The ACLU posts the following:
The Softball Question that Wasn't:
It should have been a softball question.
During a Google+ Hangout yesterday, conservative commentator Lee Doren asked President Obama whether he claims the authority to kill a U.S. citizen suspected of being associated with al Qaeda or associated forces on U.S. soil. Notice the question was restricted to only a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil (our concerns are, of course, broader and apply to the White House’s illegitimate claim of authority to kill people it unilaterally deems a threat, even if they are far from any battlefield, abroad).
What should have been a simple “no,” turned into this:
Well first of all, there has never been a drone used on an American citizen on American soil. We respect and have a whole bunch of safeguards in terms of how we conduct counterterrorism operations outside of the United States. The rules outside of the United States are going to be different than the rules inside the United States, in part because our capacity, for example, to capture a terrorist inside the United States is very different than in the foothills or mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan. What I think is absolutely true is that it is not sufficient for citizens to just take my word for it that we're doing the right thing.
What I don't understand is: Why is the answer to this question supposed to be "no?"
It's easy to come up with hypotheticals where the president may have to decide to target someone who is an American citizen. These are no different than the situations cops have to work through when doing their job; one would hope they never have to shoot someone, but it sometimes is necessary.
I just don't understand people's reactions to this question and answer. Rather than one of two possible answers that Bush would have given:
1. No, with his fingers crossed behind his back.
2. Yes, because we may have to kill some bad guys.
Do you not think that the government, and by extension the military, has not thought of a number of situations where they might have to use force on US soil, against Americans? And I'm not talking about the shooting striking workers or college students type of scenarios, but real coordinated militias start bombing and killing other Americans type of situations.
What we got from Holder is the answer that you hear from people who are constantly thinking about the problem. Actually, it's the answer a liberal would give to almost any question. And the reason for that is because, normally, the world doesn't work where everything is clear cut.
"Would you kill someone?" "No, never, well, except for if the person was about to kill someone else and I had no other way to stop the person."
"Are you OK with your kids having sex before they become an adult?" "No, but I know what childhood is like and therefore I am telling them not to do it, and telling them what to do if they do it anyway."
The only question I could think of asking a politician where the answer to the answer to the question would be a definitive yes or no would be "Are you lying?" And the only answer I would trust is that he says "No" because I would know he is lying. Answering yes would prove that he is far more dangerous.
As for the technology, a drone is no different than a guided missile. It's not the technology, it's the policy.
And no one should accept Rand Paul's help on anything. He would be willing to use drones for just about anything, including and especially to make sure employees fall in line.
Would I distrust Bush if he made this statement? More than likely, because he decided that it would be a good idea to get us into a Iraq and totally screwed up Katrina. On the other hand, Obama has ended one war and will be ending the other one. In so far as I am going to trust someone to lead the most powerful military in the world, I am going to trust him on this.
If Congress doesn't like it, they can end the war on terror, and reduce spending on the kinds of things that could be used against US citizens: Guns, airplanes, ships, missiles, soldiers, sailors, and drones. If you think drones have suddenly given the government some advantage, you haven't been paying attention. And if you think that president Obama was the first president to think of if he might have to kill Americans on US soil, you obviously haven't been reading your history.