Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Presidents have always had this power to enforce the laws of the United States. Washington was the first president to use armed might in the Whiskey Rebellion and since then various presidents have also used their constitutional obligation of enforcing the laws. Hoover used the same power on the bonus veterans leaving four dead and over a thousand injured. Think of Kent State.
I have to think of Kent State everyday. Regardless, Kent State is not at all the same thing.
Presidents have always had this power to enforce the laws of the United States. Washington was the first president to use armed might in the Whiskey Rebellion and since then various presidents have also used their constitutional obligation of enforcing the laws. Hoover used the same power on the bonus veterans leaving four dead and over a thousand injured. Think of Kent State.
I have to think of Kent State everyday. Regardless, Kent State is not at all the same thing.
Of course, Kent State, the Whiskey Rebellion and the Bonus March were not all the same thing; even Lincoln's attempt to reposess Fort Sumpter was different, yet underneath all of those incidents, there is a similiartity.
I have to think of Kent State everyday. Regardless, Kent State is not at all the same thing.
Of course, Kent State, the Whiskey Rebellion and the Bonus March were not all the same thing; even Lincoln's attempt to reposess Fort Sumpter was different, yet underneath all of those incidents, there is a similiartity.
No, because we're discussing an individual who is not an immediate threat. Under all those other scenarios there is at least an argument that there was an immediate threat, whether or not you agree. That's why those situations are not applicable.
Of course, Kent State, the Whiskey Rebellion and the Bonus March were not all the same thing; even Lincoln's attempt to reposess Fort Sumpter was different, yet underneath all of those incidents, there is a similiartity.
No, because we're discussing an individual who is not an immediate threat. Under all those other scenarios there is at least an argument that there was an immediate threat, whether or not you agree. That's why those situations are not applicable.
We are at war with al qaeda, authorized by Congress in the AUMF. If an American has joined al qaeda, even if he is on American soil, even if he is asleep, it is constitutional to kill him.
Would it make sense to fire a missile at him? In most cases probably not because other means of killing or capturing would be better options.
Still, the authorization, and the legality, and the constitutionality are in place and in order.
No, because we're discussing an individual who is not an immediate threat. Under all those other scenarios there is at least an argument that there was an immediate threat, whether or not you agree. That's why those situations are not applicable.
We are at war with al qaeda, authorized by Congress in the AUMF. If an American has joined al qaeda, even if he is on American soil, even if he is asleep, it is constitutional to kill him.
Would it make sense to fire a missile at him? In most cases probably not because other means of killing or capturing would be better options.
Still, the authorization, and the legality, and the constitutionality are in place and in order.
Then why hasn't the administration said that? And why are others who agree with Holder's position saying that the answer is obviously no?
It took over 30 minutes of intense questioning just to get Holder to agree that it would be unConstitutional to target and kill an American citizen who posed no threat to the United States.
That is the depth and level that this Administration is willing to go to for their agenda. BS arguments aside, there is no legitimate reason to have drones flying in the US gathering information on the citizenry.
Any argument contrary to that is just mentally disordered individuals having arguments for the sake of arguments.
We are at war with al qaeda, authorized by Congress in the AUMF. If an American has joined al qaeda, even if he is on American soil, even if he is asleep, it is constitutional to kill him.
Would it make sense to fire a missile at him? In most cases probably not because other means of killing or capturing would be better options.
Still, the authorization, and the legality, and the constitutionality are in place and in order.
Then why hasn't the administration said that? And why are others who agree with Holder's position saying that the answer is obviously no?
I'm not sure what you're asking. I think Holder was trying to say what I just said when Cruz was browbeating him.
Then why hasn't the administration said that? And why are others who agree with Holder's position saying that the answer is obviously no?
I'm not sure what you're asking. I think Holder was trying to say what I just said when Cruz was browbeating him.
And yet other people are of the opinion that Holder was saying the exact opposite during Cruz's questioning. See why there's a problem?
RetiredGySgt, Kevin_Kennedy:
Do you believe there is no situation which could ever possibly arise in which US military lethal force would be needed on US soil?
Simple question. Yes or no.
That is not the question we are raising nor the point of this article. Holder has just supported the claim by the President that he can murder American citizens on American soil with out due process, with out police action, without any of the required Constitutional protections provided to an accused.
Since when has the government not been allowed to use lethal force against its citizens?
Since when has the government not been allowed to use lethal force against its citizens?
Ask Eric Holder, since he has now answered the question "No."
Document: Attorney General Eric Holder drone letter to Sen. Rand Paul - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com
Since when has the government not been allowed to use lethal force against its citizens?
Ask Eric Holder, since he has now answered the question "No."
Document: Attorney General Eric Holder drone letter to Sen. Rand Paul - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com
What does your local police force do?
How about the FBI?
Ask Eric Holder, since he has now answered the question "No."
Document: Attorney General Eric Holder drone letter to Sen. Rand Paul - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com
What does your local police force do?
How about the FBI?
Are those questions somehow relevant?
What does your local police force do?
How about the FBI?
Are those questions somehow relevant?
It is your ridiculous OP .....you defend it
Are those questions somehow relevant?
It is your ridiculous OP .....you defend it
I'm not even sure exactly what it is I'm meant to defend. What do the police and FBI have to do with the President's ability, or lack thereof now that we have an answer from the administration, to use lethal force against American citizens on American soil who are not an immediate threat?
It is your ridiculous OP .....you defend it
I'm not even sure exactly what it is I'm meant to defend. What do the police and FBI have to do with the President's ability, or lack thereof now that we have an answer from the administration, to use lethal force against American citizens on American soil who are not an immediate threat?
Where did anyone except nutjob Cruz say that?
It is your ridiculous OP .....you defend it
I'm not even sure exactly what it is I'm meant to defend. What do the police and FBI have to do with the President's ability, or lack thereof now that we have an answer from the administration, to use lethal force against American citizens on American soil who are not an immediate threat?
Where did anyone except nutjob Cruz say that?
