theclemsonkid
Member
I've been too busy lately to stay current on what the newest talking points are from FOX and friends. I have however, noticed that a number of friends are posting about how Obama plans on using drones on American citizens on American soil. I figured this was the usual spin, so I didn't think much of it. Then again this morning, I had a friend post a link with the headline "US can use drones on US citizens on US soil". So I decided to go ahead and give it a read. It was basically direct quotes from Eric Holder. Here is the meat and potatoes of the quote:
“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.”
“We have a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad. Hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts,” Holder wrote.
Holden then went on to say that the question Senator Paul posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one ‘we hope no President will ever have to confront.’ “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,” said Holder.
Ok, so it's the last sentence there that people are getting their panties in a bunch over. Holder uses the term "extraordinary circumstance" in which it would be "necessary and appropriate under the constitution". Umm, alright? What's so scary about that? I'm not really sure how using a drone strike on an American on American soil, if justified, is such a bad thing. Let's say someone like Timothy McVay, or Christopher Dorner are holed up in some cabin in the woods. Let's say this cabin is loaded with who knows how many munitions. Let's say if you send in the police, FBI, ATF, etc, that there's a chance the perp will open fire and put lives in danger. Would it really be a bad thing to be able to send an unmanned drone to take out the cabin and/or person? I don't see it as a threat, I see it as more of a tactical advantage if need be.
I think the whackos are picturing Obama sitting behind his desk in the Oval, planning on what civilians he can take out as they walk out their front door in their suburban home, all because they disagree with his policies.
Come on people, you can't really be that paranoid and dumb, can you?
“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.”
“We have a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad. Hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts,” Holder wrote.
Holden then went on to say that the question Senator Paul posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one ‘we hope no President will ever have to confront.’ “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,” said Holder.
Ok, so it's the last sentence there that people are getting their panties in a bunch over. Holder uses the term "extraordinary circumstance" in which it would be "necessary and appropriate under the constitution". Umm, alright? What's so scary about that? I'm not really sure how using a drone strike on an American on American soil, if justified, is such a bad thing. Let's say someone like Timothy McVay, or Christopher Dorner are holed up in some cabin in the woods. Let's say this cabin is loaded with who knows how many munitions. Let's say if you send in the police, FBI, ATF, etc, that there's a chance the perp will open fire and put lives in danger. Would it really be a bad thing to be able to send an unmanned drone to take out the cabin and/or person? I don't see it as a threat, I see it as more of a tactical advantage if need be.
I think the whackos are picturing Obama sitting behind his desk in the Oval, planning on what civilians he can take out as they walk out their front door in their suburban home, all because they disagree with his policies.
Come on people, you can't really be that paranoid and dumb, can you?
