As members of this Administration have previously indicated, the U.S. government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so. As a policy matter, moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat.
...
The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no President will ever have to confront.
He went beyond saying that they had no plans to use drones in the US to take a swipe at the hawk position that the military was the only appropriate vector with which to address terrorism; "terrorism is not a law enforcement problem" was practically the motto of the Cheney shadow Defense Department.
I'm choosing my words carefully there, by the way. I don't remember the actual wording, but that was literally one of Cheney's doctrines.
The former vice president, who is promoting his memoir, defended Obama against critics who challenge the legality of Friday's attack because al-Awlaki was an American citizen.
"I think the president ought to have that kind of authority to order that kind of strike, even when it involves an American citizen," Cheney said.
"It is different between a law enforcement action and a war," Cheney said. "And we are at war. We believe we are in war. We believe the war started when they killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11."
Yes he did. The President can't relinquish his duties as Commander-in-Chief in the event of an attack upon the United States. That role is constitutionally defined as a part of the Presidency, which the President is sworn to execute.
You will note the ancestor post above '[Rand Paul] has several times said all he wants is explicit clarification that drones will not be used against non-combatants, which people piloting a hijacked aircraft would clearly not be.'
And yes, Holder did say that the administration is not going to do that. If you think otherwise then I invite you to cite the specific statement you disagree with.
"And yes, Holder did say that the administration is not going to do that. If you think otherwise then I invite you to cite the specific statement you disagree with."
Why don't you cite the specific statement where he said that?
This: "We will not use drones for extrajudicial executions of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil." would qualify as such a statement.
Holder said nothing of the kind.