Skip to main content

View Diary: Droning Americans on US Soil: Why Holder's "No" is Not Reassuring (156 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That leaves the question (0+ / 0-)

    (that was tested -- and broken -- by the previous Administration) of whether the President's power as Commander-in-Chief under the so called "War Constitution" can supersede statute in exigent circumstances.

    It galls me that people here do not seem to think that, post-Bush, we have to ask these questions, get them on record, educate the public on them, and make it hard for any future President to transgress against them.  I'm on record here as saying that that attack on U.S. citizen al-Awlaki in Yemen was justified even without conviction of a crime in absentia, but I found the latter fact quite troublesome.  Also later killing his U.S. citizen son (with collateral damage in both actions) gets even worse.  So it's not a fanciful fever dream to think that whatever justifies this power of targeted assassination could be applied just as well within U.S. territory.  Maybe it's fanciful, but if the Administration really believes that it doesn't exist, then for God's sake give a straight, clear, and justified answer to the public.  The optics of this are terrible; I'm shocked that people here can't (or refuse to) see it.  We're losing people over this!

    Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

    "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
    -- Saul Alinsky

    by Seneca Doane on Sat Mar 09, 2013 at 12:15:54 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  How exigent are we talking? (0+ / 0-)

      Holder's first letter really did address the question - by the examples given, the Al-Alwaki killing wouldn't cut it stateside.  There's a paradox in that the biggest opponents and biggest defenders of the drone stuff on the Republican side both seem to want interpret public law and interpretive pronouncement as broadly as possible - or more - for vastly different reasons.  A broader law is easier to both demagogue and to exploit, but not really sustainably over the longer term.  

      Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

      by Loge on Sat Mar 09, 2013 at 07:18:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (131)
  • Community (61)
  • 2016 (46)
  • Elections (38)
  • Environment (35)
  • Media (35)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (33)
  • Republicans (31)
  • Hillary Clinton (30)
  • Law (28)
  • Barack Obama (28)
  • Iraq (27)
  • Civil Rights (25)
  • Climate Change (24)
  • Jeb Bush (24)
  • Culture (24)
  • Economy (20)
  • Labor (19)
  • Bernie Sanders (18)
  • Spam (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site