Joe Wright/Activist Post
Battlefield USA just ratcheted up one notch with comments made by Attorney General Eric Holder to Senator Rand Paul. As the indefinite detention provision for American citizens within the NDAA as stated in sections 1021 and 1022 is still being hard fought in many states, drone use within U.S. borders is still being contested and the FAA has yet to release a concrete guide as to how many licenses have been granted for US flights, AG Holder would not rule out a drone strike against an American citizen on U.S. soil if he were to “imagine an extraordinary circumstance.” Worse yet, the nation’s leading legal adviser said unequivocally that it would be constitutional.
“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.”
“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 to the Constitutional due process rights of all Americans,” he said in a statement. (Source)
Holder’s statements also come at a time when civil libertarians and government officials alike are not clear about the scope of the drone program and the government’s legal justification for such actions abroad or at home.
The architect of the so-called “targeted killing playbook,” John Brennan, has called drone strikes,“ethical, and just” while claiming that there hadn’t been a single collateral death in Pakistan from drone strikes. This is just one example of who is in control of ensuring that our civil liberties and human rights are protected. Eric Holder is another.
Brennan’s playbook seeks to exempt drone strikes and to reassure the public that the greatest care is being taken when they decide in weekly White House meetings who should be part of theDisposition Matrix, being murdered outside the court of law . . . including U.S. citizens. So far, this has been discussed as actions taken abroad. But, as Holder stated in response to Rand Paul’s question of the legality and president’s authority to conduct strikes on American soil, he hedged by stating
that Paul’s question was “entirely hypothetical [and] unlikely to occur,” but cited the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks as the type of incidents that might provoke such a response.
“Were such an emergency to arise, I would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the President on the scope of his authority,” he concluded.