Eric Holder Admits: We Have Authority to Kill Americans, No It's Not Constitutional

[GeoLaureate8]

g5000 has been exposed as a fraud claiming to have proven Rand Paul's filibuster a farce on the grounds that Holder said drone strikes are unconstitutional. First, he isn't even quoted as directly saying that, he used more vaguery to say I thought not appropriate meant no it's not Constitutional. However, assuming that he does believe it's unconstitutional, he also believes that yes he does have the authority to drone strike Americans on U.S. soil. And he says that directly.

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

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

Notice that he won't directly admit that it's unConstitutional, but he will directly state that yes the President has the authority to kill U.S. citizens on American soil. But hey, this is coming from the guy who openly stated that he wants to "brainwash" the American public and also gave assault weapons to violent Mexican drug cartels yet wants to take guns from law-abiding peaceful citizens. LiveLeak.com - Eric Holder: "brainwash people" to make gun ownership shameful.

Rand Paul asked the administration to say "no, we absolutely do not have the authority to kill Americans on U.S. soil" and idiots like g5000 says "look, Holder said he thought his appropriate meant no."

Also, lets not forget that the DoJ memos redefine "imminent threat" to mean "not imminent threat." Let's not forget that the National Defense Authorization Act declares the U.S. a battlefield and that the Dept. of Homeland Security says Constiutionalists, Libertarians, Conservatives, pro-2nd Amendment, and other innocent Americans are terrorist threats. Things Rand Paul noted in the filibuster.

So, once again, Rand Paul is vindicated and in the right.

.

 

[auditor0007]

This whole drone strike to kill American citizens has really been taken out of context by way too many intelligent people. Obviously it does not mean the president, and that would be any president, can just call for drone strikes on American citizens because we think they might be doing something illegal. What it does mean is that in certain unlikely scenarios, if we have information that someone is going to commit a terrorist act, and there is little time to prevent such an attack, then a possible drone strike could be used to stop said individual. It's pretty much the same thing as making the call to shoot down a hijacked airliner that we know is on a kamikaze mission. Things like this have been discussed in the past, and everyone knows that under certain circumstances, a call like that might need to be made.

It just amazes me how some of you twist crap around into something it is not.

 

[TheSeventhTiger]

Eric answers questions when grilled by anyone in the same manner as all Dem's/Libs. Never a straight answer, the usual prolonged answer where in the end he leaves the questioner in a state of confusion. Just like when Clinton was asked if he had sex with Monica (or was he asked?) never the less, he had to explain that "The Type Of Sex" he had with Monica "Wasn't Sex". just like bombing Americans isn't really killing them.

 

[Old Rocks]

The freakin' dumb asses are the very ones that would scream bloody murder were a situation to develop where such a strike could have been used to prevent an event like 9-11, and was not used. Very simply, no matter what this administration does or says, no matter how nuanced the statement, they will make it into a 2 second sound bite and act as if the President had nullified the Constitution.

 

[TheSeventhTiger]

and who hasn't had enough of the Dem's avoiding answering the most basic questions when grilled in the White House for the last four years! including "The One" who will take 5 minutes to ask a simple yes and no question!!!! same with when we have Libs on any Fox Cable show, they wont give Bill or Hannity a straight answer and often just bring Bush into the mix. "WELL WHEN BUSH WAS PRESIDENT" !!!

 

[teapartysamurai]

It's simple. The same HYPOCRITE LYING LIBS who wore sack clothe and ashes, wailing about Bush and the Patriot Act, are now turning a blind eye to the concept of KILLING AMERICANS ON AMERICAN SOIL WITHOUT TRIAL.

The same LYING HYPOCRITE LIBS who were all for giving 9/11 FOREIGN NATIONALS the RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURY IN THIS COUNTRY, are now against letting AMERICANS HAVE ONE BEFORE OBAMA KILLS THEM!!!!!!!!!

Still waiting for one lib to fess up to the hypocrisy. So far the minute I point this out, the LYING GUTLESS HYPOCRITES all shut up, and pretend the issue hasn't been raised.

 

[jon_berzerk]

drone strikes

the idea of it being constitutional to kill Americans on American soil without due process

is not limited to drone strikes if you listen to holder closely

 

[Annie]

This whole drone strike to kill American citizens has really been taken out of context by way too many intelligent people. Obviously it does not mean the president, and that would be any president, can just call for drone strikes on American citizens because we think they might be doing something illegal. What it does mean is that in certain unlikely scenarios, if we have information that someone is going to commit a terrorist act, and there is little time to prevent such an attack, then a possible drone strike could be used to stop said individual. It's pretty much the same thing as making the call to shoot down a hijacked airliner that we know is on a kamikaze mission. Things like this have been discussed in the past, and everyone knows that under certain circumstances, a call like that might need to be made.

It just amazes me how some of you twist crap around into something it is not.

Right, because these 'reports' could never be misused, the government would thoroughly check them out, right? See Swatting.

 

[TheSeventhTiger]

and what if 9/11 would of happened this or last September? would that fat chit (whats his name?) and libs blamed Bush? even before an investigation? or maybe Blame Bush and the tea-party? How was 9-11 even Blamed on Bush the year he took office being it took several years to plan it? shouldn't it been a more prior Presidents fault?

 

[teapartysamurai]

This whole drone strike to kill American citizens has really been taken out of context by way too many intelligent people. Obviously it does not mean the president, and that would be any president, can just call for drone strikes on American citizens because we think they might be doing something illegal. What it does mean is that in certain unlikely scenarios, if we have information that someone is going to commit a terrorist act, and there is little time to prevent such an attack, then a possible drone strike could be used to stop said individual. It's pretty much the same thing as making the call to shoot down a hijacked airliner that we know is on a kamikaze mission. Things like this have been discussed in the past, and everyone knows that under certain circumstances, a call like that might need to be made.

It just amazes me how some of you twist crap around into something it is not.

Right, because these 'reports' could never be misused, the government would thoroughly check them out, right? See Swatting.

And OF COURSE, paid Obama bots would NEVER swat a conservative to get them to stop criticizing Obama.

See, Andrew Breitbart.

 

[teapartysamurai]

and what if 9/11 would of happened this or last September? would that fat chit (whats his name?) and libs blamed Bush? even before an investigation? or maybe Blame Bush and the tea-party? How was 9-11 even Blamed on Bush the year he took office being it took several years to plan it? shouldn't it been a more prior Presidents fault?

That's why the "Path to 9/11" never came to DVD. It traces the links that proves it was Clinton's incompetence that allowed it to happen.

 

[Annie]

The freakin' dumb asses are the very ones that would scream bloody murder were a situation to develop where such a strike could have been used to prevent an event like 9-11, and was not used. Very simply, no matter what this administration does or says, no matter how nuanced the statement, they will make it into a 2 second sound bite and act as if the President had nullified the Constitution.

9/11 and Pearl Harbor were not carried out by Americans, but by Japanese, Saudis, and Egyptians. Even with 'reports' of impending attacks, the government had no idea of who or where or when the attack may have come, nor did they seem to take them seriously. With 9/11 there were lots of dots, little or no connects.

Those two 'examples' were faulty from the beginning.

There is no constitutional or even a reasonable exigent argument to be made.

 

[TheSeventhTiger]

I am still waiting for the Libs to blame Pearl Harbour, the Led-Zepplin disaster, the Titanic and the Meteor that killed the Dinasours in 30,000 BC on Bush.

 

[teapartysamurai]

 

[blastoff]

Cruz did a nice job of letting Holder twist himself into a pretzel. Have a little salt and mustard there, Eric, and thanks for playing along.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The President is authorized by the AUMF to use military force to kill enemy combatants affiliated with Al Qaeda and that includes Americans on American soil.

Would it be appropriate to use a missile to take out an American al qaeda sitting in a cafe? Common sense should be enough to answer that.

 

[Annie]

The President is authorized by the AUMF to use military force to kill enemy combatants affiliated with Al Qaeda and that includes Americans on American soil.

Would it be appropriate to use a missile to take out an American al qaeda sitting in a cafe? Common sense should be enough to answer that.

What did Al Qaeda have to do with Pearl Harbor? This is nonsense, unlike most of the nonsense you folks defend, I can't even go with the warning, "Be careful what you wish for, what goes around comes around." No, this kind of power is justifiably unconstitutional and one issue we SHOULD all be united on.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The President is authorized by the AUMF to use military force to kill enemy combatants affiliated with Al Qaeda and that includes Americans on American soil.

Would it be appropriate to use a missile to take out an American al qaeda sitting in a cafe? Common sense should be enough to answer that.

What did Al Qaeda have to do with Pearl Harbor? This is nonsense, unlike most of the nonsense you folks defend, I can't even go with the warning, "Be careful what you wish for, what goes around comes around." No, this kind of power is justifiably unconstitutional and one issue we SHOULD all be united on.

The AUMF was passed in 2001 it has nothing to do with Pearl Harbor. An American al qaeda is no different than a non-American al qaeda.

 

[Annie]

The President is authorized by the AUMF to use military force to kill enemy combatants affiliated with Al Qaeda and that includes Americans on American soil.

Would it be appropriate to use a missile to take out an American al qaeda sitting in a cafe? Common sense should be enough to answer that.

What did Al Qaeda have to do with Pearl Harbor? This is nonsense, unlike most of the nonsense you folks defend, I can't even go with the warning, "Be careful what you wish for, what goes around comes around." No, this kind of power is justifiably unconstitutional and one issue we SHOULD all be united on.

The AUMF was passed in 2001 it has nothing to do with Pearl Harbor. An American al qaeda is no different than a non-American al qaeda.

Except those pesky Bill of Rights.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We are using drones to kill the enemy in foreign countries because there is no more effective manner available to kill or capture them.

It is highly unlikely that we would encounter that circumstance on American soil, so the use of a drone to kill a terrorist here is unlikely. That does not mean it isn't authorized and constitutional.