Video | US Attorney General Eric Holder Addresses Questions On DOJ Memo Making Legal Case For Drone Strikes

From WaPo
Justice Dept. document justifies killing Americans overseas if they pose ‘imminent threat’

Attorney General Eric Holder’s press conference today:

The battle cry this week; DRONE STRIKES!

Your thoughts?

This entry was posted in Current Events, Democracy, Media and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Video | US Attorney General Eric Holder Addresses Questions On DOJ Memo Making Legal Case For Drone Strikes

  1. Ametia says:

    Obama and the Justice Department Memo
    by Michael Tomasky Feb 6, 2013 7:12 AM EST

    I’ve always written about politics with part of my brain focused on the question of what I would do if I were in Politician X’s position. This line of thought came so naturally to me that I imagined everyone did this. But I guess everyone doesn’t.

    I’ve now read the DoJ white paper unearthed by Michael Isikoff (nice job! And by the way, who leaked that one, eh?) that justifies the killing of US citizens. You can read it for yourself here. It’s certainly not something that makes the breast swell with pride. But it does make me wonder what I would do in this situation, and I can’t honestly come up with easy answers. While I don’t condone what the Obama administration is doing here, I’m also suspicious of high-horse denunciations, because I think the question of whether an American forfeits his due process rights when he joins an enemy army is a complicated one.

    The logic of the paper goes like this. The US is at war with Al Qaeda. If American citizens have become operational leaders of Al Qaeda, they have in effect made themselves enemies of the United States. In cases where the capture of said person is “infeasible,” killing the person does not deprive him of his constitutional rights, provided that “the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States.”

    Read on

  2. leutisha says:

    I don’t like the idea of killing our own citizens on foreign soil if they pose a threat. That’s what our alleged Justice System is for – innocent until proven guilty. They get a trial and if they’re guilty, they get a conviction. Arrest them, bring their asses back to the United States for trial – not just kill them. Who’s to determine who or what poses an “imminent threat”?

    And with the nutcases running DC these days, I wouldn’t trust them to make a fair and impartial decision, especially about taking someone’s life. Suppose you aim a drone at the wrong person and kill them? Apologizing or paying out large cheddar will not erase that mistake, and it’s a policy I really don’t want President Obama to be responsible for.

    I understand what the POTUS wants, but he probably should slow up incorporating or keeping some of George Bush’s mess that didn’t work when Bush stole the White House and probably won’t work now. That mess needs to expire, get overturned or eliminated in terms of policy, before the POTUS gets into trouble for shyt done on Bush’s watch, ’cause you know the Reich-Wing will ignore the origins of that policy and try to impeach the man. That would be as much of a waste of time as impeaching Bill Clinton for Monica Lewinsky’s stained dress.

    • Ametia says:

      I’m not down with killing innocent Americans or foreigners.

      I’d prefer drones over actual boots on the ground and troop loss to defend and protect us against terrorist threats.

      I’d like to see more regulated drone policy, if we’re going to continue using drones.

Leave a Reply