Latest Breaking News

hughee99

(16,113 posts)

184. You now seem far less confident in your legal protections

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 01:28 PM

Mar 2013

than you did earlier. Though I do agree, if the president wants to kill someone, they can probably get that done. I'd just don't like the idea that a president can kill an citizen on US soil with no due process and be legally protected by asserting an "extraordinary circumstance" and when asked to outline this circumstance they can reply "that's a matter of national security" which would naturally seem to fit right in with the scenario.

As far as what makes for a "truly outlandish scenario", we're just going to have to trust our president to decide that for himself. This is fine, because we'd never elect a president who would lie to us so they could do what they wanted to do anyway. Hell, it's not like some president told us about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the urgency of removing Saddam Hussein from power even though they new it wasn't true.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

204 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

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

And an informed, high-level official will decide jsr Mar 2013 #1

That makes me feel soooo much better. nt awoke_in_2003 Mar 2013 #77

If this is true, then the Obama admin should start with the republicants in congress! TheDebbieDee Mar 2013 #87

Yes, one as well informed as these: AnotherMcIntosh Mar 2013 #93

yeah, dtom67 Mar 2013 #152

Work backward: DC needed every rancid piece of legislation they passed since 9/11 to get to this blkmusclmachine Mar 2013 #154

Or ... GeorgeGist Mar 2013 #160

I don't always agree with you but I certainly do on that post. Nihil Mar 2013 #161

So, Obama really does have death panels? n/t fasttense Mar 2013 #157

just great In_The_Wind Mar 2013 #183

Could Congressional Republicans be declared Enemy combatants? Katashi_itto Mar 2013 #186

US Marshals, the FBI and a couple other agencies cliffordu Mar 2013 #2

Agree but this is significantly different in my opinion.... Swede Atlanta Mar 2013 #13

Well written and I will think about what you have posted - cliffordu Mar 2013 #14

Obama was the Lesser evil Stewland Mar 2013 #41

Did you actually read Holder's letter to Rand Paul? struggle4progress Mar 2013 #155

Bonnie and Clyde were killed in a firefight with local law enforcement officials struggle4progress Mar 2013 #29

No one wanted to take them alive. cliffordu Mar 2013 #31

That may well be the case, but I wasn't there, as it was all before my time, struggle4progress Mar 2013 #46

From all accounts, because they were folk heroes among many of the poor, cliffordu Mar 2013 #50

In any case, neither FBI nor US Marshalls were responsible for the events of 23 May '34 struggle4progress Mar 2013 #58

This is true, although cliffordu Mar 2013 #67

Actually, Bonnie and Clyde were ambushed Art_from_Ark Mar 2013 #145

See my #46 upthread struggle4progress Mar 2013 #146

The newsreel about the ambush implied that the Federal posse just started shooting Art_from_Ark Mar 2013 #147

It was eighty years ago; I'm no expert on the subject; and accounts differ struggle4progress Mar 2013 #156

But this is the President of the United States with a whole hell of a lot different accountability! riderinthestorm Mar 2013 #66

Well...OK - my take is more cynical than that. The government as a whole has the ability cliffordu Mar 2013 #70

I actually agree you. Its the fact they are acknowledging that accountability is for shit riderinthestorm Mar 2013 #91

Cue Tricky Dick... slackmaster Mar 2013 #3

Mr Obama has nowhere adopted Mr Nixon's view, argued by St Clair before the Supreme Court, struggle4progress Mar 2013 #23

I can't believe nobody sees what he's doing. sofa king Mar 2013 #196

Facts should precede analysis, but you would it the other way around struggle4progress Mar 2013 #197

Here's a tip for you. sofa king Mar 2013 #198

Please forgive my snippiness. sofa king Mar 2013 #201

You could be right. I regard your post as plausible, although uncertainty rules the day. (NT) proverbialwisdom Mar 2013 #200

Was this even a question, "Whiskey Rebellion" anybody? SpartanDem Mar 2013 #4

Or the Civil War. nt geek tragedy Mar 2013 #10

Rand Paul didn't see that on Faux, so it never happened. freshwest Mar 2013 #42

Ugly. Unacceptable. Beyond fucking disappointing. AzDar Mar 2013 #5

+1 rachel1 Mar 2013 #69

Constitutional Professor tblue Mar 2013 #6

"Scholar." HA! blkmusclmachine Mar 2013 #153

So, if I flip off a drone flying overhead, my neighborhood will not get blown up, as a result? RC Mar 2013 #7

I haven't ever seen any reports of Americans being offed by Mr Obama for flipping the bird struggle4progress Mar 2013 #26

everybody else can... stillcool Mar 2013 #8

Exactly, how many good Americans are storing up weapons to fight Heather MC Mar 2013 #71

To all those getting worked up about this: geek tragedy Mar 2013 #9

imagine GRENADE Mar 2013 #11

Lincoln was a Republican. And he did use it. nt geek tragedy Mar 2013 #12

I think you know what Grenade means... Jeff In Milwaukee Mar 2013 #15

Necessarily deny? The right to repel an armed attack against the US has never been geek tragedy Mar 2013 #17

I'm not disagreeing with you... Jeff In Milwaukee Mar 2013 #22

Civilian authorities can't repel a catastrophic armed attack. geek tragedy Mar 2013 #28

lincoln GRENADE Mar 2013 #159

All presidents have ALWAYS had this power SpartanDem Mar 2013 #18

Grenade donnasgirl Mar 2013 #64

if a republican pretzeldent would not have this power available and wanted to have it Amonester Mar 2013 #135

Lincoln did more than voilate it, he shredded the Constitution Ter Mar 2013 #20

Worst president ever!!!! nt geek tragedy Mar 2013 #21

Oh hush you... Jeff In Milwaukee Mar 2013 #24

He's up there Ter Mar 2013 #194

Yeah, Lincoln John2 Mar 2013 #45

Lincoln declared martial law during a civil war . . . another_liberal Mar 2013 #75

Or the rioters in NYC. nt Javaman Mar 2013 #163

In cases of invasion, or armed rebellion, when the usual instruments of the lawful civil government struggle4progress Mar 2013 #16

+100 JoePhilly Mar 2013 #76

Yeah, we can't allow an armed overthrow of the US government or anything, now can we. yodermon Mar 2013 #19

I'm starting to understand why US citizens are hoarding high power weapons. Not what I voted Purveyor Mar 2013 #25

It says we can actually read the English language. geek tragedy Mar 2013 #27

In neither of the cases that Holder so conveniently presented were the perps 'American citizens'. Purveyor Mar 2013 #33

Shooting down the planes on 9/11 would have meant blowing up geek tragedy Mar 2013 #36

No, you've been 'played' by this administration for supporting this policy. Carry on, indeed. eom Purveyor Mar 2013 #55

What policy? Sorry, there's not a single credible constitutional geek tragedy Mar 2013 #59

This message was self-deleted by its author Purveyor Mar 2013 #65

Yeah. Those lashes are shredding your pom poms. Jakes Progress Mar 2013 #37

No, I just value accuracy over poutrage. nt geek tragedy Mar 2013 #39

No, you just value personality over principal. Jakes Progress Mar 2013 #52

Tell us which language from Holder's letter, given the specific geek tragedy Mar 2013 #54

Tell us the language from Holders letter Jakes Progress Mar 2013 #109

What you do not understand is that every President has had the authority to geek tragedy Mar 2013 #116

Nutzies hoard weapon cuz they are nutzy struggle4progress Mar 2013 #97

Considering the headlines, why would this not encourage them?... Purveyor Mar 2013 #102

It's pointless to try to understand the thought processes of wackos struggle4progress Mar 2013 #107

And the first time they do this, they will lose my support. kestrel91316 Mar 2013 #30

They you need only go back a few weeks - because the FBI used lethal force on the Alabama 24601 Mar 2013 #44

So you've never supported any US president then? jeff47 Mar 2013 #202

You would be all be screaming if the Bush administration said this alarimer Mar 2013 #32

^^^THIS^^^ +1000 eom Purveyor Mar 2013 #34

Hypocrisy thy name is reagan democrat. Jakes Progress Mar 2013 #35

The downfall is people too stupid to pick history books SpartanDem Mar 2013 #43

Wow. Spitting out your cheerios over my post? Jakes Progress Mar 2013 #47

The Posse Comitatus Act. SpartanDem Mar 2013 #62

Nice wiki cut and paste. Jakes Progress Mar 2013 #111

Nice deflection. SpartanDem Mar 2013 #140

Posse comitatus forbid the use of the armed forces for law enforcement, not geek tragedy Mar 2013 #63

You haven't boned up enough in the 16 minutes Jakes Progress Mar 2013 #113

If he had ordered the shooting down of Flight 93, yes I would have supported that. geek tragedy Mar 2013 #120

John Yoo approves. OnyxCollie Mar 2013 #130

It all depends John2 Mar 2013 #61

rand paul is the fetid dropping from his libertarian asshole of a father. Jakes Progress Mar 2013 #115

Lincoln did it. Heck, George Washington personally led an army geek tragedy Mar 2013 #38

So I guess Washington was a criminal for putting down the Whiskey Rebellion SpartanDem Mar 2013 #40

So I guess you don't keep up with history. Jakes Progress Mar 2013 #49

@alarimer That's indisputable rachel1 Mar 2013 #51

++++100 840high Mar 2013 #68

Quiet you, what did I tell you about point out the obvious?huh??? Javaman Mar 2013 #164

Is the definition of "extraordinary circumstances" also at the discretion of the President? n/t hughee99 Mar 2013 #48

Well, who else would make that call in the middle of an ongoing armed attack? geek tragedy Mar 2013 #56

It's good to see that they've streamlined this to the point where hughee99 Mar 2013 #86

Who else has authority to authorize military action in immediate response geek tragedy Mar 2013 #88

Whoa, what is this "immediate response to an ongoing attack"? hughee99 Mar 2013 #96

The 9/11 or Pearl Harbor examples were not chosen by accident. nt geek tragedy Mar 2013 #101

Great, but two good "For instances" don't make any kind of actual guideline. hughee99 Mar 2013 #105

A guideline covering every possible hypothetical event? geek tragedy Mar 2013 #106

How about some sort of guideline laying out what's NOT covered? hughee99 Mar 2013 #114

Ruby Ridge was obviously not an extraordinary, catastrophic attack. geek tragedy Mar 2013 #119

Sorry, didn't see "catastrophic attack" just "circumstances" after hughee99 Mar 2013 #124

Holder used the language "catastrophic attack" geek tragedy Mar 2013 #125

He gave "catastrophic attack" as an example of when it might be used. hughee99 Mar 2013 #168

Actually, I do have a problem with that. Fortunately for me, that is explicitly geek tragedy Mar 2013 #169

The Coast Guard is already using drones, hughee99 Mar 2013 #170

I have no problem with the Coast Guard using drones to patrol the coast. geek tragedy Mar 2013 #171

I'm all for the coast guard using drones for such purposes (patrol) hughee99 Mar 2013 #172

Posse Comitatus has very limited exceptions. geek tragedy Mar 2013 #173

Again, Coast Guard drones. Posse Comitatus does not apply to the Coast Guard, hughee99 Mar 2013 #174

Coast Guard is a law enforcement agency as well as part geek tragedy Mar 2013 #175

Yes, and because of their law enforcement component, they are not subject to Posse Comitatus hughee99 Mar 2013 #176

Well, by that token police could kill someone and do so every day. geek tragedy Mar 2013 #179

I didn't realize Nebraska was on the coast. hughee99 Mar 2013 #181

If the President wants to murder someone, he can probably geek tragedy Mar 2013 #182

You now seem far less confident in your legal protections hughee99 Mar 2013 #184

The scary thing about laws is that they're only as good as the people geek tragedy Mar 2013 #185

GWB could have ordered jet fighters to shoot down the planes that flew into the WTC. Lint Head Mar 2013 #53

"Give a boy a stick and he'll find something that needs to be hit. nt" ladjf Mar 2013 #57

Timothy McVeigh doesn't count (he's the wrong color) The Stranger Mar 2013 #60

I had the same thought: What if Bill Clinton had a few minutes warning... Amonester Mar 2013 #139

American citizens were involved in the attack on Pearl Harbor . . .? another_liberal Mar 2013 #72

(-)<>(-) Mutatis Mutandis Mar 2013 #78

Well . . . another_liberal Mar 2013 #118

Stimson, Marshall, McCloy, Lovett, and Bundy were Americans Mutatis Mutandis Mar 2013 #158

Discussed or facts presented? nt Javaman Mar 2013 #165

I've read some books . . . another_liberal Mar 2013 #192

Rall Mutatis Mutandis Mar 2013 #73

Worse then anything bush proposed... bowens43 Mar 2013 #74

He's declared himself King FiveGoodMen Mar 2013 #79

That claim requires better evidence than yet another Rand Paul tantrum struggle4progress Mar 2013 #110

thank goodness that he'll be president for life.. frylock Mar 2013 #80

Ted Nugent and Rush Limbaugh should be looking skyward, ROFL! 4bucksagallon Mar 2013 #81

So President Bush-43 would have the authority to use military force against Americans on US soil? AnotherMcIntosh Mar 2013 #82

41 and Nixon had that authority as CiC SpartanDem Mar 2013 #89

Yes, Bush had the authority to shoot down the airliners on 9/11 geek tragedy Mar 2013 #103

This president is different from all other presidents in that he is the only one - ever - to claim AnotherMcIntosh Mar 2013 #137

Overseas (tribal Yemen) and within the US are two entirely different legal and factual situations. geek tragedy Mar 2013 #138

How about B�ll Clinton had the same authority to kill Timothy McVeigh just minutes before... Amonester Mar 2013 #141

How about Richard Nixon who had an "enemies list" of those who criticized him? AnotherMcIntosh Mar 2013 #142

1. You didn't answer the question (yet). Amonester Mar 2013 #144

Why would you ask me, "How about B�ll Clinton had the same authority to kill Timothy McVeigh AnotherMcIntosh Mar 2013 #148

I don't agree with it. But I live in reality. Amonester Mar 2013 #149

You can even go back further. Washington-1 used this authority to put down the Whiskey Rebellion. jeff47 Mar 2013 #203

This message was self-deleted by its author damnedifIknow Mar 2013 #83

Rand Paul, spare me the drama queen routine Politicub Mar 2013 #84

"The justice department policy allows killing of bonafide criminals" FiveGoodMen Mar 2013 #128

Like I said, I take the policy at face value Politicub Mar 2013 #162

Don't give a rat's ass what Paul says FiveGoodMen Mar 2013 #180

"Dr" Paul, if Obama had an "R" instead of a "D," you would support this. Hypocritical asshole! Nanjing to Seoul Mar 2013 #85

If it happens, impeachment would be a good move Blandocyte Mar 2013 #90

Not sure why we focus on the method rather than the action. Paul E Ester Mar 2013 #92

What the fuck are you talking about? struggle4progress Mar 2013 #94

Seriously! mimi85 Mar 2013 #133

No. And no one beyond you is making that claim. jeff47 Mar 2013 #204

Wait, THOSE were his examples? Pearl Harbor, which Truman had advance notice and declined to act... DRoseDARs Mar 2013 #95

Harry Truman wasn't even VP until Jan '45 and only became POTUS in Apr '45 struggle4progress Mar 2013 #99

My timeline was wrong I fess up to that, but the debate about the government's foreknowledge is real DRoseDARs Mar 2013 #100

You have simply moved from a weird attack on Truman to a vaguer weird attack on "the government" struggle4progress Mar 2013 #104

I have done no such thing, but please continue condescending. As much as I loathe doing this, here: DRoseDARs Mar 2013 #108

So you're pushing a conspiracy theory struggle4progress Mar 2013 #112

If you're going to dismiss it out-of-hand because of one word, then this isn't worth our time. DRoseDARs Mar 2013 #117

You provided a link to a Wikileaks page that discusses a hodge-podge of conspiracy theories, struggle4progress Mar 2013 #122

Wasn't aware Wikileaks.org existed before it was registered in 2006, or that Wikipedia = Wikileaks. DRoseDARs Mar 2013 #123

Thanks for the correction. Dumb typo struggle4progress Mar 2013 #127

As was mine. We're family here, let's just agree to disagree. I've respected you a long time... DRoseDARs Mar 2013 #129

Why not, when we still have torture camps, criminal banks and 2 sets of laws just1voice Mar 2013 #98

It's a good thing Obama is good instead of evil, or this would be something to worry about. Pterodactyl Mar 2013 #121

Hear that teabaggers? Renew Deal Mar 2013 #126

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,... Deep13 Mar 2013 #131

Feel free to register at Free Republic based on a letter you didn't bother geek tragedy Mar 2013 #167

The correct answer is... Deep13 Mar 2013 #187

Problem is the constitution doesn't flatly prohibit it in all cases. geek tragedy Mar 2013 #188

"No person...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." nt Deep13 Mar 2013 #189

So, police may never use lethal force? geek tragedy Mar 2013 #190

the police example is personal self-defense,... Deep13 Mar 2013 #191

"Due process" certainly involves a lot of wiggle room. geek tragedy Mar 2013 #193

The President's authority is one thing... davidthegnome Mar 2013 #132

We're returning to the days when the military was used to put down strikes. That wasn't so long ago leveymg Mar 2013 #134

Preparing for the Hour of Need: Emergency Powers in the United States OnyxCollie Mar 2013 #136

The article, like Rand Paul, completely misrepresents Holder's response: struggle4progress Mar 2013 #143

Monsieur Holder, Talk is Cheap harkonen Mar 2013 #150

9/11 was a handy excuse. blkmusclmachine Mar 2013 #151

Well this opens the door for some future nut bag prez. nt Javaman Mar 2013 #166

look how the bush gang was ready to down planes filled with innocents, we're lucky canda let them in Sunlei Mar 2013 #177

Well, well, isn't that comforting? Beacool Mar 2013 #178

Listening to Thom Hartmann today and reading friend's twitter about drones killing Obama voters alp227 Mar 2013 #195

state murder laws still apply. nt quadrature Mar 2013 #199