Apparently on March 4th U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said it was technically legal for the U.S. to order a targeted attack on an American citizen on American soil without due process of the law, but it would only be under extreme circumstances and it would probably never happen. The Administration had no intention of doing it. The Administration had already declared it was within its rights to kill noncombatant American citizens on foreign soil without a trial if they were suspected of being terrorists, and it has already done so.
Holder’s pronouncement made sense to some people, but it made others nervous. As comedian Andy Borowitz points out, the majority of Americans are opposed to being killed by drones. So no doubt they’re reassured that in response to Representative Rand Paul’s filibuster Holder now says, “Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on U.S. soil? The answer to that is no.”
Of course, we’ve been using drones to kill suspected non-American terrorists for some time now. Drones are inexpensive and their use will quickly spread. Blasty the drone thinks this is a great thing:
Others of us worry that we’re creating even more enemies by accidentally killing civilians in the process of hunting down the terrorists. What do you think? Are you concerned about the spread of drones? Because they’re so inexpensive do you think it will just be a matter of time before our enemies use them too?