Holder Admits It’s Unconstitutional for Gov’t to Kill US Citizen Sitting Peacefully in U.S. in Café

Cybercast News Service ^ | March 6, 2013 | Melanie Hunter

[Olog-hai]

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that the U.S. Constitution does not allow the targeted drone killing of a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil who does not pose an imminent threat to life or bodily harm.

“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. …

“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. …

[txrefugee]

Sen. Cruz is not stupid. Watch your mouth.

Inform yourself as to his background and learn something before exposing your own ignorance.

[Albion Wilde]

He meant to say the word “no” but somehow the word “appropriate” came out.

"No" and "thou shalt not" are concepts that were time-tested even by the time they were recognized in the Bible.

"Appropriate" is a concept that came out of comparatively recent, unproven, secular social sciences like psychology.

In other words, "appropriate" is crap.

[Albion Wilde]

Add to that list of blamees: pro-life activists.

[Travis McGee]

This also applies to attorneys-general.

[SunkenCiv]

• ...by softening its edge on some volatile social issues and altering its image as the party always seemingly "eager to go to war... We do need to expand the party and grow the party and that does mean that we don't always all agree on every issue" ... the party needs to become more welcoming to individuals who disagree with basic Republican doctrine on emotional social issues such as gay marriage... "We're going to have to be a little hands off on some of these issues ... and get people into the party," Paul said. [Rand Paul: Time for GOP to soften [immigration, gay marriage] stance]

  ---

• One day after announcing on his radio show that he is "truly considering" running in 2014 for the U.S. Senate seat now held by New Jersey's Frank Lautenberg, Rivera amped up his message today in a television interview and a column on the Fox News Latino website... a moderate Republican who is fiscally conservative but also supports gay marriage and Roe v. Wade... [Geraldo Rivera declares himself a 'moderate Republican' as he eyes U.S. Senate run]

  ---

[Paladin2]

What about incinerating kids in a makeshift oven?

[cpdiii]

If they are a terrorist and an imminent threat Holder seemed to say that they could be killed. My question is how do you define an imminent threat and terrorist? Even then, is it legal and most importantly who gets to make the definition of who is and who is not an imminent threat?

The Venezuelan Constitution was modeled on that of the United States. Chavez ignored that Constitution due to the fact he had control of the Army and their loyalty. He packed the higher ranks with political cronies. He then changed the Constitution.

The same thing is slowly happening here. Be afraid.

[Georgia Girl 2]

Just unbelievable!!! Thank God for Rand Paul and Ted Cruz.

[PghBaldy]

Watch my mouth? Are you serious?

[ctdonath2]

Moreso, how does “terrorist” have anything to do with “imminent threat”? The latter being sufficient regardless of the perpetrator’s motivation...