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.
The law says that you are only allowed to vote if you are a citizen. And then only once.
Why is it that the Obama Justice Department continues to block efforts to enforce existing law?
AUSTIN, Tex. — Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is expected to enter the turbulent political waters of voting rights on Tuesday, signaling that the Justice Department will take an aggressive stance in reviewing new laws in several states that civil rights advocates say are meant to dampen minority participation in the national elections next year.
Can you imagine passing a speed limit law and then forbidding law enforcement from checking how fast you’re going in order to enforce said law?
Look, I happen to buy into the concept that guns don’t kill people, people do.
With that said, I don’t think that the US government providing weapons to the drug cartels added to the level of violence one iota. In fact, if the government wanted to use guns as a means to track and capture, or murder with drones, the Mexican bad guys, I’m all for it!
Predictably, my only complaint with the program is that the government screwed up the operation.
Sell the guns. Only implant GPS chips so that you can track the
drone missile targets bad guys.
In related news, I fear the wheels are coming off the Obama Administration:
For the first time, documents appear to show Attorney General Eric Holder was made aware of the Operation Fast and Furious earlier than he claimed — up to 9 nine months earlier.
The documents seem to contradict what Holder told a House Judiciary Committee on May 3, when he said he could not recall the exact date, but he’d “probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks.”
It’s over folks. The “Superbowl is now the League Championship game” as they say.
There can only be one reason why Obama is suing Arizona: To win votes in upcoming elections.
The law is wildly popular. It mirrors Federal law except when it comes to profiling. Arizona restricts it. The Feds don’t.
But whatever the reason, it’s becoming increasingly clear to Americans that Obama is more concerned with his image than he is with fixing the problems facing the nation.
First we see Holder offer clues that they may change their stance on Miranda and now we see them offering insight into the Arizona immigration law.