Holder: Drone Strike Against Americans, In America Are Legal

Well, would you expect anything less? Just a matter of time, my friends.

Attorney General Eric Holder can imagine a scenario in which it would be constitutional to carry out a drone strike against and American on American soil, he wrote in a letter to Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.

“It is possible, I suppose, to imagine 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,” Holder replied in a letter yesterday to Paul’s question about whether Obama “has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial.”

Paul condemned the idea. “The U.S. Attorney General’s refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening – it is an affront the Constitutional due process rights of all Americans,” he said in a statement.

Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Holder: Drone Strike Against Americans, In America Are Legal

  1. messup says:

    1,360 formed, ready and organized militias across these fruited plains. We The People are organizing and We The Elite People of culture of corruption in Washington DC are scared sh**less.


    Yeah! Southern Poverty Law Center isn’t the bastion of probity, but sheds some light on what We The People are thinking and doin’…Lock ’em, Load ’em!!! Ride with Paul Revere. Pray. Amen.

  2. jacksonsdad says:

    No doubt the moonbats are A-OK with this as they indulge in the fantasy that (R)’s will never have their finger on that particular button. When the worm turns just watch how fast they jump to put a leash on the ‘constitutionality’ of shit like this. There’s gonna be a long list of powers on their ‘Reign In’ list and you can bet ‘Extraordinary Circumstance Evaporation’ will be Job 1.

  3. Tony says:

    This was no slip of the tongue of which Obama was unaware. Holder is floating trial balloons. He knows he can defend his statement under declared martial law and some will accept the explanation. They will look to the public reaction to see how much grief this concept causes. If resistance is met they will retreat from the position and look to the future for better opportunities. If not they will have won already. Obama has 3 years left and he is not prepping the public for his reign because to many of us are armed. It does not matter if the suppression culminates during his administration. The are others in the mix..Waiting in the wings.

    I have been fuckin’ off and am out of shape. I am going to fix that little problem. My first step in my little rebellion.

    My next question is how the resistance will communicate.

  4. Jay352 says:

    Pysops. I can feel the fear can’t you? I say we all pretend that we are the taliban except we have a few more million participants. Oh yeah, and half of our armed forces.Oh, and how about we get all those sporty assault rifles that we have been buying the hell out of instead of 50 year old rebuilt AKs? They really need to rethink their strategy.

  5. R.D. Walker says:

    The leftist sites are in an uproar over this. If the left and right can agree that this is madness, there is no reason it cannot be ended.

    • notamobster says:

      I agree. When both sides can come together, they don’t stand a chance.

      Holder must be leaving very soon, to float this trial balloon. Let the lefties get worked into a lather and, exit – stage left.

  6. TaterSalad says:

    Tyranny! Know your rights! “Am I free to go”?????

  7. Rugerman says:

    Holder went on to use the hypothetical example of 9/11 (no word on whether he meant the twin tower strike or Benghazi) as an example of when it might be appropriate to kill Americans on US soil. Excuse me, but aren’t these the same people who wanted to extend civilian trials to the terrorists who were actually responsible for the twin tower attack?

    • R.D. Walker says:

      Outstanding point. The same people who declared that pouring water on the face of the foreign combatant who masterminded 9/11 is a “crime against humanity” are now saying that lauching a Hellfire missile in the US against a US citizen is legal.

  8. RJ says:

    food for thought… not a drone but a F16 and a sidewinder for the fourth plane had it not been taken down by passengers once it was determined it was in fact in control of by jihadist,

    BTW I dont think any plane will ever be used against a building again by terrorist… contrary to TSA belief.

    • R.D. Walker says:

      You know, sometimes if you are POTUS or VP, you need to make a tough call. You order the thing shot down and then you plead your case.

      We don’t need to interpret the law in advance that gives them the power to order the deaths of Americans.

  9. RJ says:

    agreed, course with these fuckheads it would not surprise me if they called in a hellfire on a remote cabin or compound of cultist.

  10. BigJimTX says:

    Would they then justify that all civilian casualties were “enemy combatants” like they do when used overseas?

    As much as they would like to think, a predator drone is not a surgical instrument.