In none of your previous comments regarding this subject did you once opine on why you thought Holder claiming the right to kill Americans in the U.S. was a good thing and something you felt the need to defend. I do not see where you once actually discussed the issue at hand until this comment.

You chose to discuss Ron Paul, Fox news, the lefties and accuse people of being haters, Maslow's hierarchy and BTD rather than discussing the actual issue. You chose to personalize comments rather than actually discussing the issue.  This is the type of rhetoric that you chose to employ rather than discussing the actual issue.

Frankly you are both waiting in the wings salivating to attack, before people like Rand Paul even throw the frisbee.

So as far as employing cheap shots rather than discussing an issue I think you not I consistently revert to that technique.  

Unlike his letter (PDF) yesterday to Sen. Rand Paul, where Attorney General Eric Holder wrote in "extraordinary circumstances"--such as during an ongoing attack--the president can order the use of military force against persons in the United States, today Holder made the extraordinary, indefensible and John Yoo-like claim that the 2001 AUMF empowered the president to deploy the military on U.S. soil as a matter of routine. link

The white paper that was "leaked" last month and Holder's previous comments at Northwestern University Law School in March 2012 that indicated that the administration believes that its current executive branch determination of quilt is all the "due process" needed for them to "sentence" an American citizen or any other person to death are contrary to the  "extraordinary circumstances" statements that you have cited.

On December 7, 1941, Japanese war planes bombed the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Six decades later, Al Qaeda terrorists flew hijacked airplanes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Neither President Franklin Roosevelt nor President George W. Bush targeted and killed Americans on U.S. soil in the aftermath of those attacks. Doing so wouldn't have made any sense.

How strange, then, that Attorney General Eric Holder invoked those very attacks in a letter confirming that President Obama believes there are circumstances in which he could order Americans targeted and killed on U.S. soil.....
...
....If he can see that a "for example" is necessary to explain, he ought to give us a clarifying example, rather than a nonsensical one that seems to name-check events for their emotional resonance more than for their aptness to the issue.
...
Elsewhere in his letter, Holder writes that "the US government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so. As a policy matter moreover, 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." Interesting they reject it "as a policy matter," but aren't willing to reject military force in the United States as a legal matter, even in instances where law enforcement would better incapacitate the threat. For the Obama Administration, conceding that the executive branch is legally forbidden to do certain things is verboten, despite the fact that an unchecked executive is much more dangerous than the possibility of a future president failing to do enough to fight back against an actual attack on our homeland*.

Any thinking person can see that Holder's letter is non-responsive, evasive, and deliberately manipulative in its sly reassurances, right down to the rhetorically powerful but substantively nonsensical invocation of 9/11. (Being more subtle about it than Rudy Giuliani doesn't make it right.) To credulously accept this sort of response, on an issue as important as this one, is behavior unfit for any citizen of a free country, where safeguarding the rule of law is a civic responsibility.
link
 

The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront. 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.....