General Discussion

HiPointDem

(20,729 posts)

61. if this letter were *not* claiming that by implication, there would be no controversy. presidents

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 06:22 PM

Mar 2013

& police *have always had* the power to use force where there was an *ongoing attack* -- on the country or on just one person.

what they haven't had is the power to assassinate people *before* they attack, preemptively.

so if holder is only claiming the power to kill during an attack, there's nothing new here.

so which is it?

the letter is worded so that one may read anything into it one likes.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

216 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Obama Administration Says President Can Use Lethal Force Against Americans on US Soil [View all] green for victory Mar 2013 OP

Obama should rethink Buffalo Bull Mar 2013 #1

"with no police officer or civilian in danger" jberryhill Mar 2013 #67

Pearl Harbor? Buffalo Bull Mar 2013 #212

No, I am not justifying any conclusion jberryhill Mar 2013 #214

mea culpa Buffalo Bull Mar 2013 #216

Only an extraordinary circumstance MannyGoldstein Mar 2013 #2

Except that Holder does tell you about three concrete examples. Bolo Boffin Mar 2013 #4

Are we not as a nation STILL engaged in responding to 9/11? I think we are. HereSince1628 Mar 2013 #7

But he won't be able to tell us, or a court, why it's been done MannyGoldstein Mar 2013 #9

"Freedom Mist" That would be funny if it wasn't so sad n/t green for victory Mar 2013 #16

It's still kind of funny. randome Mar 2013 #119

US democracy=Freedom Mist or vice versa. SammyWinstonJack Mar 2013 #168

Exactly. ProSense Mar 2013 #13

Yes, but... jberryhill Mar 2013 #82

Who knows? G_j Mar 2013 #125

Could I ask you one question? jberryhill Mar 2013 #130

I wasn't thrilled. nt G_j Mar 2013 #139

"Wasn't"? jberryhill Mar 2013 #143

So it would not be an attack "on Americans" treestar Mar 2013 #179

and i don't recall the us government assassinating anybody at will in any of those either. HiPointDem Mar 2013 #24

And just whom does AG Holder think should/could have been so targeted in those events? WinkyDink Mar 2013 #189

Jesus Christ, why don't you and Ted Cruz go ask him? n/t Bolo Boffin Mar 2013 #206

Oh, definitely, there should be a list jberryhill Mar 2013 #78

In your case, what's illegal is (or should be) subject to some sort of judicial review MannyGoldstein Mar 2013 #196

No it's not jberryhill Mar 2013 #197

But the renting party can go to court and show that what they were doing was not illegal MannyGoldstein Mar 2013 #198

It's worth noting that this is the same team that recently redefined "imminent attack" Marr Mar 2013 #191

absolutely GRENADE Mar 2013 #3

Yep... K & R !!! WillyT Mar 2013 #5

And HERE... Is The Actual Letter (.pdf file): WillyT Mar 2013 #11

Thank you... n/t Fire Walk With Me Mar 2013 #21

You Are Quite Welcome !!! WillyT Mar 2013 #150

"... We have a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals struggle4progress Mar 2013 #199

This scares the crap out of me LiberalEsto Mar 2013 #6

Fuck Rand Paul...nt SidDithers Mar 2013 #8

Yeah! The President should be free to explodify anyone he wants. MannyGoldstein Mar 2013 #10

Third Party Manny strikes again...nt SidDithers Mar 2013 #12

Should Lincoln have been impeached for ordering the US army geek tragedy Mar 2013 #18

They were actively engaged in a capital criminal act. MannyGoldstein Mar 2013 #23

So, how are you disagreeing with Eric Holder then? nt geek tragedy Mar 2013 #25

The President has reserved the right to kill anyone who he just kinda suspects might do something MannyGoldstein Mar 2013 #42

Manny, maybe you should read the letter instead of Rand Paul's press release geek tragedy Mar 2013 #44

I did. MannyGoldstein Mar 2013 #48

Here's what Holder wrote: geek tragedy Mar 2013 #141

Good! And *who* determines when "well-established law enforcement authorities" MannyGoldstein Mar 2013 #142

he's stating that law enforcement *IS* the better way of dealing with it. geek tragedy Mar 2013 #144

I understand. But what's the answer to my question? nt MannyGoldstein Mar 2013 #146

I don't follow you. Holder is stating that the admin has decided geek tragedy Mar 2013 #148

So terror plots will only ever be disrupted by law enforcement, working with the courts? MannyGoldstein Mar 2013 #164

Holder won't be in office past January 19, 2017. geek tragedy Mar 2013 #167

"Not to excuse it, but in the context of a world war, it's somewhat more forgivable to me." ProSense Mar 2013 #20

Exactly... SidDithers Mar 2013 #32

Terra! Terra! Everywhere! Terra! MannyGoldstein Mar 2013 #33

Holder's comments are nothing like the dramatic and hyperbolic spin. ProSense Mar 2013 #43

Are we at war? nt MannyGoldstein Mar 2013 #52

Wait, ProSense Mar 2013 #64

Um... I thought *you* mentioned war? MannyGoldstein Mar 2013 #147

Amazing, at first glance I thought this to be parody of people like you whatchamacallit Mar 2013 #14

Fuck Rand Paul. Cha Mar 2013 #58

I agree whatchamacallit Mar 2013 #70

No, the answer is not "unacceptable".. it's perfectly reasonable Cha Mar 2013 #89

Well that's good enough for me whatchamacallit Mar 2013 #103

Made me laugh. enlightenment Mar 2013 #138

LOL, like cops only shoot people under extreme cases! Logical Mar 2013 #154

The "blind" support is strong in this one!! n-t Logical Mar 2013 #153

He's right on this issue. WinkyDink Mar 2013 #190

", he said, shaking his fist defiantly in his comfortable room in Canada. Marr Mar 2013 #192

... SidDithers Mar 2013 #193

Holder's response is entirely right on all points, and those hyperventilating geek tragedy Mar 2013 #15

"under armed attack"- missed that part. Where? n/t green for victory Mar 2013 #17

Did you miss the examples cited by Holder? 9/11 and Pearl Harbor, geek tragedy Mar 2013 #22

Well, for one, neither were caused by Americans demwing Mar 2013 #136

Shooting down the hijacked planes would have meant the US geek tragedy Mar 2013 #140

Unavoidable civilian casualties is not the issue demwing Mar 2013 #161

Unavoidable civilian casualties? That would have involved shooting a missile geek tragedy Mar 2013 #162

Look at the examples Holder gave Mutiny In Heaven Mar 2013 #35

well it's not fucking explicit either demwing Mar 2013 #134

Because that is not a do-able task jberryhill Mar 2013 #145

key words: "under armed attack". not the power that is being claimed. HiPointDem Mar 2013 #27

What power is being claimed? Did you even read the letter? nt geek tragedy Mar 2013 #31

yes. i did. and the wording is broad & misleading. HiPointDem Mar 2013 #54

You are making a factual misrepresentation. geek tragedy Mar 2013 #62

it's not *explicit* at all. HiPointDem Mar 2013 #85

Because he was answering a direct question from Rand Paul. geek tragedy Mar 2013 #87

Okay, so jberryhill Mar 2013 #88

in this context, which is the ongoing use of *preemptive* force, on the basis of secret evidence, HiPointDem Mar 2013 #105

Ah okay jberryhill Mar 2013 #109

"lethal force" is also too broad a term, because it's *targeted assassinations* that's going on. HiPointDem Mar 2013 #114

Missed the point jberryhill Mar 2013 #115

the special circumstances that holder mentions clearly *have* happened before, as he lists 3 HiPointDem Mar 2013 #123

Actually, we did try to use preemptive targeted assasination against Bin Laden jberryhill Mar 2013 #131

not targeted at bin laden, but at supposed 'terrorist bases' in afghanistan and sudan. HiPointDem Mar 2013 #172

Blame Rand Paul for the use of the term "lethal force." nt geek tragedy Mar 2013 #170

"And so it begins..." Fire Walk With Me Mar 2013 #19

Began 200 years ago with the Whiskey Rebellion. nt geek tragedy Mar 2013 #28

i don't recall the US preemptively killing the leaders of the whiskey rebellion either. HiPointDem Mar 2013 #36

I don't recall this letter claiming the authority to do that. I've read it--have you? geek tragedy Mar 2013 #39

if this letter were *not* claiming that by implication, there would be no controversy. presidents HiPointDem Mar 2013 #61

There's nothing new here. You're being trolled by Rand Paul. geek tragedy Mar 2013 #66

Fucking nailed it. "You're being trolled by Rand Paul"... SidDithers Mar 2013 #73

then it seems it's holder who's being 'trolled' by paul, not me. the wonder is that he does not HiPointDem Mar 2013 #91

Fuck it, I'm moving to a country that doesn't need to kill it's citizens to protect them. whatchamacallit Mar 2013 #26

Yeah, fuck that Abraham Lincoln! geek tragedy Mar 2013 #34

He should have had his soldiers link arms and sing Mutiny In Heaven Mar 2013 #38

We're not fighting each other aka Civil War whatchamacallit Mar 2013 #49

Ummm, who was on board those airplanes? geek tragedy Mar 2013 #55

So it's not about declaring Americans enemy combatants whatchamacallit Mar 2013 #68

If it meant saving 3000 other human beings, I would have geek tragedy Mar 2013 #72

Well whatchamacallit Mar 2013 #80

He specifically cited Pearl Harbor and 9/11. geek tragedy Mar 2013 #92

Well he was intelligent enough not to say whatchamacallit Mar 2013 #100

Yeah, I'll go ahead and stick to what he said. geek tragedy Mar 2013 #101

Please let me know when you find a country that will let me immigrate green for victory Mar 2013 #46

Adios. Cha Mar 2013 #65

why is it Rand Paul asking this? G_j Mar 2013 #29

Its good politics. napoleon_in_rags Mar 2013 #63

GOOD FUCKING GOD. woo me with science Mar 2013 #30

Nope not even close- look upthread n/t green for victory Mar 2013 #37

court jester, Gravel Democrat...nt SidDithers Mar 2013 #45

Forum tourettes syndrome? green for victory Mar 2013 #50

Oh, I'm sure you know exactly what those names mean...nt SidDithers Mar 2013 #56

You are quite sure of lots of things. n/t green for victory Mar 2013 #83

Yup. Some things I'm completely sure of...nt SidDithers Mar 2013 #86

What's wrong with being a ''Gravel Democrat''? Octafish Mar 2013 #210

Nothing wrong with being a Gravel Democrat...nt SidDithers Mar 2013 #211

Same familiar names. Same shameless "arguments." woo me with science Mar 2013 #176

Speculative outrage is the best outrage...nt SidDithers Mar 2013 #40

Knee Jerk is neck and neck. Cha Mar 2013 #60

Occupy, I hope you're paying attention. MadHound Mar 2013 #41

More fact-free bullshit. n/t ProSense Mar 2013 #47

So you're comfy with this power being in the hands of, oh, say Jeb Bush? MadHound Mar 2013 #53

First ProSense Mar 2013 #71

OK, are you comfortable with this power in the hands of any Republican in the future? MadHound Mar 2013 #77

I am ProSense Mar 2013 #84

LOL! Don't have the courage to answer the question. MadHound Mar 2013 #94

Courage: I'm comfortable with all President's exercising the Constitutional powers Holder cited. ProSense Mar 2013 #98

So you're comfy with Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, or Paul Ryan having this power? Yes or no, no dancing. MadHound Mar 2013 #104

They'll never be elected President, ProSense Mar 2013 #113

Well thank you, you finally gave a straight answer, MadHound Mar 2013 #121

Like I said ProSense Mar 2013 #124

Like I said, MadHound Mar 2013 #129

Clearly ProSense Mar 2013 #132

Oh, so now you're going back on your answer above, MadHound Mar 2013 #135

I'm not in favor of a Republican president being elected in the first place jberryhill Mar 2013 #137

"Every American has the right to know when their government is allowed to kill them." HiPointDem Mar 2013 #173

No republican will ever roxy1234 Mar 2013 #106

LOL, I was waiting for the White House response! n-t Logical Mar 2013 #156

LOL! ProSense Mar 2013 #158

We get it Pro, Obama is perfect, Obama never makes mistakes, Blah, Blah, Blah. n-t Logical Mar 2013 #165

No ProSense Mar 2013 #166

Please quote the language from Holder's letter you find objectionable. geek tragedy Mar 2013 #51

I'll ask you the same question I asked ProSense above, MadHound Mar 2013 #57

Yes. Every president in US history has had the power to geek tragedy Mar 2013 #59

OMG, so that's how far you'll go to defend this unConstitutional bullshit, MadHound Mar 2013 #69

You clearly ProSense Mar 2013 #76

You are making a sad spectacle of yourself trying to defend this unconstitutional act. MadHound Mar 2013 #81

You make a ProSense Mar 2013 #90

Killing a person without due process, simply on the secret orders of a President, MadHound Mar 2013 #96

That has nothing to do with Holder's point. n/t ProSense Mar 2013 #99

No, it looks like the Constitution is no longer relevant, MadHound Mar 2013 #102

Nonsense. n/t ProSense Mar 2013 #118

So, your position is that the president can never authorize the geek tragedy Mar 2013 #171

What part of due process don't you understand? MadHound Mar 2013 #177

Lincoln didn't get Congressional authorization. He relied on a 1792 statute. geek tragedy Mar 2013 #178

I just love people who rely on the intertubes to get their history lessons, MadHound Mar 2013 #180

Eric Holder's letter did not claim or assert the power to kill US citizens on US soil geek tragedy Mar 2013 #181

Took one huge step towards that, MadHound Mar 2013 #183

It didn't take any step--it just recited what everyone already agreed upon. geek tragedy Mar 2013 #184

No, it didn't prevent Obama from doing anything, or any future president for that matter, MadHound Mar 2013 #187

Do you really think if Obama was going to start murdering people on US soil geek tragedy Mar 2013 #188

What part of what Holder wrote offends your understanding geek tragedy Mar 2013 #169

Exactly what power do you mean? struggle4progress Mar 2013 #201

Enemies of the State, Beware! Octafish Mar 2013 #74

Don't worry, Octafish. From all indications, you'll never make the list. n/t Bolo Boffin Mar 2013 #75

Knowing you're there to report me makes me feel so much more secure, boloboffin. Octafish Mar 2013 #93

Good Lord, if I had the power to put you on a list like that, I never would. Bolo Boffin Mar 2013 #97

I'd sleep better knowing that no one was above the law, including the president, boloboffin. Octafish Mar 2013 #107

You know Octafish whatchamacallit Mar 2013 #111

You have a citation for that purported quote of mine, whachamacallit? Bolo Boffin Mar 2013 #117

It hurts to laugh. Octafish Mar 2013 #127

Yes. Bolo Boffin Mar 2013 #151

As is being pointed out here, Octafish, this power is something Presidents have always had. Bolo Boffin Mar 2013 #116

Hadn't noticed that. Octafish Mar 2013 #120

Inherent in the commander in chief powers, Octafish Bolo Boffin Mar 2013 #149

No, the president does not have an 'inherent' power to execute American citizens at will. Octafish Mar 2013 #207

Who the fuck said "at will"? Bolo Boffin Mar 2013 #208

I did. Because that's what the president does now. Octafish Mar 2013 #209

No. He does not. The idea that he does is the most despicable BS you've come up with yet. Bolo Boffin Mar 2013 #213

What a nice thing to say! And what 9/11 conspiracy theories of mine have you debunked, Bolo Boffin? Octafish Mar 2013 #215

Of course he can. Any president can. Look at what happened at Kent State University. liberal_at_heart Mar 2013 #79

did the president or governor order those shootings? no. they ordered the national guard out, HiPointDem Mar 2013 #110

Misreading? jberryhill Mar 2013 #112

Was there a "shoot" order from the president, governor, or commander of the unit -- or not? HiPointDem Mar 2013 #122

"misread something in the situation" jberryhill Mar 2013 #128

This very thread illustrates the real divide in this country green for victory Mar 2013 #95

It's been said, but... sagat Mar 2013 #108

But of course it will only be used on really, really bad people! n2doc Mar 2013 #126

This is NOT News People Benton D Struckcheon Mar 2013 #133

They should say: "This authority does not apply unless the nation is experiencing an ongoing attack" limpyhobbler Mar 2013 #152

I agree that the authority can be better defined. And have a review process in place. randome Mar 2013 #159

I don't think a review process would really be that good. limpyhobbler Mar 2013 #163

Hell, even the Inquisition went to the trouble of holding trials before executions. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2013 #155

Nice to see Democrats propagating RAND PAUL'S rhetoric. Comrade_McKenzie Mar 2013 #157

F the lying repugs, this is a real issue with devastating consequences just1voice Mar 2013 #175

Chief Executive or Chief Executioner? Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2013 #160

Ordered assassination of Americans is A-OK with loyalists from both parties just1voice Mar 2013 #174

No, you're misreading those posts just as you're misreading the Holder letter. geek tragedy Mar 2013 #186

It's important for the government to be able to murder me Nevernose Mar 2013 #182

One Crazy Question Here.... Jasana Mar 2013 #185

agreed G_j Mar 2013 #195

the libertarians question Buffalo Bull Mar 2013 #205

This should not be allowed to fall off of the first page. Fire Walk With Me Mar 2013 #194

Im defenetly dissapointed. in most thats happening right now. darkangel218 Mar 2013 #200

Huh. That's hardly encouraging. ellie Mar 2013 #202

Kick. Ignoring it does not make it go away. woo me with science Mar 2013 #203

Unrec. Ridiculous spin doesn't make it true. FSogol Mar 2013 #204