One more step down a road that we will have great difficulty leaving.Like many lawyers might, he used three paragraphs rather than just the one word, but that's what he said.For a while now the administration has been refusing to answer this question one way or the other, which anyone with half a brain knew almost certainly meant "yes." But in a letter dated March 4, the Attorney General finally responded to Senator Rand Paul's question whether "the President has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial." Sen. Paul actually asked John Brennan that question, but Brennan couldn't or wouldn't answer it during the hearings on whether he should be the next head of the CIA. (That also meant "yes.") Now Eric Holder has answered it for him.Here's his letter, which is not that long and which you should read in full if you don't hate Freedom:Dear Senator Paul:
On February 20, 2013, you wrote to John Brennan requesting additional information concerning the Adminìstration’s views about whether “the President has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial."Here comes the answer! Ooh! I'm having a Constitutional Moment!As members of this Administration have previously indicated, the U.S. government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so.Uh, let me just interrupt again here to point out that this is not a "no." And that's not good. Oh, well, go on:As a policy matter, moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat. We have a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad. Hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts.
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, l suppose, to ìmagine 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. 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 of a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.Were such an emergency to arise, l would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the President on the scope of his authority.Sincerely,Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Attorney GeneralWell, the word "no" does appear in that letter, but only as part of the phrases "no intention of doing so," "we hope no President will," and "no choice," none of which are really what I was looking for there. In fact, they are the opposite of "no."Just to review, the Attorney General just said yes, the President does have "the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial." That's funny, because I'm looking at some amendments here (I'm thinking IV, V, VI, and VIII) that say he doesn't.
Tuesday, March 05, 2013
When avoiding the question answers it
Can the President order the killing of a US citizen on US soil without a trial? The Attorney General answers. [Link]
12 comments:
I don't see any difference between what Holder said and the FBI having Wanted: Dead or Alive privileges. In both cases, every effort is made to apprehend the individual first, in order to prevent him (or her, I suppose) from inflicting grievous harm of one form or another. Failing that, the authorities having exhausted all other avenues, are left with only the option of lethal force in the interest of protection of the many. If the suspect could be caught, he'd be brought to justice, tried, convicted or set free. But what if you can't catch him?
And, to your knowledge, has this or any other President ever used such an option in this country? Ever? Why are you so convinced that he would? Is it the office or the office holder with whom you have a problem?
Sean says if he turns a blind eye to this, then he could be next. So I asked him what he was planning to do that would bring him to the attention of the authorities for them to decide to "take him out?" And yes, I have seen Brazil. There are also instances of suspects who were tried, convicted and executed, only to later discover that it was the wrong guy. Huh. Oh, well, too bad, I guess.
Does the FBI have 'dead or alive' powers? They are always trying to apprehend suspects to bring them to justice. If they have no choice, they can defend themselves with lethal force. If they set out deliberately to kill someone, that is murder.
I have problems both with the creeping increase in power of the office of the President as well as the media's intentional turning of a blind eye to this President's activities because he is a Democrat. At least with a Republican President the media keeps an eye on Imperial overreach. Compare how often the closing of Guantanamo is in the news during the Bush and Obama Presidencies.
Also, the question Senator Paul asked was about drone strikes, particularly those that are not about imminent danger, but about opportunistic 'if wee see him, kill him' for known terrorists. That was hand-waved in the letter to trying to prevent Pearl Harbor or 9/11 style imminent attacks. I have less problem with that than the fact that the actual question was not answered, which is it's own answer.
I got this from the FBI website:
"What is the FBI’s policy on the use of deadly force by its special agents?
FBI special agents may use deadly force only when necessary—when the agent has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the agent or another person. If feasible, a verbal warning to submit to the authority of the special agent is given prior to the use of deadly force."
Fugitives from the FBI don't have trials before they are pursued (unless they had one, got convicted and then escaped, I suppose) any more than the subjects "pursued" by the President. You seem convinced (as does Sean) that the office of the President is an evil, nefarious entity that will use its deadly powers like some evil wizard, giggling and rubbing his hands together with glee. So I ask again, is it the office or the current resident that you think will use this power unnecessarily?
Don't get me wrong. I agree with your assertion that the media is biased. But aren't you hearing about all of this via the media? I'm of the opinion that the President has always had this kind of power. Its use has never even been considered before, but now we have these drones, see, and they've been employed overseas. I'm pretty sure this is driven by the times, (not the NY Times) and the demands of the citizenry to be protected from further incidents like 9/11. What I read in Holder's statement was that he, not the President, would advise as to the scope of the powers, on a case by case basis and only when all other means have been exhausted. What are your thoughts about the fact that military jets can be sent to shoot down a plane in unauthorized airspace, if it doesn't respond and identify itself? Why haven't I heard so much commotion about that kind of arbitrary decision to employ the military to kill someone?
Bunny, The FBI fugitives are at least ACCUSED of a crime and have a warrant for their arrest. They have therefore received some level of due process. I would say that there is a big difference between FBI fugitives on a most wanted list and drone strikes against civilians without any form of due process.
Exactly, due process.
I think power of any kind tends to expand, tries to extend it's control.
This question (and avoidance of same) is an example of that. This is a very simple question: "Does the President have the power to order the death of a US citizen on US soil without due process"? The answer should be simple: No.
If you think the answer should be yes, then what about the final statement I included:
"Just to review, the Attorney General just said yes, the President does have "the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial." That's funny, because I'm looking at some amendments here (I'm thinking IV, V, VI, and VIII) that say he doesn't."
That certainly seems like expanding the power of the Presidency. In the hands of good and righteous men, (and I'm willing to include Obama as one) this power won't be abused.
But what about when the office is held by someone who is not worthy? What then? Those laws are there for a purpose and this quote from 'A Man For All Seasons' is the best example I know to express that:
"What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ... And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you – where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's, and if you cut them down -- and you're just the man to do it -- do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!"
I'm bowing out now. I just found out that, rather than having been caused by some impending incident, this entire brouhaha has been perpetrated by Rand Paul. You know full well that I'm no admirer of a Democratic administration. But as much as all the libs despised Dubya, why didn't they ask him the same question, and what do you think he'd have said? I'm not interested in arguing with conspiracy theorists who appear to believe that the government is inherently evil. We're going to have to agree to disagree.
Oh, by the way. It's incumbent upon all of us not to elect someone who is not worthy. We have some responsibility here, too.
Hey, I just remembered! You didn't say what you think about military jets shadowing planes in unauthorized airspace. The president can authorize the planes to shoot down the unidentified intruder. Isn't that the same thing?
No, it's not. That's an imminent danger, just like an FBI agent shooting a suspect that is trying to shoot someone. No one questions that power.
It is the power to order a US citizen in the US killed who is a non imminent danger that we have a problem with. And I would have the same question for W. Also, it is a very easy dismissal of legitimate concerns to call us conspiracy theorists.
You are correct. I shouldn't have said that. You are entitled to be concerned. My problem with this whole scenario is the idea that you think it will happen. You seem convinced that the President will use this kind of power in the U.S. without probable cause against people who do not pose a threat. Nowhere, except in conspiracy blogs, have I seen any indication that he in fact has or would. Ever. This is all hypothetical, and to what end? What would he possibly have to gain by perpetrating such an action?
As for the planes shadowing an unknown intruder, many times that intruder just had a broken radio or was a moron who didn't know he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. The government doesn't know he has nefarious intentions, yet it's okay to kill him. So how is that different? Surely you don't believe that they'll send out the drones for target practice on innocent individuals! There will indeed be cause for concern. Seems to me that Ron Paul et al are employing the politics of fear that Dubya tried so hard to avoid after 9/11. If we all have to live in fear of ourselves, then the terrorists have won,
Everything not forbidden is compulsory. The fact that it has not happened yet is no indication it can't. There has been a continuing trend of more federal power. As an example, take a look at the FISA court order stats. http://epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fisa_stats.html If they have the power to do something, they will - eventually.
As for the planes, you'll notice that we have shot down remarkably few planes in those circumstances. an event like that happened very soon after 9/11 and was not shot down.
Post a Comment