Ted Cruz to Eric Holder: Yes or no, is it constitutional to use drones on U.S. soil against someone who’s not posing an immediate threat?

posted at 1:41 pm on March 6, 2013 by Allahpundit

A must-see via Mediaite, not just because this is the right question to ask after Holder’s letter on drone policy yesterday but because it fell to Cruz, the new bete noire of the left, rather than a Democrat to press the civil-libertarian case. Simple question: Is it a violation of due process to fire a missile at a guy on American soil if he’s not engaged at the moment in carrying out a terrorist attack? He might be a member of Al Qaeda; he might be planning an attack; but if he’s strolling down Main Street in some American town, is there any constitutional justification to toss a Hellfire at him rather than send the cops in to pick him up? Watch Holder’s reaction. Cruz has to browbeat him for three minutes to get him to shift from saying it wouldn’t be “appropriate” — which implies that the government might have the power to do it but would refuse to exercise that power for prudential reasons — to finally saying that, constitutionally, it doesn’t have that power. That’s an important admission; unless I missed something, it’s the first time anyone at the top has acknowledged a legal limit to drone strikes under certain circumstances. Here’s hoping we don’t have to point back to it someday.

As Ed already mentioned, Rand Paul’s been engaged in an old-fashioned talk-til-you-drop filibuster on the Senate floor for more than an hour to protest O’s refusal to rule out drone strikes against Americans on U.S. soil. A few choice quotes, first from the Examiner:

“Barack Obama, in 2007, would be down here with me arguing against this,” Paul said on the Senate floor. “It amazes me and disappoints me how much he’s changed.”

More from Breitbart:

“If there was an ounce of courage in this body I would be joined by many other Senators,” Sen. Paul said. “Would you tolerate a Republican who said I like the first amendment, I don’t plan to violate the first amendment, but I might,” he asked rhetorically. He then turned the question around and asked if Republicans would tolerate that sort of vaguery with regard to the 2nd amendment.

As of 1 p.m. ET, he’s live on C-SPAN 2. (You can watch here.) It’s a clever tactic twice over: While Holder’s already admitted that the feds can’t kill you at a cafe, he’s putting the Lightbringer on the spot to formally admit it too. Even if O refuses, the media attention caused by this stunt will highlight for liberals the fact that the anti-Bush they thought they elected in 2008 is a lot more Cheney-esque than they thought. (Then again, many Democrats have long since stopped caring about that.) It’s clever too because Paul needs to make amends to libertarians and paleocons for voting twice to filibuster Chuck Hagel. This is his way of reminding them ostentatiously that he’s still his father’s son.

Exit question: Why is Paul limiting his objection to killing Americans on American soil? Would he tolerate the feds firing a missile at a foreign national sitting in a U.S. cafe? Or have I misunderstood and he’s not actually limiting his objection that way?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

This, along with the Rand filibuster…good day in America, with speeches, not with the criminal in chief and his capo.

Schadenfreude on March 6, 2013 at 1:43 PM

“I intend to follow the constitution, when it’s convenient”.

The USSR in AmeriKa

Schadenfreude on March 6, 2013 at 1:44 PM

We erroneously presume that Obama’s base cares if he violates the Constitution. In truth, they only care if he fills their trough.

Archivarix on March 6, 2013 at 1:45 PM

BOOM!

Courtesy of a Cruz Missile from Texas!

God Bless Texas!

workingclass artist on March 6, 2013 at 1:46 PM

Thank God for Paul and Cruz! How I wish we had a majority like them and we might get something done FOR our Republic? Keep up the great work Cruz and Paul!
L

letget on March 6, 2013 at 1:46 PM

………..so far….

……I support the TED CRUZ MISSILE to sink the U.S.S. Jeb Bush in 2016.

PappyD61 on March 6, 2013 at 1:47 PM

Exit question: Why is Paul limiting his objection to killing Americans on American soil?

Because the Constitution only applies to our sovereign territory, not to the whole galaxy.

Drone hits on American soil are no different than cops walking up to people and just shooting them.

Now, drone hits at Gitmo are fine, as that is not American soil … but Barky and Holder want to bring the scumbags from Gitmo to New York to get Constitutional protections and to go through the civil courts.

Impeachments, and then criminal prosecutions, are so overdue it isn’t even funny.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 6, 2013 at 1:47 PM

Oh boy, McCain and Graham are going to be so upset that Cruz asked such disrespectful questions.

portlandon on March 6, 2013 at 1:49 PM

Drone hits on American soil are no different than cops walking up to people and just shooting them.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 6, 2013 at 1:47 PM

They actually do it a lot. I reckon you have a problem with that…

Archivarix on March 6, 2013 at 1:49 PM

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 6, 2013 at 1:47 PM

No, you’ve misunderstood. I’m not making a point about U.S. soil, I’m asking why is he distinguishing between U.S. citizens and noncitizens? Is it any better if Obama decides to liquidate a British citizen who’s suspected of terrorism if he’s sitting in a cafe on an American street?

Allahpundit on March 6, 2013 at 1:50 PM

Time for the pitchforks and guillotines, folks.

AZCoyote on March 6, 2013 at 1:50 PM

Exit question: Why is Paul limiting his objection to killing Americans on American soil? Would he tolerate the feds firing a missile at a foreign national sitting in a U.S. cafe? Or have I misunderstood and he’s not actually limiting his objection that way?

Don’t know the answer. I was also thinking that it’s unconstitutional to drop anything on Americans on foreign soil, without due process.

They could amend the laws for active terrorists.

Heh, first, the Obama admin. doesn’t use the term “terrorism”, except for when it’s convenient.

Schadenfreude on March 6, 2013 at 1:51 PM

“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,” Holder said, citing the December 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor

Um, did I miss something in US history class? Did an American on American soil plan the attack on Pearl Harbor?

Fallon on March 6, 2013 at 1:51 PM

Can Cruz can spot Paul if he needs a break?

Cindy Munford on March 6, 2013 at 1:52 PM

Had a Democrat Congress-Critter asked this very same question of Bush Attorney General John Ashcroft, the Democrat Media would have it on wall-to-wall, 24/7.

But now? Sound of crickets.

Del Dolemonte on March 6, 2013 at 1:53 PM

Cruz 2016/No VP needed.

hillsoftx on March 6, 2013 at 1:53 PM

Why is Paul limiting his objection to killing Americans on American soil? Would he tolerate the feds firing a missile at a foreign national sitting in a U.S. cafe? Or have I misunderstood and he’s not actually limiting his objection that way?

He is doing that for several reasons. One Obama, or his minions, said that using drones should only be done if the person was not easy to get by law enforcement. In other words an American Jihadist running around in Pakistan in basically a war zone would be hard to arrest. Obviously an American citizen on American soil is easily within the reach of domestic law enforcement, however Obama and his minions seem to not want to give up the option of taking out an American on American soil.

The second reason is political. This is were Rand is light years ahead of his father. He understand that taking out an American Jihadist in Pakistan and in a war zone, is more popular and frankly hard to avoid. It is the reality of war. However it is much easier to make the argument that in America we can just arrest the Jihadist and bring him to justice. This is not a war zone or a far off foreign country.

William Eaton on March 6, 2013 at 1:53 PM

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 6, 2013 at 1:47 PM

Good one, AP asked a good question. I had the same question when Paul said that. There s/b no differentiation but I don’t know why he made it.

Schadenfreude on March 6, 2013 at 1:54 PM

Exit question: Why is Paul limiting his objection to killing Americans on American soil? Would he tolerate the feds firing a missile at a foreign national sitting in a U.S. cafe? Or have I misunderstood and he’s not actually limiting his objection that way?

Gotta keep it simple with these weasels. Stick strictly to your strongest point and hem them in even tighter on follow ups.

It’s the same with trolls. If you make 3 points, they will completely ignore the strongest ones and rebut the weaker one all day long.

forest on March 6, 2013 at 1:54 PM

They actually do it a lot. I reckon you have a problem with that…

Archivarix on March 6, 2013 at 1:49 PM

They really don’t. They shoot people who are making threats of themselves (and they don’t even have enough leeway in this, as civilizans also don’t – see George Zimmerman) but they don’t really just assassinate people.

There’s a reason our CIA is not allowed to operate on American soil, because they are supposed to be doing stuff like this (along with breaking any local laws they think need breaking) and they can only do it where the Constitution offers no protections and where they don’t run afoul of American law.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 6, 2013 at 1:54 PM

and lest you forget who this administration considers to be terrorists:

from “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.”, DHS, 2009

returning veterans, supporters of states rights and limited federal government, pro-life supporters, 2nd Amendment supporters, all conservatives in general and the Tea Party specifically, those who oppose tax increases

2nd Ammendment Mother on March 6, 2013 at 1:54 PM

Excuse my ignorance by why would libertarians and paleocons want a dumb as a post Sec. of Defense Hagel?

Cindy Munford on March 6, 2013 at 1:55 PM

Oh yeah wolfie and tingles will be apoplectic

Heh

cmsinaz on March 6, 2013 at 1:56 PM

Finally.

The puffed up, corrupt thug, Holder met a man with brains and courage.

This administration is the perfect example of mediocrity, greed and corruption all made possible by policies to promote ‘paint by color’.

‘Nuff said.

Cody1991 on March 6, 2013 at 1:57 PM

Oh boy, McCain and Graham are going to be so upset that Cruz asked such disrespectful questions.

portlandon on March 6, 2013 at 1:49 PM

…isn’t that the truth!…it reminds the rest of us that those two should be wearing dresses on the Senate floor.

KOOLAID2 on March 6, 2013 at 1:57 PM

I am very happy too see elected officials actually looking out for my Constitutional rights.

portlandon on March 6, 2013 at 1:58 PM

No, you’ve misunderstood. I’m not making a point about U.S. soil, I’m asking why is he distinguishing between U.S. citizens and noncitizens? Is it any better if Obama decides to liquidate a British citizen who’s suspected of terrorism if he’s sitting in a cafe on an American street?

Allahpundit on March 6, 2013 at 1:50 PM

I…must…pay attention better…

Interesting. I say because the constitution applies only to American citizens.

William Eaton on March 6, 2013 at 1:58 PM

Exit question: Why is Paul limiting his objection to killing Americans on American soil? Would he tolerate the feds firing a missile at a foreign national sitting in a U.S. cafe? Or have I misunderstood and he’s not actually limiting his objection that way?

The way I look at this is that I share a bond with my fellow citizens by nature of our shared citizenship. As such, it is my responsibility to look out that their rights are protected.

Non-citizens have their own governments which are tasked with the responsibility of looking out for their well-being, a responsibility that I do not share.

JohnGalt23 on March 6, 2013 at 1:58 PM

I am trying to get through to the Capitol to speak to Rand Paul’s office to thank him. I will also call Ted Cruz office to thank him.

How funny…maybe it is the weather up there but I’ve been disconnected at the switchboard 3x already….O’s sequester hit?

CoffeeLover on March 6, 2013 at 1:58 PM

No, you’ve misunderstood. I’m not making a point about U.S. soil, I’m asking why is he distinguishing between U.S. citizens and noncitizens?

Yeah. I meant to say that he was taking the extreme situation on American soil – that of Americans who have full Constitutional protections. Foreigners don’t – not even on American soil – as they cannot be held liable for treason, and illegals have no protections. The only protections illegals really get is that people argue that they can’t be known to be illegal and, therefore, must be extended some protections to start … just in case.

But we don’t assassinate foreigners on American soil. The CIA doesn’t work on American soil and that is the main agency that is supposed to handle assassinations.

Is it any better if Obama decides to liquidate a British citizen who’s suspected of terrorism if he’s sitting in a cafe on an American street?

Allahpundit on March 6, 2013 at 1:50 PM

No. Explained above. The FBI arrests those types if they are here. But the minute they leave our territory, the CIA is supposed to dust them.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 6, 2013 at 1:58 PM

Go Rand! Go Ted!

Press it press it press it.

Lead us out of this darkness.

petefrt on March 6, 2013 at 1:59 PM

Again my post from the other thread applies, so I will repost it.

I don’t think any president should have the power to order the execution of American citizens on our soil. With that said, it seems a lot of Republicans were screaming the “9/11″ in letting Bush expand wiretapping, etc.

And I say the same about all the whining I hear from my fellow conservatives about groping by TSA. If Bush was President 80% of you with volunteer to get in line to be groped first, in the name of “War On Terror”

So to the principled ones among us, this is the reason Romney lost. Romney had ZERO core principals, and he was our standard bearer, in the name of “elect-ability.”

Raquel Pinkbullet on March 6, 2013 at 1:59 PM

Why is Paul limiting his objection to killing Americans on American soil?

I think because Paul knows who Obama will kill on American soil , and they won’t be what you and me call terrorists !
Let’s just admit it , Obama will kill patriotic white Christian American citizens on American soil , and his people will like it.

burrata on March 6, 2013 at 2:01 PM

Listening live on C-SPAN.

Will someone at least bring Rand Paul a Gatorade-type or energy drink soon?

Fallon on March 6, 2013 at 2:01 PM

Is it any better if Obama decides to liquidate a British citizen who’s suspected of terrorism if he’s sitting in a cafe on an American street?

Allahpundit on March 6, 2013 at 1:50 PM

Haha Allah surely you jest, you know Obama would never eliminate a “foreign” citizen on American soil, only an American tea party type.

Come on didn’t you get the memo about Right Wing Extremists?

Raquel Pinkbullet on March 6, 2013 at 2:01 PM

The more I see of Cruz, the better I like him as opposed to Paul Ryan who is trying to push amnesty through the House:

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=12207C2F-7F94-479F-959C-F539B631CDF1

bw222 on March 6, 2013 at 2:02 PM

Um, did I miss something in US history class? Did an American on American soil plan the attack on Pearl Harbor?

Fallon on March 6, 2013 at 1:51 PM

There is so much wrong with that analogy, foremost: uniformed airmen of a foreign military typically are not classified as ‘terrorists’…

affenhauer on March 6, 2013 at 2:03 PM

The opinion of the AG is just that, his opinion — in this case about whether he judges a certain use of drones to be constitutional.

But the AG doesn’t decide constitutionality, that’s finally up to the Supreme Court. So, suppose Holder orders a kill in a restaurant like Cruz describes. It seems all he need do in defense of the Justice Dept. is to say that he acted according to his best understanding of the law.

Suppose Holder isn’t sure. Can he ask for a ruling on constitutionality, or does that have to happen in the context of a case that’s been brought in the usual way, say by the widow of the guy that was droned?

Or suppose Holder had answered Cruz by saying Yes, the Justice Dept. believes that such a kill would be fully constitutional. Who has standing to challenge that before the first such drone strike occurs?

Byron on March 6, 2013 at 2:04 PM

William Eaton on March 6, 2013 at 1:58 PM

the Constitution applies to anyone in areas under the jurisdiciton of the US gov’t.

chasdal on March 6, 2013 at 2:04 PM

Senator Rand Paul ‏@SenRandPaul

I will not sit quietly and let President Obama shred the Constitution. #filiblizzard


Rand Paul live tweats

petefrt on March 6, 2013 at 2:04 PM

Interesting. I say because the constitution applies only to American citizens.

William Eaton on March 6, 2013 at 1:58 PM

I disagree. The Constitution is the basis of all the laws governing this country and details how the government is supposed to operate and behave.

dentarthurdent on March 6, 2013 at 2:06 PM

No, you’ve misunderstood. I’m not making a point about U.S. soil, I’m asking why is he distinguishing between U.S. citizens and noncitizens? Is it any better if Obama decides to liquidate a British citizen who’s suspected of terrorism if he’s sitting in a cafe on an American street?

Allahpundit on March 6, 2013 at 1:50 PM

Yes. Exactly. I wondered that myself. Instead of wading in and arresting all concerned in a domestic terrorist plot, would Ogabe decide it was just simpler to send them a care package in the form of a Hellfire missile? American, British, Afghani, Saudi Arabian, whatever — doesn’t make any difference.

I am really glad Ted Cruz managed to pin that little weasel, Holder, to the wall and force him to admit Ogabe doesn’t have that power. (On the other hand, what are the odds of Holder walking that back as soon as Ogabe gets done talking to him? Can we all say “Cory Booker”?)

catsandbooks on March 6, 2013 at 2:07 PM

He was sitting at the cafe, finalizing imminent plans to destroy the Empire State building, it was our belief that it was “imminent”…

Still could be vague, what is imminent? A phone call, email, detail discussion?

right2bright on March 6, 2013 at 2:10 PM

Um, did I miss something in US history class? Did an American on American soil plan the attack on Pearl Harbor?

Fallon on March 6, 2013 at 1:51 PM

Those sneaky American Germans!

LoganSix on March 6, 2013 at 2:10 PM

Those sneaky American Germans!

LoganSix on March 6, 2013 at 2:10 PM

Might try Japanese…and yes, they were hustled off to Manzanar, and east of the 99…

right2bright on March 6, 2013 at 2:11 PM

I wonder, at what point in time did the savages, who flew commercial jets into the Towers/Pentagon/Pennsylvania field, constitute an “immediate threat”?

I wonder when … if … the trigger would’ve ever been pulled? Especially with an AG who is incapable of even determining the time of day.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 6, 2013 at 2:11 PM

There is so much wrong with that analogy, foremost: uniformed airmen of a foreign military typically are not classified as ‘terrorists’…

affenhauer on March 6, 2013 at 2:03 PM

Oh good. Someone else sees what I see. Lies, misdirection and obscurity.

Fallon on March 6, 2013 at 2:12 PM

I wonder when … if … the trigger would’ve ever been pulled? Especially with an AG who is incapable of even determining the time of day.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 6, 2013 at 2:11 PM

Exactly, imminent after they had taken lesson? After purchasing tickets, or in the cafe, ordering tickets off the internet…

right2bright on March 6, 2013 at 2:12 PM

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 6, 2013 at 1:47 PM

No, you’ve misunderstood. I’m not making a point about U.S. soil, I’m asking why is he distinguishing between U.S. citizens and noncitizens? Is it any better if Obama decides to liquidate a British citizen who’s suspected of terrorism if he’s sitting in a cafe on an American street?

Allahpundit on March 6, 2013 at 1:50 PM

I think Cruz used the specific language because of his experience working as an Assoc. in the Department of Justice and SCOTUS clerk.

workingclass artist on March 6, 2013 at 2:13 PM

At the end of the day this filibuster by Paul is silly, either way the guy is getting confirmed, because the rest of the GOP have no backbone.

Raquel Pinkbullet on March 6, 2013 at 2:14 PM

Thanks, Texas.

Christien on March 6, 2013 at 2:14 PM

Glad to see Cruz still has HA posters’ approval

Subject to change any moment now…

Redford on March 6, 2013 at 2:15 PM

No. Explained above. The FBI arrests those types if they are here. But the minute they leave our territory, the CIA is supposed to dust them.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 6, 2013 at 1:58 PM

So you’re saying that the reason why the President can’t order the attack is due to the Constitutional rights of the person under attack and not the Constitutional limits of executive power?

segasagez on March 6, 2013 at 2:15 PM

right2bright on March 6, 2013 at 2:11 PM

my kingdom for some pop culture knowledge….

chasdal on March 6, 2013 at 2:16 PM

Interesting. I say because the constitution applies only to American citizens.

William Eaton on March 6, 2013 at 1:58 PM

It also – in large part – applies to foreign nationals on American soils. Obviously, for nats do not have voting rights, etc, but they have 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, and 14th rights, for example.

Resist We Much on March 6, 2013 at 2:17 PM

600 Billion in new deficit spending APPROVED by the useless house of representatives and not a single story here on Hotair.

‘Spending the children into poverty for the good of the country!’

Freddy on March 6, 2013 at 2:17 PM

“Barack Obama, in 2007, would be down here with me arguing against this,” Paul said on the Senate floor. “It amazes me and disappoints me how much he’s changed.”

You have to wonder if Obama didn’t consider ordering a drone strike on the Senate floor right about then.

Bitter Clinger on March 6, 2013 at 2:17 PM

No. Explained above. The FBI arrests those types if they are here. But the minute they leave our territory, the CIA is supposed to dust them.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 6, 2013 at 1:58 PM

So you’re saying that the reason why the President can’t order the attack is due to the Constitutional rights of the person under attack and not the Constitutional limits of executive power?

segasagez on March 6, 2013 at 2:15 PM

And foreign nationals do indeed have Constitutional rights, we can address that depending on your position of my last question.

segasagez on March 6, 2013 at 2:17 PM

Freddy on March 6, 2013 at 2:17 PM

Democrats – Republicans [Most of them].

3 feet one way – A yard the other.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 6, 2013 at 2:20 PM

Interesting. I say because the constitution applies only to American citizens.

William Eaton on March 6, 2013 at 1:58 PM

It also – in large part – applies to foreign nationals on American soils. Obviously, for nats do not have voting rights, etc, but they have 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, and 14th rights, for example.

Resist We Much on March 6, 2013 at 2:17 PM

Yes. And I will point to this amendment as an example:

Article XIV

1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

There is a specific distinction in the uses of the words citizen people and person – and this applies in many other parts of the Constitution and Amendments.

dentarthurdent on March 6, 2013 at 2:20 PM

Allahpundit on March 6, 2013 at 1:50 PM

For me, it comes down to the first two words of the Fifth Amendment.

Christien on March 6, 2013 at 2:21 PM

No, you’ve misunderstood. I’m not making a point about U.S. soil, I’m asking why is he distinguishing between U.S. citizens and noncitizens? Is it any better if Obama decides to liquidate a British citizen who’s suspected of terrorism if he’s sitting in a cafe on an American street?

Allahpundit on March 6, 2013 at 1:50 PM

I believe the terrorist act separates citizens from non-citizens, such as wire-tapping, and I am sure other provisions.

right2bright on March 6, 2013 at 2:21 PM

Resist We Much on March 6, 2013 at 2:17 PM

all the omitted amendments apply to everyone with in the jurisdiction of the Us govt. except the 15th 19th 24th and 26th. those are the only ones the specifically mention “citizens”

chasdal on March 6, 2013 at 2:21 PM

Look…as long as you don’t pour water on their faces…it’s all good.

Baxter Greene on March 6, 2013 at 2:22 PM

If a guy is throwing grenades out of a window then the cops can, and should, just shoot him dead. Period. In this case, there would be no problem with a drone zapping the guy, but not from the feds since they have no jurisdiction over some lunatic just tossing grenades. That is to local and state law enforcement.

The problem with all of this is not the drones or the idea of killing Americans on American soil. There are certainly conditions when any of us would say that that is the right move – if a guy is about to press the button on a bomb that will take down a bridge with 500 cars on it, for example. The problem is that it is not the feds’ job to be operating their drones over cities and the bigger problem is that I don’t trust Barky with any power, whatsoever, as he clearly always looks to harm Americans and American interests and he always looks to aid and abet non-Americans who are looking to harm American interests.

If Barky could finally be impeached and jailed, as he should be, then this whole discussion would be different. There would still be no power for the feds to be operating their drones in American space looking to pick off … whomever … but there would be some discretion in national security that must be given to the administration – discretion that I don’t trust this administration with (as they have easily proven over the years they cannot be trusted with, from their insane attempts to call Tea Partiers “terrorists” to their alliance with islamists to their intentional stalling on military issues to harm us ….).

First and foremost, DHS has to go. That agency is ridiculous and has so far abused and overextended their power that there is no reasonable alternative than to just put the whole department to sleep.

This is why I just want a national divorce. I want to be free of these America-haters and the deformed nation they are forcing on us.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 6, 2013 at 2:24 PM

Rand Paul just quoted the part of the law that said “imminent” does not mean “immediate”…

right2bright on March 6, 2013 at 2:24 PM

No, you’ve misunderstood. I’m not making a point about U.S. soil, I’m asking why is he distinguishing between U.S. citizens and noncitizens?

Allahpundit on March 6, 2013 at 1:50 PM

Easier and more popular case to make.

besser tot als rot on March 6, 2013 at 2:25 PM

Look…as long as you don’t pour water on their faces…it’s all good.

Baxter Greene on March 6, 2013 at 2:22 PM

Oh, that’s funny…shove a Predator up his ***, but don’t put water over his face…

right2bright on March 6, 2013 at 2:25 PM

Allahpundit on March 6, 2013 at 1:50 PM

it could just be incidental, he may not mean to exclude anyone inside the boundary of the US. regardless of citizenship. the Insurrection Act and Posse Comitatus Act regulate the use of the military inside the US and neither has an exception for citizens v. non-citizens.

chasdal on March 6, 2013 at 2:26 PM

I believe the terrorist act separates citizens from non-citizens, such as wire-tapping, and I am sure other provisions.

right2bright on March 6, 2013 at 2:21 PM

I think the question is if the president has the authority to point at anyone on US soil and say “Die”.

Let’s assume the president doesn’t have that authority. Let’s also assume that a terrorist intent on doing(?) terrorism can be eliminated. If the president can define who a terrorist is and also can decide on intent, the president has the authority to point and say “die”.

segasagez on March 6, 2013 at 2:27 PM

If a guy is throwing grenades out of a window then the cops can, and should, just shoot him dead. Period. In this case, there would be no problem with a drone zapping the guy,
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 6, 2013 at 2:24 PM

yeah, if local authorities have an armed drone that is a proper use. but the idea that state/local LE’s might have an armed drone is frightening. they are already too militarized as it is.

chasdal on March 6, 2013 at 2:28 PM

Ted Cruz needs to be President

redguy on March 6, 2013 at 2:28 PM

all the omitted amendments apply to everyone with in the jurisdiction of the Us govt. except the 15th 19th 24th and 26th. those are the only ones the specifically mention “citizens”

chasdal on March 6, 2013 at 2:21 PM

I said “for example.” My list was not meant to be all-inclusive.

Resist We Much on March 6, 2013 at 2:28 PM

………..so far….

……I support the TED CRUZ MISSILE to sink the U.S.S. Jeb Bush in 2016.

PappyD61 on March 6, 2013 at 1:47 PM

Yeah, time for the Bushes to go away…..

redguy on March 6, 2013 at 2:30 PM

yeah, if local authorities have an armed drone that is a proper use. but the idea that state/local LE’s might have an armed drone is frightening. they are already too militarized as it is.

chasdal on March 6, 2013 at 2:28 PM

I agree. I was just making the distinction between federal and local jurisdiction and this idea that Barky’s junta argues that the feds can do anything they want anywhere they want.

Your point with the cops is right on. Too many people are willing to accept the police force as an armed security force with 24/7 surveillance of everything, not a law enforcement arm as it is supposed to be limited to.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 6, 2013 at 2:34 PM

So you’re saying that the reason why the President can’t order the attack is due to the Constitutional rights of the person under attack and not the Constitutional limits of executive power?

segasagez on March 6, 2013 at 2:15 PM

Both

Schadenfreude on March 6, 2013 at 2:34 PM

Ted Cruz will not back down.

Texas will not back down.

Texans will not back down.

McCain, Romney, Bush I, Bush II, all backed down. (note the Bush family are not real Texans)

Obama is not at work with illegal immigration to over run Texas.

Obama did the Fast and Furious to get Texans killed.

Obama leads the Commies in the U.S.A. and they are attacking the U.S. Constitution 24/7 with the aid and comfort of the GNN. (Goebbles News Networks).

Stand with Ted, Texans and others who will never back down.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on March 6, 2013 at 2:36 PM

Yes or no, is it constitutional to use drones on U.S. soil against someone who’s not posing an immediate threat?

Um, ‘present’?

socalcon on March 6, 2013 at 2:36 PM

oops
Obama is now at work with illegal immigration to over run Texas.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on March 6, 2013 at 2:37 PM

Ted Cruz needs to be President

redguy on March 6, 2013 at 2:28 PM

Well he’d be great on SCOTUS as well.

workingclass artist on March 6, 2013 at 2:38 PM

Give him an AZZ BEATING TED!!!

ToddPA on March 6, 2013 at 2:38 PM

dentarthurdent on March 6, 2013 at 2:20 PM

And, I don’t believe that I argued otherwise. As I said, foreign nationals have constitutional rights – not the full panoply – when on American soil and I point you to the statement of Senator Edward Cowan – the colleague of the author of the 14th amendment – made during debate:

“The honourable Senator from Michigan has given this subject, I have no doubt, a good deal of his attention, and I am really desirous to have a legal definition of “citizenship of the United States.” What does it mean? What is its length and breadth? I would be glad if the honourable Senator in good earnest would favour us with some such definition. Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen? Is the child of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen? If so, what rights have they? Have they any more rights than a sojourner in the United States? If a traveler comes here from Ethiopia, from Australia, or from Great Britain, he is entitled, to a certain extent, to the protection of the laws. You cannot murder him with impunity. It is murder to kill him, the same as it is to kill another man. You cannot commit an assault and battery on him, I apprehend. He has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptation of the word. It is perfectly clear that the mere fact that a man is born in the country has not heretofore entitled him to the right to exercise political power.”

- Senator Edward Cowan, (R-PA), The Congressional Record published as The Congressional Globe, 30 May 1866

You and I are in agreement. Others need to understand that they are incorrect when they argue that foreign nationals on American soil do not have constitutional rights. That is an erroneous position and can be demonstrably proven so by mountains of precedent.

Resist We Much on March 6, 2013 at 2:38 PM

No, you’ve misunderstood.
Allahpundit on March 6, 2013 at 1:50 PM

Um, ya.

AP, that’s pretty much clockwork for TPOP.

socalcon on March 6, 2013 at 2:40 PM

yeah, if local authorities have an armed drone that is a proper use.

chasdal on March 6, 2013 at 2:28 PM

Local and state authorities must still meet the lethal force requirements set forth in Tennessee v Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985).

Resist We Much on March 6, 2013 at 2:41 PM

Turns out Cruz was an excellent choice to back. Go Cruz!!!

Bmore on March 6, 2013 at 2:42 PM

Finally.

The puffed up, corrupt thug, Holder met a man with brains and courage.

This administration is the perfect example of mediocrity, greed and corruption all made possible by policies to promote ‘paint by color’.

‘Nuff said.

Cody1991 on March 6, 2013 at 1:57 PM

Holder cannot hold up against another legal eagle with the specific experience that Cruz has.

Holder knows it.

workingclass artist on March 6, 2013 at 2:42 PM

Look…as long as you don’t pour water on their faces…it’s all good.

Baxter Greene on March 6, 2013 at 2:22 PM

As long as you don’t tap the phone calls of jihadies, or moniter what they read in our public libraries, it’s OK to kill Americans on American soil.

burrata on March 6, 2013 at 2:43 PM

Don’t know the answer. I was also thinking that it’s unconstitutional to drop anything on Americans on foreign soil, without due process.

They could amend the laws for active terrorists.

Heh, first, the Obama admin. doesn’t use the term “terrorism”, except for when it’s convenient.

Schadenfreude on March 6, 2013 at 1:51 PM

It’s also unconstitutional for the U.S. government to kill Americans on foreign soil. But that didn’t stop them from killing Anwar al-Awlaki and his son. I myself won’t miss him. But that does not mean I condone Oblamer from taking away someone elses rights. A terrorist he might have been, but only if proven in a court of law. Oblamer could just as easily call you or I a terrorist and send a drone to kill anyone of us.

WV. Paul on March 6, 2013 at 2:43 PM

Make one heII of a team.

Bmore on March 6, 2013 at 2:47 PM

I’m loving some of this Cruz Missile. Thank you, Sarah.

Mirimichi on March 6, 2013 at 2:49 PM

Local and state authorities must still meet the lethal force requirements set forth in Tennessee v Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985).

Resist We Much on March 6, 2013 at 2:41 PM

you dont think someone tossing grenades out a window meets that standard???

chasdal on March 6, 2013 at 2:50 PM

You and I are in agreement. Others need to understand that they are incorrect when they argue that foreign nationals on American soil do not have constitutional rights. That is an erroneous position and can be demonstrably proven so by mountains of precedent.

Resist We Much on March 6, 2013 at 2:38 PM

Cruz scored on two important points.

1. Cruz reveals that The Atty. General’s Office has been politicized by the Obama administration, something conservatives knew…but important nonetheless because the DOJ protects Obama & Obama protects the DOJ.

2. Holder admits that as Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the United States, Obama’s Drone policy in operation on US Soil would be Unconstitutional.

workingclass artist on March 6, 2013 at 2:50 PM

If a guy is throwing grenades out of a window then the cops can, and should, just shoot him dead. Period. In this case, there would be no problem with a drone zapping the guy,

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 6, 2013 at 2:24 PM

That is NOT the issue here. The issue is whether the government – and it should encompass ANY LEVEL – can summarily execute a citizen (or even an individual) on American soil – at any time, in any place, with or without actionable intelligence, whether or not imminent means immediate or at some point…maybe…in the future – on people they think might be planning an attack.

Can a President order the military to use a drone to shoot a hijacked plane out of the sky if it is moments away from hitting the US Capitol? Yes. Serious people are not arguing against that.

Can a President order a drone to shoot a hellfire missile on a house in Dearborn where a Muslim firebrand is on his computer and discussing a possible terror attack on US interests? No.

Resist We Much on March 6, 2013 at 2:51 PM

you dont think someone tossing grenades out a window meets that standard???

chasdal on March 6, 2013 at 2:50 PM

Yes. I didn’t see your post on grenades. Sorry.

Resist We Much on March 6, 2013 at 2:52 PM

Resist We Much on March 6, 2013 at 2:51 PM

dont cherry pick, he had apost of several paragraphs. you take one out context and fisk it.

chasdal on March 6, 2013 at 2:53 PM

Holder cannot hold up against another legal eagle with the specific experience that Cruz has.

Holder knows it.

workingclass artist on March 6, 2013 at 2:42 PM

Yep. It was a beautiful thing to watch….. and long overdue.

More, please…. and faster.

Cody1991 on March 6, 2013 at 2:56 PM

Excellent, Lee breaks in to help Rand Paul.

Schadenfreude on March 6, 2013 at 2:58 PM

the Constitution applies to anyone in areas under the jurisdiciton of the US gov’t.

chasdal on March 6, 2013 at 2:04 PM

.
No, it doesn’t. Research wartime actions taken against non-citizens on U.S. soil who were engaged in planning acts of sabotage, terrorism, etc.

It always amazes me how little people know about what went on inside the United States during World War I and World War II.

Some of the “foreign agents” apprehended in the U.S. have been made to “disappear” rather than be brought into court to face charges and cause problems. Some were done by the FBI, some were done by the DIA, some were by groups who are so ‘black’ their existence is still not discussed.

No, not tin foil hat stuff; 90% is public records – the rest is a function of time, circumstance and acquaintances.

PolAgnostic on March 6, 2013 at 2:58 PM

Comment pages: 1 2