

Eric Holder: Drone strikes against Americans on U.S. soil are legal - Shivetya
http://washingtonexaminer.com/eric-holder-drone-strikes-against-americans-on-u.s.-soil-are-legal/article/2523319

======
codex
This isn't really any different from the President authorizing the Air Force
to shoot down a civilian airliner in a 9/11-like scenario, in order to prevent
mass casualties. If one is legal, the other is also legal.

~~~
n3rdy
Drone strikes are messy and result in mass casualties themselves.

Another thing, semantics are the last thing you want to rely on for protection
from a government sanctioned assassination.

~~~
chc
You're always reliant on semantics for protection under the law. Laws are
words, and semantics boils down to _what words mean_. For example, if we take
"freedom of speech" to mean "the ability to order whatever you want at
McDonald's," your free speech is drastically abridged. The Constitution and
the laws are all collections of words whose application is entirely dependent
on semantics.

~~~
n3rdy
This is why you wouldn't rely on semantics to protect your freedom of speech
either, or any protection under law for that matter.

~~~
chc
Then you need to stop talking in circles and state what you mean clearly. If
you weren't depending on the Constitution, the law or declared policy (which
are all literally meaningless without semantics) to protect you from
governmental drone strikes, how does this development make you any more or
less dependent on semantics?

~~~
n3rdy
The way law is structured, you can reach _any_ conclusion. This means if you
are relying on law to protect you from government sanctioned assassination,
the constitution is only going to protect you if it can physically deflect a
hellfire missile.

If the government wants it to be legal to assassinate you, they will make it
so.

edit: I can't help but appreciate the fact that you and I are arguing over my
usage of the word semantics.

------
mejari
Completely misleading title and ludicrous article.

FYI, what was actually said was “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,”

Somehow "Yeah, I guess it could be possible, like if we're invaded or attacked
or something" turned into "OMG We get to kill all you suckers".

------
salman89
I think everyone should go ahead and read the letter in order to put this into
proper context:

[http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/BrennanHolderResponse.p...](http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/BrennanHolderResponse.pdf)

What Holder is trying to say that while it is unlikely, if a drone strike were
the best way to eliminate an imminent threat on US soil, it would be legal.

~~~
nolok
You're going to need a very clear and precise definition of "imminent threat"
then

------
dantheman
Hopefully we'll see the outrage this deserves.

If the president, any president, in the future can execute anyone he deems as
long as they're "a threat" democracy is over.

~~~
chc
_Outrage_ is precisely what we need less of here. Cool rationality would have
been a better approach. This guy did not say anything remotely like what
you're saying, but because a bunch of Senators who play for the other
political team presented it a certain way, you got outraged and were fooled
into interpreting a guy saying "This could pretty much never happen" as "The
president can assassinate anyone he deems a 'threat'".

------
jaytaylor
This is a huge "WTF"! How did this guy ascend so far? The system is so borked.

------
seoguru
as Chris Hedges says, the assault on civil liberties is even _worse_ than it
was during the bush administration:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAqudDeiTD4>

------
RexRollman
For some reaons, this whole thing makes me flash to that scene in Phantom
Menace when Palpatine says: "I will make it legal".

~~~
akozak
Maybe because Hollywood is your only frame of reference to conceptualize a
complex legal situation?

~~~
RexRollman
You might think so, but no.

------
douglasisshiny
I think it's important to note that the Washington Examiner has little
credibility. The letter quoted in the article omits the first two-thirds of
the letter (which, by the way, contain quite a bit of context for the final
one-third).

While the administration absolutely needs to be transparent about its drone
program, reading a source like the Washington Examiner will not provide any
realistic perspective.

Another reader posted a link to the actual letter:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5328151>

------
samstave
This guy is a psychopath.

~~~
akozak
This kind of comment contributes nothing.

~~~
samstave
You have nothing to refute it. Eric Holder is repeatedly making very horrific
statements which are fundamentally shifting precedent for how the US
government treats the citizenry - in a negative direction.

My comment only appears to contribute nothing if you have not really been
paying attention to what has been happening in the US for the last 13 years.

~~~
akozak
You accused an accomplished political appointee of having a severe mental
illness, suggesting it explains his legal analysis. I don't think the burden
of proof is on me to refute that.

------
monochromatic
Of course, this guy also thinks it's perfectly fine to give guns to Mexican
cartels.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal>

------
mikeg8
fuck hypotheticals

------
spiritplumber
OK, my drones first! Lisa's dog is DONE shitting on my lawn, done I tell you!

