For the record, I’m a hawk on enhanced interrogation techniques and am supportive of drone strikes in the prosecution of terrorist abroad. So I certainly CAN imagine a time when the President could authorize a drone attack on American soil used against Americans.
For example, if Timothy McVeigh had left a note on the kitchen table describing what he was planning to do and we had him en route to the target; take him out. Same for the scenario that Senator Feinstein described:
Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who is the chairwoman of the Intelligence Committee, said one such situation would be the shooting down of a plane hijacked by terrorists.
Clearly where traditional methods would be allowed, a drone ought be allowed. In fact, often time preferred.
But for the life of me I don’t understand why Obama, Holder and the whole of the administration won’t admit that the United States can’t use drones to strike American citizens “sitting in a cafe”:
Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, suggested a hypothetical situation in which a terrorism suspect was not presenting an immediate threat — like “sitting in a cafe” rather than “pointing a bazooka at the Pentagon” — and asked whether it would be unconstitutional for the military to simply kill that citizen.
How can the answer to that question not be an immediate “no”?
The politics are baffling to me. This isn’t a President who would have to worry about his base being upset with the answer. The reaction from the opposition wouldn’t be any worse than it currently is by hedging.
The answer and the “play” are so obvious that it’s mind blowing watching this play out.
Weird, isn’t it? It’s the one thing above many that I can’t stand about politicians – the CYA dodging and doublespeak where they don’t have enough b@lls to state the truth or what’s really on their mind.
They lie about everything else, so why not just say “No, we wouldn’t drone strike on a guy sitting in a cafe” and move on? People will either forget it or not care two seconds after you say it anyways, like Obama with half the things he says while in campaign mode (haha!)
They lie about everything else, so why not just say “No, we wouldn’t drone strike on a guy sitting in a cafe” and move on? People will either forget it or not care two seconds after you say it anyways, like Obama with half the things he says while in campaign mode (haha!)
That’s my point. He has nothing to lose by saying no.
Just for the record, they did say it, the same day this was posted (and at least a few hours before the esteemed Mr. Kaine’s valuable and insightful comment).
As for the larger point, When people accuse you of crazy things and you respond, the headline isn’t “Ted Cruz makes crazy and untrue allegation,” it’s “Obama administration admits limits to authority” or “Obama to Paul: You’re right” or some such nonsense.
Remember when Ted Cruz flippantly remarked about the massive proliferation of communists at Harvard? As though (a) we didn’t have freedom to be communists anyway and (b) we lived in the 50s. Why would anyone listen to a fearmonger who simply grabs headlines by making outrageous accusations?
As for the larger point, When people accuse you of crazy things and you respond, the headline isn’t “Ted Cruz makes crazy and untrue allegation,” it’s “Obama administration admits limits to authority” or “Obama to Paul: You’re right” or some such nonsense.
I’ll grant ya that the stage was such that it might make a guy blink, but serious…..just a “no”?