General Discussion

zipplewrath

(16,698 posts)

88. Two scenarios

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 07:28 PM

Mar 2013

Here are two scenarios I'd be afraid to ask Holder about:

1) There's a movie with Clooney and Kidman about chasing a terrorist with a backpack nuke. He makes it to NYC and is headed towards the UN. There are snipers about on buildings and one of them spots the terrorist (not a US citizen). Clooney, a Colnel in the Army, orders the terrorist shot, even though the streets are full of cops who could attempt to arrest the guy. Mind you, the guy is wearing a nuke. The shot could hit the bomb, the terrorist could have a "dead man" switch on him, no one really knows. They do believe he is headed to the UN. The sniper announces he can't take a shot because there are innocent US citizens in the way of the shot. Clooney orders him to take the shot anyway, presuming the through shot would still strike the terrorist.

Does that authority exist in such a situation. Can a Military officer order a US citizen to be shot in order for the bullet to go through and kill a terrorist. Does it matter what the citizenship of the terrorist is? Is there an obligation to attempt arrest?

2) Branch Dividians. They have already killed officers of the law. They are armed. You know the situation. Nothing has happened for 30+ days. Could the president order the military to drop a bomb on the facility and kill the occupants?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

97 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Holder: Obama Can Target US Citizens on US Soil for Killing [View all] xchrom Mar 2013 OP

That whole... 99Forever Mar 2013 #1

Farewell, Due Process. We are going to miss you. dixiegrrrrl Mar 2013 #2

"I want you to know this administration is totally committed to protecting the people." jsr Mar 2013 #6

".... the people of the 1%" dixiegrrrrl Mar 2013 #25

If you actually read the letter, Holder doesn't say anything controversial. geek tragedy Mar 2013 #3

Are you saying mzmolly Mar 2013 #16

How about not reading stuff into the letter that wasn't there? Bake Mar 2013 #18

Think, read, think, then react. geek tragedy Mar 2013 #21

So what's wrong with stating unequivocally where the boundaries to lethal force lie? Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2013 #34

Because in the real world it's not plausible to state geek tragedy Mar 2013 #40

"The US military will not be used on US soil against its citizens Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2013 #43

The 9/11 attacks were not a general insurrection. geek tragedy Mar 2013 #45

False analogy. Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2013 #51

You just changed your own rule. geek tragedy Mar 2013 #53

When have riots been judged as un unlawful use of military force? Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2013 #54

They are law enforcement situations, not military ones. geek tragedy Mar 2013 #55

Actually, the topic of discussion is Holder's broad response to Paul's broad question onenote Mar 2013 #56

so you would oppose the use of the military to stop a RW domestic terror group onenote Mar 2013 #46

Is that what Awlaki was doing? Or his 16-year old son during a separate, dedicated drone strike? Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2013 #52

Why is that "presumably" what the article is referring to. Its not the topic of Paul's inquiry onenote Mar 2013 #58

So in other words -- we're at the mercy of our masters without due process or judicial review Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2013 #60

You've conceded that we're at the "mercy of our masters" without due process onenote Mar 2013 #65

Because unless you have a crystal ball you can't possibly foresee every onenote Mar 2013 #44

david koresh? waco 1993 spanone Mar 2013 #4

Unrec. More anti-Obama spin and BS from common dreams. FSogol Mar 2013 #5

How about Jonathan Turley's view on the subject, then? dixiegrrrrl Mar 2013 #7

Just curious, but why should we care about Turley's views on this or any other issue? nt. OldDem2012 Mar 2013 #47

+ struggle4progress Mar 2013 #57

This message was self-deleted by its author struggle4progress Mar 2013 #59

because as far as constitutional scholars go, turley eats obama's lunch.. frylock Mar 2013 #63

LOL. You seem to have a bit of a personal attitude.... OldDem2012 Mar 2013 #69

i do indeed. frylock Mar 2013 #72

You do understand Turley is a right winger, don't you? nt. OldDem2012 Mar 2013 #73

i'm a policy guy, not a personality guy.. frylock Mar 2013 #74

You need to do a little better homework on the people you reference in your posts on DU.... OldDem2012 Mar 2013 #80

wowie. you've put a lot of thought into this.. frylock Mar 2013 #85

as "constitutional scholars" go, Turley is third rate, at best onenote Mar 2013 #90

Well, they are consistent. great white snark Mar 2013 #20

True dat! n/t FSogol Mar 2013 #24

Why is Holder still in office? talkingmime Mar 2013 #8

Any replacement would be just as bad, or even worse.... forestpath Mar 2013 #9

Really? He's incompetent and ineffective. How could you get worse? talkingmime Mar 2013 #10

Yeah, like Obama would replace him with somebody better....NOT. forestpath Mar 2013 #13

I just can't understand why he hasn't already. It doesn't make sense. talkingmime Mar 2013 #15

But it's in keeping with his other horrible choices. None of it makes sense. forestpath Mar 2013 #17

I think a lot of it is to appease the GOP wingnuts. But geeze, they held up Hagel!!! talkingmime Mar 2013 #22

It makes perfect sense. Ganja Ninja Mar 2013 #26

Occam's Razor! immoderate Mar 2013 #35

I use the spelling "Ockham", but the concept goes back at least as far as Ptolemy. talkingmime Mar 2013 #68

word up frylock Mar 2013 #64

This subthread didn't get the point. DevonRex Mar 2013 #49

Because Obama wants him there. woo me with science Mar 2013 #67

The only circumstance this could even be justified nadinbrzezinski Mar 2013 #11

It was a very hypothetical question. Bake Mar 2013 #19

Ummm GRENADE Mar 2013 #79

Holder didn't grab any kind of authority. He ducked the question that geek tragedy Mar 2013 #23

fuck freedom and our constitution , who needs them right? bowens43 Mar 2013 #12

It really is time for Dems to mobilize against the Obama Admin and push him (back?) to the left. reformist2 Mar 2013 #14

"we"? speak for yourself please snooper2 Mar 2013 #37

No he can't, sounds like some BS from commondreams.org Rex Mar 2013 #27

GOOD FUCKING GOD. woo me with science Mar 2013 #28

Woo me with deja vu, Woo. tridim Mar 2013 #29

Your point? Puzzledtraveller Mar 2013 #30

There's a DU rule against saying something more than once???? dixiegrrrrl Mar 2013 #31

*snicker* *cough* *SNORT* Naw, woo. Obama'd just leave us totally unprotected, not fight back. DevonRex Mar 2013 #32

12/7/41 was perpetrated by Americans? Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2013 #36

I see you didn't actually read the article. DevonRex Mar 2013 #39

How do you think the Administration should react to an armed rebellion against the government? n/t yodermon Mar 2013 #33

Why, suh, they should suhrenduh to General Lee immediately!! LOL!!! DevonRex Mar 2013 #42

There were no US citizens involved with Pearl Harbor or 9 11 superpatriotman Mar 2013 #38

US citizens were on the planes that were used. geek tragedy Mar 2013 #41

You're just trying to confuse the absolutists onenote Mar 2013 #48

At least 48 civilians were killed during the attack on Pearl Harbor... OldDem2012 Mar 2013 #50

I'm not sure anyone can understand anything Holder says or writes. Autumn Mar 2013 #62

U.S. citizens were not attacking us. GreenStormCloud Mar 2013 #70

The majority of the US citizens were hit by descending US antiaircraft fire... OldDem2012 Mar 2013 #75

The U.S. civilians were not targeted and killed deliberately by the U.S. GreenStormCloud Mar 2013 #86

Americans were not involved in the PLOTTTING with either attack superpatriotman Mar 2013 #76

If US citizens launch an attack on a US facility/US citizens on US soil, would that not... OldDem2012 Mar 2013 #78

Yes we do, McVeigh, for example superpatriotman Mar 2013 #82

Nope. Because local police forces are empowered to handle local problems. nt. OldDem2012 Mar 2013 #83

Did you ever actually read Holder's letter to Rand Paul? struggle4progress Mar 2013 #61

The F-16s from Langley would have brought down United Flight 93 if necessary FarCenter Mar 2013 #66

Your point? It would have been to prevent MORE casualties. WinkyDink Mar 2013 #87

So you agree that the President can order the killing of some Americans to save other Americans. FarCenter Mar 2013 #97

Easy solution: mwrguy Mar 2013 #71

Now just how freakin' special is this? Holder and his lads can't get enough evidence to indepat Mar 2013 #77

Fucksake. Context, people. Spider Jerusalem Mar 2013 #81

Unfortunately, we're dealing with the context-blind. nt. OldDem2012 Mar 2013 #84

Two scenarios zipplewrath Mar 2013 #88

As mentioned, Holder purposely ducked the question being asked. BlueCheese Mar 2013 #89

where in Paul's letter does it say what you say it does? onenote Mar 2013 #91

Come on. Everybody knows what question Paul wanted answered. BlueCheese Mar 2013 #92

I've worked on and around the Hill for 30 years onenote Mar 2013 #95

Okay, I'll defer to your experience. BlueCheese Mar 2013 #96

Due process is important, but... tarheelsunc Mar 2013 #93

We have arrived 29 years late guardian Mar 2013 #94