Wehrwolfen
Senior Member
- May 22, 2012
- 2,750
- 340
- 48
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 wasnt 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 Cruzs case would not be appropriate.
You keep saying appropriate my question isnt 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
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 wasnt 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 Cruzs case would not be appropriate.
You keep saying appropriate my question isnt 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