Lethal force against Americans in U.S.? No, unless imminent threat, Holder says

Attorney General Eric Holder this week said the U.S. could theoretically, in a time of crisis, use lethal force against a U.S. citizen on American soil -- an assertion that sparked a debate in the Senate today and has prompted one Republican to start drafting legislation on the issue.

In a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing today, Holder was asked about a letter he sent to Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., this week, responding to Paul's questions regarding the constitutionality of the government using lethal force -- including drone strikes -- against Americans in U.S. territory. Holder responded in his letter, "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 For example, the President could conceivably 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."

In today's hearing, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, asked Holder whether such an attack would be constitutional against an American on U.S. soil who was determined to be a threat but was merely "sitting in a cafe." In other words, he said, someone "not posing an imminent or immediate threat of death or bodily harm."

• Holder punts on pot, urges Congress to act on guns
• FAA investigates report of drone near JFK Airport
• Photos: Surveillance drones

Holder clearly rejected the premise from the start, though he did not directly answer Cruz's question on the constitutionality of the scenario. "I would not think in that situation the use of a drone or lethal force would be appropriate," he said.

After some back and forth, Cruz chastised Holder for failing to say unequivocally that a drone strike would be unconstitutional in such a scenario. "I find it remarkable that in that hypothetical... you are unable to give a one word or one syllable answer -- 'no'," he said.

Holder clarified that by saying the use of force in that case would be inappropriate, he meant "no" in response to Cruz's question.

Cruz retorted, "That statement has not been easily forthcoming." He said he will be introducing legislation in the Senate "to make sure the U.S. government cannot kill a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil absent an imminent threat."

Holder maintained that the legislation Cruz described would be "totally consistent" with what he said in his letter to Paul, since he cited using such force in response to a threat on par with the Sept. 11 attacks.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, asked Holder whether a law prohibiting the president's use of lethal force on U.S. soil would be constitutional. Holder said he wasn't sure, adding that such a bill "might be contrary to Article 2 powers" under the Constitution.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., defended the use of force in crisis situations, saying it would be "kind of crazy" to prohibit the military from defending the homeland, even as it continues to fight al Qaeda and other terrorist elements abroad.

"I want to stand by you and the president to make sure we don't criminalize the war," Graham told Holder.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the committee would further review the use of drones during a hearing later this month.

[hypnotoad72]

Just like GWB's claim of Saddam's imminent threat?

[WhatWouldJesusDo]

Few people recognize how technology can be used to advance governmental tyranny. Personally, I am alarmed at all of the red-light cameras going up all across America. When combined with other government "spy cameras" and modern (photo-shop-like) editing techniques, any group or any individual who the reigning governmental leaders do not like can be easily railroaded into jail like those innocents who were railroaded into Auschwitz decades ago.

A party in control, led by an unscrupulous president like Richard Nixon, would be rather easily able to utilize America's extensive camera network to fabricate "visual evidence" to lock-up its opposition.

We rarely think about potential future governmental abuses before the realities of these abuses become virtually uncorrectable! When Nazi-like people get their hands on modern technology, all hell can break loose.

The GOOD news is: the Founders abhorred the possibility of governmental tyranny, so they composed a "Bill of Rights" that specially mentioned that "the people" have a "right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." (4th Amendment)

The BAD news is: red-light cameras, other government-sanctioned cameras, police "sobriety-checking" road blocks, airport stop-and-frisk policies that require us to remove our shoes and pass through "metal detectors" are NOT deemed by our federal courts to interfere with our "right to be secure" in our "persons."

It is hard for me to imagine that George Washington would submit without any objections to stopping his horse for a sobriety check, removing his shoes, and submitting to a government-sanctioned "frisking." It's even harder for me to imagine George smiling and waving at government sentries on every corner, tracking and recording his every movement.

Our federal judges need to WAKE UP and smell the smoke from future drone strikes! They've already missed the scent of future concentration camps...May God help us for our fear of terrorists is leading us by the nose into Auschwitz II.

[hypnotoad72]

Government is bought and paid for. Meaning government is just a puppet. Meaning someone else is pulling the strings. Which means the string-pullers are closer to the "tyranny" of which you're apparently terrified of.

[nearl451]

It's a serious issue. Why are wack jobs like Paul and Cruz the ones questioning the issue instead of more mainstream Reps and Senators.

[easymoola]

Why are wack jobs like Paul and Cruz the ones questioning the issue instead of more mainstream Reps and Senators.' Mainstream is why this is being done. Had the 'mainstream' had any courage they would have killed 'Boooosh bills' such as the Patriot act which has been the slippery slope to where we are now with drones.

[beancube2010]

Yeah, we all know those imminent threats are from our military, their polices and their bases overseas.

[wfw3536]

I wouldn't put anything pass Holder the way he let guns walk to Mexico which resulted in 2 Americans being killed along with hundreds of innocent Mexicans. And Obama the transparent president of all time, gave Holder a pass so he didn't have to face a trial.

[Mike239239]

Holder should have just said no. Republicans are to stupid to understand the meaning of a complete sentence. They can only handle what will fit on a bumber sticker

[highlndr55]

Sure, you want Holder to not tell us anything. You will just go along with every attempt to circumvent the Constitution by your Savior - Barack-the-LIAR-Obama. I just hope when he decides to KILL an AMERICAN without Due Process, that you are not close to the person he wants MURDER with a drone. You LIBERALS need to wise up before it is to late!!!

[hypnotoad72]

No, they're just bought and paid for.

[arkajun-2009]

What is IMMINENT THREAT? Is a 9/11? Is it Ruby Ridge? Is it Branch Dividian? Is it Kent State? Is it the LA Riots? Is it a group of people gathered in peaceable assembly? Maybe a church congregation? Is it Fox News, It is the opposing political party's National Convention? What if it's a hunter and his son enjoying a simple hunting trip and an errant shot at a bird peppers a nearby drone who's sensors interpret a IMMINENT THREAT and retaliates. The current POTUS wants this. It is his intention and his goal to destroy America.

No drone should ever be allowed to fly over, preform recon, spy, or take any kind of action against Americans on American soil without the War Powers Acts being enacted by the Congress of the United States and only after blood has been spilled.

[hypnotoad72]

Then Congress will enact the War Powers Act.

Will you feel happier then?

[nonpolitico]

In answer to the question about the US citizen in the cafe, the questioner has just added another weapon to citizens ti be afraid of.
The questioner is posing a question to get citizens used to the notion that Washington may well use drones on its own citizens.
Otherwise why ask the question, even if it is being asked of the AG?

[hypnotoad72]

Freedomfighter53 - he's only as much a dictator as Bush and Reagan were.

Look up NSPD51, HSPD20, REX84, et al, for more...

[ObwanSchittBrains]

So who gets to say who is an imminent threat on home soil?
Holder, Obama?
It better be the Congress or hopefully the American Patriots send one of the drones after Obama and Holder instead of their fellow Americans.
Those two loose un-American cannons have been stepping all over the Constitution and Bill of Rights since they slithered into Washington.

[hypnotoad72]

Then zip it and do your duty, if you're undies are so bunched up and you're that much a patriot. Blah blah blah.

[nomorelibs]

The only imminent threat I see is Congress. So I say let her rip.