Holder: Obama could order lethal force in U.S.
President Barack Obama could order the use of deadly force against an American inside the United States, Attorney General Eric Holder said in a letter to Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) released Tuesday.
Paul and other senators had asked various administration officials whether deadly drones strikes like the ones the U.S. carries out in Pakistan, Yemen and other foreign countries could ever be used in the U.S. Paul said he would seek to block the confirmation of John Brennan as Central Intelligence Agency director if the question was not answered. (Brennan's nomination was endorsed by the Senate Intelligence Committee Tuesday afternoon in a 12-3 vote.)
In the one-page letter dated Monday, Holder said: "The U.S. government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so." The attorney general argued that law enforcement is best suited to resolve such threats "in this country."
However, Holder says that in situations akin to the 1941 assault on Pearl Harbor or the September 11, 2001 attacks, the president might have to order the use of deadly force in the U.S.
"The question you have posed is entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no President will ever have to confront," Holder wrote. "It is possible, I supposed, 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. For example, the President could concievably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances of a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001."
Paul said in a statement that he was deeply disturbed by Holder's views.
"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,” Paul said.
(WATCH: Rand Paul: Drone strike during dinner?)
Police, of course, regularly and lawfully use deadly force inside the U.S. in cases where criminals are presenting a imminent threat to others. They can also use lethal force under the so-called "fleeing felon" rule to stop a dangerous individuals.
However, the Obama Administration has claimed authority to use armed drones abroad under a more relaxed standard of imminence, embracing situations where an individual has organized terrorist attacks in the past and has not renounced such activity. In addition, the administration has carried out so-called "signature strikes," where a group of suspected terrorists is attacked based on their pattern of activity even though the U.S. lacks specific intelligence about their identities
Paul and other senators had asked various administration officials whether deadly drones strikes like the ones the U.S. carries out in Pakistan, Yemen and other foreign countries could ever be used in the U.S. Paul said he would seek to block the confirmation of John Brennan as Central Intelligence Agency director if the question was not answered. (Brennan's nomination was endorsed by the Senate Intelligence Committee Tuesday afternoon in a 12-3 vote.)
In the one-page letter dated Monday, Holder said: "The U.S. government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so." The attorney general argued that law enforcement is best suited to resolve such threats "in this country."
However, Holder says that in situations akin to the 1941 assault on Pearl Harbor or the September 11, 2001 attacks, the president might have to order the use of deadly force in the U.S.
"The question you have posed is entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no President will ever have to confront," Holder wrote. "It is possible, I supposed, 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. For example, the President could concievably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances of a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001."
Paul said in a statement that he was deeply disturbed by Holder's views.
"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,” Paul said.
(WATCH: Rand Paul: Drone strike during dinner?)
Police, of course, regularly and lawfully use deadly force inside the U.S. in cases where criminals are presenting a imminent threat to others. They can also use lethal force under the so-called "fleeing felon" rule to stop a dangerous individuals.
However, the Obama Administration has claimed authority to use armed drones abroad under a more relaxed standard of imminence, embracing situations where an individual has organized terrorist attacks in the past and has not renounced such activity. In addition, the administration has carried out so-called "signature strikes," where a group of suspected terrorists is attacked based on their pattern of activity even though the U.S. lacks specific intelligence about their identities
handle of the five-shot revolver "sticking out from" inside Harris, who is seen at right.
At the lockup, Harris was directed to change out of her clothes into “jail clothing.” When directed to lower her underwear so that a female cop could check for contraband, Harris “advised that she was on her period and did not want to.”
NCRI - The former head of Iranian regime's Revolutionary Guard has warned that recent farmers' protests over water shortages could trigger a massive social uprising that could threaten the stability of the regime.
