The following are some excerpts and an image from the above referenced article.
In a response dated March 4, 2013, Holder wrote that the U.S. government “has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so.” The attorney general went on to note that federal officials believe that in areas where there is “well-established law enforcement,” these officials serve as the preferred mode of handling terrorist threats; military options inside U.S. borders are, thus, “rejected.”
“The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no President will ever have to confront,” the letter continues. “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.”
I would like to add two comments to this, in the form of questions.
The first question. If federal officials recognize law enforcement as the preferred means to combat what they call domestic terrorism, at what point does it cease to be the preferred means? By failing to specifically rule out domestic drone strikes, does that not mean that drone strikes, instead of being ruled out, are considered as less than preferred, but are still considered an option?
The second question. What extraordinary circumstances are there short of invasion or armed insurrection are being referenced here? Are there any other circumstances besides these two which call for military strikes, especially domestically? The only other circumstance I can envision is a clear case of defense from imminent attack, but in that case, how would a drone be useful if not already on station?
I would call on the Attorney General to answer these questions specifically and clearly, and would hope that our elected representatives also demand these answers.
No comments:
Post a Comment