• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Holder: Drone strikes against Americans on U.S. soil are leg

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Holder: Drone strikes against Americans on U.S. soil are legal

Attorney General Eric Holder can imagine a scenario in which it would be constitutional to carry out a drone strike against an American on American soil, he wrote in a letter to Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.

“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 replied in a letter yesterday to Paul’s question about whether Obama “has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial.”

Paul condemned the idea. “The U.S. Attorney General’s refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening – it is an affront the Constitutional due process rights of all Americans,” he said in a statement.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/eric-holder-drone-strikes-against-americans-on-u.s.-soil-are-legal/article/2523319
 

Mike

Well-known member
Amazing! Like I have said time and time again, nothing this admin does surprises me anymore...................................
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
Can any of the resident Obamabots explain how this is Constitutional?

How could Judge Parker issue a dead or alive warrant for Ned Christie when he had never had a day in court either... :???:
History has several instances of rebellions being put down by lethal force- where the government chose to attack unconvicted citizens-- Wounded Knee is one example-- the Veterans strikes another...

We have done a lot worse things in times past than droning a terror suspect...
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Beside if Obama ordered a drone strike on a innocent person OT would have a more recent case to use a precedent then Judge Issac Parkers Dead or alive warrants. :D
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Big Muddy rancher said:
Beside if Obama ordered a drone strike on a innocent person OT would have a more recent case to use a precedent then Judge Issac Parkers Dead or alive warrants. :D

Precedent is precedent-- and often the older precedent is cited since it happened closer to founding fathers day and more reflects their beliefs...The reason the court often looks to the old common law...
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
Can any of the resident Obamabots explain how this is Constitutional?

How could Judge Parker issue a dead or alive warrant for Ned Christie when he had never had a day in court either... :???:
History has several instances of rebellions being put down by lethal force- where the government chose to attack unconvicted citizens-- Wounded Knee is one example-- the Veterans strikes another...

We have done a lot worse things in times past than droning a terror suspect...

So, what you're saying is that two wrongs make a right. Got it. Using that stupid logic I guess you'd be okay with lynching negros for looking at white wemmin.....afterall, we did much worse in the past. God what an idiot you are OT.

Oh, wanna peek at where the King craps?

Constitution_toilet_paper.jpg
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
Holder: Drone strikes against Americans on U.S. soil are legal

Attorney General Eric Holder can imagine a scenario in which it would be constitutional to carry out a drone strike against an American on American soil, he wrote in a letter to Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.

“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 replied in a letter yesterday to Paul’s question about whether Obama “has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial.”

Paul condemned the idea. “The U.S. Attorney General’s refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening – it is an affront the Constitutional due process rights of all Americans,” he said in a statement.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/eric-holder-drone-strikes-against-americans-on-u.s.-soil-are-legal/article/2523319

Does this BULL SHYTE really surprise anyone? Executing American citizens on foreign soil without a single day in court because some high government official says they may or may not be engaged in terrorist activities and may or may not be planning an imminent attack on American CAN ONLY BE DEFENDED if that policy is extrapolated to the US.

Again, does this surprise anyone? When I first saw the King's policy on this issue I asked what was to keep the same policy from being implemented in the US? Apparently nothing.

That idiot tools like OT look the other way is exactly what the King's administration has counted on. To hell in a hand basket and America is getting EXACTLY WHAT IT DESERVES.
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Faster horses said:
Maybe the people that put him back in office deserve it, but what about the rest of us?

Where is the OUTRAGE that an attorney general of the US, hand-picked by the president himself, would say shyt like this? It just amazes me that others look the other way and make excuses (precedent is precedent) while that precious constitution is being shat upon.
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Beside if Obama ordered a drone strike on a innocent person OT would have a more recent case to use a precedent then Judge Issac Parkers Dead or alive warrants. :D

Precedent is precedent-- and often the older precedent is cited since it happened closer to founding fathers day and more reflects their beliefs...The reason the court often looks to the old common law...

lemme guess - Dubya's fault?
 

Steve

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
Can any of the resident Obamabots explain how this is Constitutional?

How could Judge Parker issue a dead or alive warrant for Ned Christie when he had never had a day in court either... :???:
History has several instances of rebellions being put down by lethal force- where the government chose to attack unconvicted citizens-- Wounded Knee is one example-- the Veterans strikes another...

We have done a lot worse things in times past than droning a terror suspect...

both your examples are great examples of the federal government out of control and inconstant with our constitution..

just because the government has done worse in the past, is a sorry reason why we should allow it to do worse today..
 

Steve

Well-known member
On Monday, March, 4, 2013, at approximately 1:15 p.m., the pilot of Alitalia Flight #608 spotted a small, unmanned aircraft while on approach to John F. Kennedy International Airport. The Alitalia flight was roughly three miles from runway 31R when the incident occurred at an altitude of approximately 1,750 feet. The unmanned aircraft came within 200 feet of the Alitalia plane.

The FBI is investigating the incident and looking to identify and locate the aircraft and its operator. The unnamed aircraft was described as black in color and no more than three feet wide with four propellers.

"The FBI is asking anyone with information about the unmanned aircraft or the operator to contact us," said Special Agent in Charge John Giacalone. "Our paramount concern is the safety of aircraft passengers and crew."

Anyone with information is asked to call the FBI at 212-384-1000. Tipsters may remain anonymous.
 

Steve

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Why does no one ever see the good uses of drones?

yes,.. and with a warrant and probable cause they would make a great law enforcement tool..

without a warrant they are just another unconstitutional intrusion..
 

Mike

Well-known member
Steve said:
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
Can any of the resident Obamabots explain how this is Constitutional?

How could Judge Parker issue a dead or alive warrant for Ned Christie when he had never had a day in court either... :???:
History has several instances of rebellions being put down by lethal force- where the government chose to attack unconvicted citizens-- Wounded Knee is one example-- the Veterans strikes another...

We have done a lot worse things in times past than droning a terror suspect...

both your examples are great examples of the federal government out of control and inconstant with our constitution..

just because the government has done worse in the past, is a sorry reason why we should allow it to do worse today..

Judge Parker is a shining example of why this should NOT go forward.

Ned Christie was later exonerated...................................................

But doubt about a "Dead Or Alive" warrant exists:
The old saying of "bring them in dead or alive" did not bear well on Judge Parker. He did not want a bunch of killers wearing badges on his behalf. In fact, when a Deputy Marshal killed a prisoner that he was bringing to Ft. Smith, he was required to pay for the dead prisoners funeral, casket and headstone out of his own pocket. A $60 funeral would take a lot of miles to cover at 6 cents a mile and $2 per summons.
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Steve said:
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
Can any of the resident Obamabots explain how this is Constitutional?

How could Judge Parker issue a dead or alive warrant for Ned Christie when he had never had a day in court either... :???:
History has several instances of rebellions being put down by lethal force- where the government chose to attack unconvicted citizens-- Wounded Knee is one example-- the Veterans strikes another...

We have done a lot worse things in times past than droning a terror suspect...

both your examples are great examples of the federal government out of control and inconstant with our constitution..

just because the government has done worse in the past, is a sorry reason why we should allow it to do worse today..

I have to give OT credit where credit is due. He's said some really stupid things here, but the precedent is precedent comment has got to be the most stupid thing that has ever passed through those alcohol-numbed lips of his.

If stupidity was painful, the man would be in a world of hurt.
 
Top