration's use of drones. Last Wednesday, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) embarked on a nearly 13-hour filibuster against the confirmation of CIA director nominee John Brennan. Paul expressed opposition to Brennan in part over his claim that the administration wouldn't state unequivocally that the president didn't have the authority to target U.S. citizens on American soil. Paul's stand ultimately led Attorney General Eric Holder to clarify that such an order was not within the president's power.
AG Holder's clarification limited Presidential power to those engaged in combat.
'Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?'
So hypothetically American citizens engaged in combat within the borders of the United States could be subject to drone strikes. Which would be within the guide lines and U.S. laws on the use of deadly force.
CIA and DHS ain't military - both have drones and CIA has already used them in signature strikes in Yemen.
Is Yemen within the borders of the United States? Sen. Paul's filibuster and AG Holder's response were both dealing about strikes within the borders of the United States.
I don't agree with this in the first place. But just to answer the question - because nobody has access to the information the President has access to and so his decisions cannot be adequately judged by another in this situation.
Total crock. It's why we have the Intelligence committee's. You'll note that even Rockefeller is peeved at Obama over this.
Quote:
We could of course set up a body to review such decisions, but as it stands I do not believe anybody does. Many people may have access to some of the information he uses to make his decisions, but I don't believe anybody has access to all of it. Army intelligence may know something the CIA doesn't, who may know something the NSA doesn't, who may know something the FBI doesn't, etc.
As I note above. We already have a system to do this.
AG Holder's clarification limited Presidential power to those engaged in combat.
The president does not hold the power to kill American citizens simply because he says they should be killed without due process.
Quote:
So hypothetically American citizens engaged in combat within the borders of the United States could be subject to drone strikes. Which would be within the guide lines and U.S. laws on the use of deadly force.
Just because you say so? Just because Holder says so without providing anything more than his word? I guess you aren't paying much attention what those from both parties are now saying. They are saying "no you do not and if you disagree you have to provide actual, factual reasoning for that".
The president does not hold the power to kill American citizens simply because he says they should be killed without due process.
Just because you say so? Just because Holder says so without providing anything more than his word? I guess you aren't paying much attention what those from both parties are now saying. They are saying "no you do not and if you disagree you have to provide actual, factual reasoning for that".
Are you questioning whether or not Federal agents/LE have guidelines when they can and can't use deadly force within the borders of the United States? Many pages ago I posted one such Federal guideline. Its dependent on an imminent threat.
As near as I can tell the were last altered by Janet Reno.
Prompted by the shootings three years ago at Ruby Ridge, in Idaho, Attorney General Janet Reno today signed an order tightening the rules on the use of deadly force by agents at nine Federal law-enforcement agencies, Government officials said.Under current guidelines, agents may use deadly force to protect their lives or the life of another person who they believe to be in imminent danger. The new rules explicitly direct agents to use nonlethal means whenever possible.
Are you questioning whether or not Federal agents/LE have guidelines when they can and can't use deadly force within the borders of the United States? Many pages ago I posted one such Federal guideline. Its dependent on an imminent threat.
I have no desire to take this off topic and discuss law enforcement officers that have absolutely nothing to do with this.
Was AG Holder's response to Sen. Paul separate from the "Obama doctrine", because Holder's response said "under the Constitution and applicable lawsof the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States." There are laws that govern when the military can be used within the United States borders.
When you argue a strawman, like Paul did, it is irrelevant what was actually said by the opponents.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
