Democrats Question Obama on Use of Drones on American Soil. Worried About Us Slaves.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by jibeho
You don't like the topic you just try to redirect it. As usual... How about commenting on the potential use of drones on US soil against Americans. ?? Too tough for you to cough up?

Funny...the OP didn't question the use of drones on US Soil? It questioned the sincerity of those folks that DID question the use of drones on US Soil.

Who is redirecting the topic?

Originally posted by jibeho
Holder's response to Rand Paul was intentionally vague and without definition.

This was Holders response...After the first long letter Holder sent was derided as not specific enough...he followed it up with this.

The Attorney General
Washington, D.C.
March 7, 2013

The Honorable Rand Paul
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Paul: It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: "Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?" The answer to that question is no.

Eric H. Holder, Jr.

www.politico.com...

Is "no" too vague for you?

edit on 12-3-2013 by jibeho because: (no reason given)

Gee Whiz! I guess I misinterpreted this part from the OP.

It seems the House Democrats are suddenly worried about the sheeples and have sent a letter to Obama about his intentions when it comes to using drones on American soil and killing Americans without due process.

So who sent the letter to Obama that QUESTIONED his intentions?

STill looking for George Bush in the OP.... I let you know when I find it....

Thanks for setting me straight again!

As for Holder's letter..

Please define "engaged in combat". You know, what type of combat would warrant a drone strike on Americans on American soil? Did you miss that part of the letter? What does this admistration consider an act of combat?

What acts of combat did al-Awlaki and his son commit that warranted their demise by drone?

If we use that case as a benchmark, the sky is the limit for using drones on US soil against Americans suspected or accused of anything that may connect them to Obama's war on terror.

The Authorization for Use of Military Force which was established in 2001 is up for some serious retooling.

“The farther we get away from 9/11 and what this legislation was initially focused upon,” a senior Obama administration official said, “we can see from both a theoretical but also a practical standpoint that groups that have arisen or morphed become more difficult to fit in.”

The waning relevance of the 2001 law, the official said, is “requiring a whole policy and legal look.” The official, like most others interviewed for this article, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal administration deliberations

Pay attention to this part..

The authorization law has already been expanded by federal courts beyond its original scope to apply to “associated forces” of al-Qaeda. But officials said legal advisers at the White House, the State Department, the Pentagon and intelligence agencies are now weighing whether the law can be stretched to cover what one former official called “associates of associates.”

Stretching the law to go after "associates of associates" That could stretch to countless locations and will most certainly stretch to the United States. If current Intel sources are correct in estimating the scope of al-Qaeda's presence in the U.S. via a variety of "benevolent", on the face, organizations.

The debate comes as the administration seeks to turn counterterrorism policies adopted as emergency measures after the 2001 attacks into more permanent procedures that can sustain the campaign against al-Qaeda and its affiliates, as well as other current and future threats.

www.washingtonpost.com... -85e5-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394_story.html?wpiemailtoafriend

So, they desire to target a friend of a friend of a friend?

Administration officials acknowledged that they could be forced to seek new legal cover if the president decides that strikes are necessary against nascent groups that don’t have direct al-Qaeda links. Some outside legal experts said that step is all but inevitable because the authorization has already been stretched to the limit of its intended scope.

Interpretive leap!

He said extending the AUMF to groups more loosely tied to al-Qaeda would be “a major interpretive leap” that could eliminate the need for a link between the targeted organization and core al-Qaeda.

Still believe Holder when he says NO? I'm sure you do...

Many Democrats are just starting to question Obama's constant need for secrecy, even though he claims to be transparent.

He barely just started his second term and approval ratings are dropping.

Not like I (or some of you) should be surprised, it was pretty obvious he was going to go insane in his second term.