Ted Cruz Gets Holder To Admit That Killing Americans With Drones On U.S. Soil Is Unco

[Wehrwolfen]

Noah Rothman @ Mediaite:


“In your legal judgment, does the Constitution allow a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil to be killed by a drone?” Cruz asked Holder pointedly.

“For sitting in a café and having a cup of coffee?” Holder replied. Cruz clarified that his hypothetical individual subject to a drone strike did not pose an “imminent and immediate threat of death and bodily harm,” but that person is suspected to be a terrorist.

“I would not think that that would be an appropriate use of any kind of lethal force,” Holder replied.

“With all respect, Gen. Holder, my question wasn’t about appropriateness or prosecutorial discretion. It was a simple legal question,” Cruz clarified.

“This is a hypothetical, but I would not think, that in that situation, the use of a drone or lethal force would not be appropriate,” Holder replied.

“I have to tell you I find it remarkable that in that hypothetical, which is deliberately very simple, you are not able to give a simple, one-word answer: no,” Cruz added. He said he think that his scenario would constitute a “deprivation of life without due process.”

Holder agreed and added that lethal force in Cruz’s case “would not be appropriate.”

“You keep saying appropriate – my question isn’t about propriety,” Cruz goaded. “My question is about whether something is constitutional or not.”

When Cruz was about to abandon his line of questioning after a number of equivocations from Holder, the attorney general clarified that he was saying “no” such actions would not be constitutional.

[Excerpt]
Ted Cruz Gets Holder To Admit That Killing Americans With Drones On U.S. Soil Is Unconstitutional | Flopping Aces

Read more:
Ted Cruz Goads Eric Holder Into Admitting That Killing Americans With Drones On U.S. Soil Is Unconstitutional | Mediaite

 

[Wehrwolfen]

by Andrew Kirell
March 5th, 2013

On Tuesday, CIA director nominee Brennan told Paul that “the agency I have been nominated to lead does not conduct lethal operations inside the United States — nor does it have any authority to do so.” Attorney General Holder followed up with a letter that said lethal force against American citizens on U.S. soil is “entirely hypothetical” and constitutes “an extraordinary situation” “we hope no president will ever have to confront.” Holder cited 9/11 and Pearl Harbor as examples of such domestic attacks that may warrant the executive branch to authorize an attack on American citizens on U.S. soil; but, of course, he cautioned that such a circumstance is “unlikely.” (But it could potentially exist.)

A portion of the letter below, as partially reprinted by Mother Jones (full letter here https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/609809-holder-response-to-rand-paul.html ):


As members of this administration have previously indicated, 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. We have a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad. Hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts.

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. 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 like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.

[h/t Mother Jones]

[Excerpt]

Read more:
Obama Administration: Yes, The President Can Drone Strike Americans On U.S. Soil? | Mediaite

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You are subscribed to this thread Yet Another Drone Killing Thread That Will Drone On While America Says "So what?"

 

[g5000]

Thus Rand Paul's artifice for his filibuster is exposed.

His real intent is to manufacture fear.

 

[BlindBoo]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=768h3Tz4Qik]Southpark - They Took Our Job! - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Wehrwolfen]

You are subscribed to this thread Yet Another Drone Killing Thread That Will Drone On While America Says "So what?"

Just hope you don't become a whimsy of Oblamer or Holder. There could be a Hell fire missile out there with your name on it. Then again you don't appear to be an American so it's open season on you.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

by Jim Hoft
March 6, 2013


Here’s another one of those head-scratching Obama flashbacks:
Back in November 2011 Barack Obama told reporters Republicans were wrong and that waterboarding is torture.
“It’s not who we are… It’s not something we do. Period.”

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TaDrHHNXzI]Obama on Waterboarding - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[Jroc]

Noah Rothman @ Mediaite:


“In your legal judgment, does the Constitution allow a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil to be killed by a drone?” Cruz asked Holder pointedly.

“For sitting in a café and having a cup of coffee?” Holder replied. Cruz clarified that his hypothetical individual subject to a drone strike did not pose an “imminent and immediate threat of death and bodily harm,” but that person is suspected to be a terrorist.

“I would not think that that would be an appropriate use of any kind of lethal force,” Holder replied.

“With all respect, Gen. Holder, my question wasn’t about appropriateness or prosecutorial discretion. It was a simple legal question,” Cruz clarified.

“This is a hypothetical, but I would not think, that in that situation, the use of a drone or lethal force would not be appropriate,” Holder replied.

“I have to tell you I find it remarkable that in that hypothetical, which is deliberately very simple, you are not able to give a simple, one-word answer: no,” Cruz added. He said he think that his scenario would constitute a “deprivation of life without due process.”

Holder agreed and added that lethal force in Cruz’s case “would not be appropriate.”

“You keep saying appropriate – my question isn’t about propriety,” Cruz goaded. “My question is about whether something is constitutional or not.”

When Cruz was about to abandon his line of questioning after a number of equivocations from Holder, the attorney general clarified that he was saying “no” such actions would not be constitutional.

[Excerpt]
Ted Cruz Gets Holder To Admit That Killing Americans With Drones On U.S. Soil Is Unconstitutional | Flopping Aces

Read more:
Ted Cruz Goads Eric Holder Into Admitting That Killing Americans With Drones On U.S. Soil Is Unconstitutional | Mediaite

The video is better....Wow Ted Cruz is the man....Eric Holder is a friken joke


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMk0AgncXUI]Eric Holder Admits Killing Americans With Drones on U.S. Soil is Unconstitutional - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Political Junky]

Noah Rothman @ Mediaite:


“In your legal judgment, does the Constitution allow a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil to be killed by a drone?” Cruz asked Holder pointedly.

“For sitting in a café and having a cup of coffee?” Holder replied. Cruz clarified that his hypothetical individual subject to a drone strike did not pose an “imminent and immediate threat of death and bodily harm,” but that person is suspected to be a terrorist.

“I would not think that that would be an appropriate use of any kind of lethal force,” Holder replied.

“With all respect, Gen. Holder, my question wasn’t about appropriateness or prosecutorial discretion. It was a simple legal question,” Cruz clarified.

“This is a hypothetical, but I would not think, that in that situation, the use of a drone or lethal force would not be appropriate,” Holder replied.

“I have to tell you I find it remarkable that in that hypothetical, which is deliberately very simple, you are not able to give a simple, one-word answer: no,” Cruz added. He said he think that his scenario would constitute a “deprivation of life without due process.”

Holder agreed and added that lethal force in Cruz’s case “would not be appropriate.”

“You keep saying appropriate – my question isn’t about propriety,” Cruz goaded. “My question is about whether something is constitutional or not.”

When Cruz was about to abandon his line of questioning after a number of equivocations from Holder, the attorney general clarified that he was saying “no” such actions would not be constitutional.

[Excerpt]
Ted Cruz Gets Holder To Admit That Killing Americans With Drones On U.S. Soil Is Unconstitutional | Flopping Aces

Read more:
Ted Cruz Goads Eric Holder Into Admitting That Killing Americans With Drones On U.S. Soil Is Unconstitutional | Mediaite

And yet Rand went right ahead with his filibuster ... talking about drone strikes.

 

[OKTexas]

Noah Rothman @ Mediaite:


“In your legal judgment, does the Constitution allow a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil to be killed by a drone?” Cruz asked Holder pointedly.

“For sitting in a café and having a cup of coffee?” Holder replied. Cruz clarified that his hypothetical individual subject to a drone strike did not pose an “imminent and immediate threat of death and bodily harm,” but that person is suspected to be a terrorist.

“I would not think that that would be an appropriate use of any kind of lethal force,” Holder replied.

“With all respect, Gen. Holder, my question wasn’t about appropriateness or prosecutorial discretion. It was a simple legal question,” Cruz clarified.

“This is a hypothetical, but I would not think, that in that situation, the use of a drone or lethal force would not be appropriate,” Holder replied.

“I have to tell you I find it remarkable that in that hypothetical, which is deliberately very simple, you are not able to give a simple, one-word answer: no,” Cruz added. He said he think that his scenario would constitute a “deprivation of life without due process.”

Holder agreed and added that lethal force in Cruz’s case “would not be appropriate.”

“You keep saying appropriate – my question isn’t about propriety,” Cruz goaded. “My question is about whether something is constitutional or not.”

When Cruz was about to abandon his line of questioning after a number of equivocations from Holder, the attorney general clarified that he was saying “no” such actions would not be constitutional.

[Excerpt]
Ted Cruz Gets Holder To Admit That Killing Americans With Drones On U.S. Soil Is Unconstitutional | Flopping Aces

Read more:
Ted Cruz Goads Eric Holder Into Admitting That Killing Americans With Drones On U.S. Soil Is Unconstitutional | Mediaite

The video is better....Wow Ted Cruz is the man....Eric Holder is a friken joke


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMk0AgncXUI]Eric Holder Admits Killing Americans With Drones on U.S. Soil is Unconstitutional - YouTube[/ame]

Well that's what you get when you pit a real lawyer against a paper tiger, Holder got out lawyered.

 

[Jroc]

Noah Rothman @ Mediaite:


“In your legal judgment, does the Constitution allow a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil to be killed by a drone?” Cruz asked Holder pointedly.

“For sitting in a café and having a cup of coffee?” Holder replied. Cruz clarified that his hypothetical individual subject to a drone strike did not pose an “imminent and immediate threat of death and bodily harm,” but that person is suspected to be a terrorist.

“I would not think that that would be an appropriate use of any kind of lethal force,” Holder replied.

“With all respect, Gen. Holder, my question wasn’t about appropriateness or prosecutorial discretion. It was a simple legal question,” Cruz clarified.

“This is a hypothetical, but I would not think, that in that situation, the use of a drone or lethal force would not be appropriate,” Holder replied.

“I have to tell you I find it remarkable that in that hypothetical, which is deliberately very simple, you are not able to give a simple, one-word answer: no,” Cruz added. He said he think that his scenario would constitute a “deprivation of life without due process.”

Holder agreed and added that lethal force in Cruz’s case “would not be appropriate.”

“You keep saying appropriate – my question isn’t about propriety,” Cruz goaded. “My question is about whether something is constitutional or not.”

When Cruz was about to abandon his line of questioning after a number of equivocations from Holder, the attorney general clarified that he was saying “no” such actions would not be constitutional.

[Excerpt]
Ted Cruz Gets Holder To Admit That Killing Americans With Drones On U.S. Soil Is Unconstitutional | Flopping Aces

Read more:
Ted Cruz Goads Eric Holder Into Admitting That Killing Americans With Drones On U.S. Soil Is Unconstitutional | Mediaite

And yet Rand went right ahead with his filibuster ... talking about drone strikes.

Funny that you idiot libs have no problem with Holder's reluctance to admit killing Americans on American soil with no imminent threat is unconstitutional

 

[francoHFW]

So there are NO circumstances when it might be necessary? Poppycock. Grandstanding foolishness....start with the foreign reason- senior alQaeda.

 

[GeoLaureate8]

Thus Rand Paul's artifice for his filibuster is exposed.

His real intent is to manufacture fear.

Wrong. He says yes it's unConstitutional and yes we will do it.

Barack Obama 'has authority to use drone strikes to kill Americans on US soil' - Telegraph



.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

no one but the nuts care

 

[Jroc]

no one but the nuts care

Only you Obama lover nuts don't care about the 5th amendment or any of the rest for the constitution for that matter

 

[NYcarbineer]

Holder is right and wrong. The AUMF authorizes the President to use military lethal force against Al Qaeda enemy combatants and that certainly includes the authority to use air power which is what a drone is. Would it be appropriate in the circumstance described? Probably not.

 

[Truthmatters]

If you kill a suspect is it automattically murder?

 

[blastoff]

Cruz systematically dismantled Holder in front of the world when he got him to admit what he was desperately trying not to concede, and even made him sound a bit flustered to me. A nice slice 'n dice job, Ted!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If you kill a suspect is it automattically murder?

It is if that suspect is not a direct threat to someone at the time you kill him. Without due process the Government has no authority to kill Citizens that are not at the time firing on them, or some other direct immediate threat. Kinda like how they murdered that 16 year old boy in Yemen.