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

[Annie]

Oh, Pearl Harbor and 9/11 were brought up by Holder, type of exigent circumstances that might necessitate the 'not contemplated' type of events that might justify drone attacks on US citizen.

 

[Annie]

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.

Funny, even Holder admitted it would be unconstitutional.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

What part of the Bill of Rights applies to an American who has joined forces with the enemy?

 

[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.

Funny, even Holder admitted it would be unconstitutional.

Are you stipulating that every opinion Eric Holder holds, no pun intended, must be the correct one?

Are you willing to concede that point to support your own in this particular case?

 

[Annie]

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.

What part of the Bill of Rights applies to an American who has joined forces with the enemy?

Due process. Until convicted, US citizens have the right to such, no?

Repeating myself, even Holder agreed such would be unconstitutional.

 

[LeftofLeft]

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.

Everytime Liberals get caught, cannot retort, or effectively smear those questioning or criticizing what they are doing, we get the "taking out of context" pitch. Liberals need to start presenting things in context.

 

[Katzndogz]

The answer is obvious. Democrats cannot envision a future in which anyone other than obama is presidebt. His judgment and decisions are perfection. He will not be replaced (or so they like to think), so there is no reason to worry that the power to order drone strikes at whim would be misused.

 

[Annie]

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.

Funny, even Holder admitted it would be unconstitutional.

Are you stipulating that every opinion Eric Holder holds, no pun intended, must be the correct one?

Are you willing to concede that point to support your own in this particular case?

Hardly, I'm pointing out your claim that it would be constitutional just seems to be in error.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Funny, even Holder admitted it would be unconstitutional.

Are you stipulating that every opinion Eric Holder holds, no pun intended, must be the correct one?

Are you willing to concede that point to support your own in this particular case?

Hardly, I'm pointing out your claim that it would be constitutional just seems to be in error.

You're basing that on Holder's say-so. He is not an arbiter of what is or isn't constitutional.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The answer is obvious. Democrats cannot envision a future in which anyone other than obama is presidebt. His judgment and decisions are perfection. He will not be replaced (or so they like to think), so there is no reason to worry that the power to order drone strikes at whim would be misused.

Every authorized power gets misused sooner or later. That's not a logical reasons to withhold the authorization;

if it were, no one in government would have any power. No police, no courts, no military, etc., etc.

 

[Annie]

Are you stipulating that every opinion Eric Holder holds, no pun intended, must be the correct one?

Are you willing to concede that point to support your own in this particular case?

Hardly, I'm pointing out your claim that it would be constitutional just seems to be in error.

You're basing that on Holder's say-so. He is not an arbiter of what is or isn't constitutional.

Ok. Your expertise?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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

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

Yeah.....that's bullshit.

As a matter-o'-fact, Holder looked like he thought Cruz might be somewhat NUTZ....​

....for asking such a dumb, fuckin' question!!​

 

[NYcarbineer]

Except those pesky Bill of Rights.

What part of the Bill of Rights applies to an American who has joined forces with the enemy?

Due process. Until convicted, US citizens have the right to such, no?

Repeating myself, even Holder agreed such would be unconstitutional.

An American citizen who becomes an enemy combatant in a war that the US is constitutionally participating in,

via a Congressional declaration of war or an authorization for the use of force such as the AUMF authorizing the war against Al Qaeda et al,

that American's 'due process' becomes that due to an enemy combatant. We can kill the enemy during a war,

in fact, we can bomb their barracks while they're fast asleep if we choose to.

 

[Annie]

What part of the Bill of Rights applies to an American who has joined forces with the enemy?

Due process. Until convicted, US citizens have the right to such, no?

Repeating myself, even Holder agreed such would be unconstitutional.

An American citizen who becomes an enemy combatant in a war that the US is constitutionally participating in,

via a Congressional declaration of war or an authorization for the use of force such as the AUMF authorizing the war against Al Qaeda et al,

that American's 'due process' becomes that due to an enemy combatant. We can kill the enemy during a war,

in fact, we can bomb their barracks while they're fast asleep if we choose to.

So you are putting forth justification for any US citizen communicating with Al Queda to be shot and killed on site. Skip Gitmo, skip arrests, skip trials.

 

[tjvh]

Due process. Until convicted, US citizens have the right to such, no?

Repeating myself, even Holder agreed such would be unconstitutional.

An American citizen who becomes an enemy combatant in a war that the US is constitutionally participating in,

via a Congressional declaration of war or an authorization for the use of force such as the AUMF authorizing the war against Al Qaeda et al,

that American's 'due process' becomes that due to an enemy combatant. We can kill the enemy during a war,

in fact, we can bomb their barracks while they're fast asleep if we choose to.

So you are putting forth justification for any US citizen communicating with Al Queda to be shot and killed on site. Skip Gitmo, skip arrests, skip trials.

God help you if your child accidentally dials a known Al Qaeda sympathizer from your telephone, or he calls you. Apparently you're guilty as charged, and can be taken out by a drone strike without a trial on U.S. soil. Have some people gone that crazy? Apparently so.

 

[bendog]

Due process. Until convicted, US citizens have the right to such, no?

Repeating myself, even Holder agreed such would be unconstitutional.

An American citizen who becomes an enemy combatant in a war that the US is constitutionally participating in,

via a Congressional declaration of war or an authorization for the use of force such as the AUMF authorizing the war against Al Qaeda et al,

that American's 'due process' becomes that due to an enemy combatant. We can kill the enemy during a war,

in fact, we can bomb their barracks while they're fast asleep if we choose to.

So you are putting forth justification for any US citizen communicating with Al Queda to be shot and killed on site. Skip Gitmo, skip arrests, skip trials.

That imo is the point. If a US citizen happens to be in a terroist camp in Pak, Yemen, wherever when a drone or plane puts ordanance on the camp with the intent to destroy the camp and all those in it, would be IRRELEVANT.

However, when the purpose of an attack is to expressly kill an American .... that is not typically a lawful application of miltiary force.

In WWII, we specifically sent planes to kill Yamato after radio intercepts indicated his plane would be in a spec spot at spec time. The Brits planned the assasination Heydrich. Even that was not without some controversy, and each action was justified on various grounds involving ends and means.

 

[g5000]

When asked, Holder said killing a US citizen on US soil absent immediate danger is unconstitutional.

Simple fact. This is a dead issue.

But here is the really funny thing about all this: We have people on the Right jumping up and down and getting people terrified that a suspected terrorist won't be protected with his Constitutional rights! They want him given his Miranda rights and lawyered up!

BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!


Yeah. You never stopped to think about that, did you?


The right wing insanity has come full circle.

 

[g5000]

And now, a Fox News flashback:

One day after the very first detainee from Guantanamo Bay was transferred to New York City to stand trial, we are now learning some shocking news thanks to The Weekly Standard.

According to Congressman Mike Rogers — who serves on the House Intelligence Committee — the Obama administration is now requiring FBI agents to read Miranda rights to captured terrorists.

That BASTARD OBAMA is reading MIRANDA RIGHTS TO TERRORISTS!!!!!

SHOCKING NEWS!

That fucker read them their RIGHTS? And brought them to TRIAL? Are you fucking KIDDING ME?!?!


Yeah, I can see how you guys think Obama is going to start strafing American citizens any day now.

 

[GeoLaureate8]

When asked, Holder said killing a US citizen on US soil absent immediate danger is unconstitutional.

Simple fact. This is a dead issue.

But here is the really funny thing about all this: We have people on the Right jumping up and down and getting people terrified that a suspected terrorist won't be protected with his Constitutional rights! They want him given his Miranda rights and lawyered up!

BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!


Yeah. You never stopped to think about that, did you?


The right wing insanity has come full circle.

That's because suspected terrorists are defined as Constitutionalists, Libertarians, Conservatives, Ron Paul supporters, people who pay cash, according to Dept. of Homeland Security.

If you would have actually watched the filibuster you wouldn't make yourself look so stupid.



.

 

[CMike]

Due process. Until convicted, US citizens have the right to such, no?

Repeating myself, even Holder agreed such would be unconstitutional.

An American citizen who becomes an enemy combatant in a war that the US is constitutionally participating in,

via a Congressional declaration of war or an authorization for the use of force such as the AUMF authorizing the war against Al Qaeda et al,

that American's 'due process' becomes that due to an enemy combatant. We can kill the enemy during a war,

in fact, we can bomb their barracks while they're fast asleep if we choose to.

If they are part of Al Qaida they should be treated as the same unlawful combatant as any Al Qaida terrorist.

They deserve no more protection.

Once again, the chances of a drone being needed in the US are extremely low. If the authorities knew where the terrorists was they could capture him.

The point of using a drone is to take out terrorists where there aren't american soldiers to capture the terrorist.

However, I wouldn't rule out the possibility of using a drone against an Al Qaida terrorist anywhere in the world. We are in a war with them.