Except in the event of a massive enemy attack on U.S. soil, should the U.S. government be allowed to attack U.S. citizens with a drone without benefit of trial and due process? The Constitution seems clear on that issue but Eric Holder and John Brennan have been somewhat reticent on the issue.
We are currently targeting people around the world who do not present an imminent threat and it is not unreasonable to wonder if the government would do the same on U.S. soil. It is understandable in wartime overseas but is that acceptable on U.S. soil in extraordinary circumstances and do those circumstances need to be defined?
For most crisis situations, we have the police, FBI and other law enforcement agencies and do not need the military to act on our soil.
The Posse Comitatus Act forbids the military from acting against U.S. citizens on the homeland. It is unclear as to whether or not the Obama administration agrees.
Currently, government drones are flying around the country, recording data. Drones can be used for good on US soil. Certainly capturing criminals and dangerous people is a good use. However, we must not be forced into giving up our due process rights – ever.
Rand Paul has asked John Brennan and Eric Holder these questions and finally got his answer. Brennan said he has no authority to act in this manner and Holder said he has no intention of doing so but supposes he could imagine such a circumstance, referring to 12/7/41 and 9/11/01.
It would be helpful to have a little more definition.
letters via the blaze