“Let me be clear. Translate my appropriate to no. I thought I was saying no. Alright? No,” Holder said after Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) asked him six times whether hypothetically it was constitutional for the U.S. to use a drone to kill a U.S. citizen sitting in a café in the U.S. who does not pose an immediate threat. “If an individual is sitting quietly at a café in the United States, in your legal judgment, does the Constitution allow a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil to be killed by a drone?” Cruz (R-Texas) asked Holder.
“For sitting in a café and having a cup of coffee?” Holder asked. “If that individual is not posing an imminent and immediate threat of death or bodily harm, does the U.S. Constitution allow a drone to kill that individual?” Cruz asked. “On the basis of what you said, I don’t think you can arrest that person,” Holder said.
“The person is suspected to be a terrorist. You have abundant evidence he’s a terrorist. He’s involved in terrorist plots, but at the moment, he’s not pointing a bazooka at the Pentagon. He is sitting in a café overseas. The United States government uses drones to take out individuals when they’re walking down a pathway, when they’re sitting in a café,” Cruz said. “If a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil is not posing an immediate threat to life or bodily harm, does the Constitution allow a drone to kill that citizen?” Cruz asked.
“I would not think that that would be an appropriate use of any kind of lethal force. We would deal with that in the way that we typically deal with a situation like that,” Holder said before Cruz cut him off. “With all respect, General Holder, my question wasn’t about appropriateness or prosecutorial discretion. It was a simple legal question. Does the Constitution allow a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil who doesn’t pose an imminent threat to be killed by the U.S. government?” Cruz asked again.
MORE
