![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
usernamenumberI'm getting really sick of people on both sides freaking out about "ZOMG Eric Holder says the President can send drones after citizens on US soil!!!"
Don't confuse what I'm about to say for a blanket defense of Obama's policies in the "war on terror", but no, he really didn't say that, at least, not in a way that any other administration in the history of the country wouldn't have said, but for differences in the weapons available to them.
Here's the letter Holder initially sent to Rand Paul:
In particular, a lot of people seem to be freaking out about this quote (which comes after two paragraphs of statements like "we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat", but hey, where's the fun in getting all bogged down in stuff like context?):
"""
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 on September 11, 2001.
"""
What Holder is saying is here patently obvious, and is exactly what any other representative of any other administration would have said. I think Bob Cesca puts it better than I could in an article on thedailybanter.com:
"""
the president — any president — has always reserved the right to use military force to stop an in-progress attack by either foreign or domestic enemies... If you disagree, allow me to present yet another hypothetical scenario:
A group of organized American citizens have acquired a vast stockpile of military weapons and begin to fire mortars, RPGs and other destructive munitions into a U.S. military base. You’re the commander-in-chief. What do you do? If you said anything other than “return fire,” you’re either an extreme pacifist or you’re lying.
"""
See also: fighter jets (or, in the future, perhaps unmanned drones) being scrambled to attempt to stop hijacked planes, etc.
Basically, I have three points to make here:
1) What Holder said is absolutely nothing new. There are, and have always been, circumstances in which a military response to a threat on US soil is not only appropriate but expected. Take issue with that as you will, but it's been the case for as long as our country has existed. All Holder did was be complete enough in his answer to acknowledge the fact.
2) Rand Paul et al's running with Holder's comments to the extent of "ZOMG does this mean the President can bomb you at Starbucks?!?" is nothing but politically manipulative fearmongering (but, if you want it in writing, here's Holder's response (spoiler: the answer is 'no')).
3) Like Cesca, I'm no fan of the "war on terror", and particularly not what I've heard about re the tactics used in our drone attacks, and the effects thereof (c.f. http://livingunderdrones.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Stanford-NYU-LIVING-UNDER-DRONES.pdf), but here's the thing: If you want to talk about extrajudicial killings, great. If you want to talk about drones, great (though if the prospect of them being used on US soil was the first time it raised an alarm for you, start by explaining why Pakistanis and Afghanis getting blown up is substantively different to you), but there's plenty with which to take issue without hyperbolic reactions to a frankly mundane comment.
Don't confuse what I'm about to say for a blanket defense of Obama's policies in the "war on terror", but no, he really didn't say that, at least, not in a way that any other administration in the history of the country wouldn't have said, but for differences in the weapons available to them.
Here's the letter Holder initially sent to Rand Paul:
In particular, a lot of people seem to be freaking out about this quote (which comes after two paragraphs of statements like "we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat", but hey, where's the fun in getting all bogged down in stuff like context?):
"""
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 on September 11, 2001.
"""
What Holder is saying is here patently obvious, and is exactly what any other representative of any other administration would have said. I think Bob Cesca puts it better than I could in an article on thedailybanter.com:
"""
the president — any president — has always reserved the right to use military force to stop an in-progress attack by either foreign or domestic enemies... If you disagree, allow me to present yet another hypothetical scenario:
A group of organized American citizens have acquired a vast stockpile of military weapons and begin to fire mortars, RPGs and other destructive munitions into a U.S. military base. You’re the commander-in-chief. What do you do? If you said anything other than “return fire,” you’re either an extreme pacifist or you’re lying.
"""
See also: fighter jets (or, in the future, perhaps unmanned drones) being scrambled to attempt to stop hijacked planes, etc.
Basically, I have three points to make here:
1) What Holder said is absolutely nothing new. There are, and have always been, circumstances in which a military response to a threat on US soil is not only appropriate but expected. Take issue with that as you will, but it's been the case for as long as our country has existed. All Holder did was be complete enough in his answer to acknowledge the fact.
2) Rand Paul et al's running with Holder's comments to the extent of "ZOMG does this mean the President can bomb you at Starbucks?!?" is nothing but politically manipulative fearmongering (but, if you want it in writing, here's Holder's response (spoiler: the answer is 'no')).
3) Like Cesca, I'm no fan of the "war on terror", and particularly not what I've heard about re the tactics used in our drone attacks, and the effects thereof (c.f. http://livingunderdrones.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Stanford-NYU-LIVING-UNDER-DRONES.pdf), but here's the thing: If you want to talk about extrajudicial killings, great. If you want to talk about drones, great (though if the prospect of them being used on US soil was the first time it raised an alarm for you, start by explaining why Pakistanis and Afghanis getting blown up is substantively different to you), but there's plenty with which to take issue without hyperbolic reactions to a frankly mundane comment.
