General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHoly shit! Ted Cruz said he's planning on introducing legislation...
to make clear that U.S. Government cannot kill a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil absent an imminent threat.
Holder was careful to respond to his hypotheticals. He finally told Cruz "no," the U.S. Government cannot use lethal force on someone sitting in a cafe and agreed that such an act was unconstitutional.
Cruz then goes on to say that he's planning on introducing legislation to make clear that U.S. Government cannot kill a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil absent an imminent threat.
Got that: "absent an imminent threat"
This is what these clowns are up to.
Teabaggers are not to be trusted. While they're challenging the President's Constitutional authority using smoke and mirrors involving cafes, the're busy crafting new legislation to reiterate the use of lethal force in the presence of an imminent threat. While they're pretending to be concerned about civil rights, they're using this issue to further their RW agenda.
Rand Paul: "If the President is not going to kill them, why won't he say he's not going to kill"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022470090
LiberalFighter
(50,928 posts)Last edited Thu Mar 7, 2013, 02:06 AM - Edit history (1)
busterbrown
(8,515 posts)They are committing terrorists attacks on our Country every day..
Bringing down the economy as hard as they can certainly defines terror!!
Cha
(297,229 posts)"if he was born in the US why won't he release his long form birth certificate?"
Ian David
(69,059 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"So how would one deal with an imminent threat then?"
...nor "how," it's that the they're planning to pass legislation stating that the lethal force cannot be used "absent an imminent threat."
What's an "imminent threat" on U.S. soil and why is new legislation need to make this point?
It's going from a rare occurence related to Presidential authority to requiring new legislation to reinforce the point?
mimi85
(1,805 posts)spanone
(135,832 posts)imminent threat is subjective
ChoppinBroccoli
(3,784 posts)Is a guy who's sitting on a warehouse full of explosives an "imminent threat"? What if that guy is in the demolition business?
Is a plan to hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings an "imminent threat"? When does the threat become imminent? When they've boarded the planes? When they start toward the airport? When they're in the air?
You see, the more you try to make things black and white, the grayer they become.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)They can use deadly force if there is an imminent threat of deadly force being used in a crime.
They cannot shoot folks on a hunch.
Nobody is arguing against this arrangement.
The key is that they are accountable. Shoot someone on a hunch and they go to jail.
The President is effectively claiming that he has the right to shoot on a hunch, because he claims that the judiciary has no right to be involved in checking whether he actually had a reason to shoot.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Cops figure it out all the time. They can use deadly force if there is an imminent threat of deadly force being used in a crime. They cannot shoot folks on a hunch. Nobody is arguing against this arrangement."
You agree that lethal force can be used on U.S. soil if there is an "imminent threat"?
"The President is effectively claiming that he has the right to shoot on a hunch, because he claims that the judiciary has no right to be involved in checking whether he actually had a reason to shoot."
That's absurd. He made no such claim.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Absolutely.
Who gets to decide if al Awlaki's 16-year-old son, a US citizen, was turned to Freedom Mist for good reason?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Thanks.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Therefore he - and the next George Bush - have the right to kill whoever, whenever, however.
I know that you're a smart person, and I suspect that you understand how this works.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)Are you going around in circles? You provided the answer to your own question.
Do you support Cruz's legislation: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022470744
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)basically anyone they want to kill. They expressly stated in that infamous memo that the "imminent" strike need not be about to happen, and they need not have any evidence whatsoever that there is an actual strike being planned at all.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)and that definition is broad and unchecked.
If you aren't God then that is too much license.
Response to ProSense (Original post)
stopthefrauds Message auto-removed
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Nice try, though. Did Karl buy you a spell-checker for Xmas?
Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #19)
stolenliberty Message auto-removed
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)I think I'm in love.
I can teach you how to use commas and leave spaces after periods. And you can call me names.
NRaleighLiberal
(60,014 posts)thought it was sarcasm at first....good grief!
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)No more bad boys for me.
bhikkhu
(10,716 posts)Local police tasked with protecting their communities are expected to be willing and able to use deadly force when absolutely necessary, in the face of an imminent threat to others.
The FBI are the federal version of that, and have similar expectations on them. The military has similar responsibilities, and "immanent threat" has always been one of the primary requirements before the use of deadly force. Citizenship makes no difference. I don't see how we can train and arm and pay and trust all these various people of the executive branch, and then say we don't trust the guy in charge of them to be similarly responsible, or that we can't rely on his judgement? Was it just never an issue as long as the guy in the big chair was white?
reformist2
(9,841 posts)Really disappointing.
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)zeemike
(18,998 posts)Where they switch up and bad cop acts like good cop to confuse us and get us to fight amongst ourselves...
The basic game never really changes.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)That's the problem with our government. Our representatives make stupid laws like this that can be twisted a million ways by crafty politicians and then we let the Supreme Court define it all for us.
bhikkhu
(10,716 posts)I don't know why we would elect representatives and put them in that position of responsibility, and then imagine that its so complicated they can't be trusted to figure it out.
I can point out abuses under the last guy, where the letter of the law didn't help one bit. I'm ok with Obama's judgement currently. As for any president to come, one way or another it all starts with us - we have to elect people we trust.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)If I, as an ordinary person with no governmental position, see a maniac about to kill someone, and I happen to be holding a loaded gun, I'm privileged to shoot the maniac. If I kill him, and I'm charged with homicide, I can raise "defense of others" and be acquitted. It's similar to self-defense: I must have an actual and reasonable belief that the third person is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury, and that my use of deadly force is necessary to defend against the danger.
Who decides what's "imminent"? Well, in the case of criminal law, it's usually a jury. The trial judge would explain the requirements of the defense. The jury would decide whether each of those elements was met.
Yes, there's an element of subjectivity to it. So what? What else can you do? The only way to eliminate the subjectivity would be to eliminate the defense, which would be unfair and unrealistic.
Note, however, that it's not a blank check. The decision to use deadly force (whether by a police officer or by an ordinary citizen bystander) is subject to subsequent review. If the conditions of the defense are not met, then someone who acted with good intentions may nevertheless be convicted of a crime (although the facts might result in a lesser charge, e.g. reducing murder to voluntary manslaughter).
IMO, this state of the law is essentially correct, even as applied to the President or to federal agents acting at the President's direction. There are circumstances of imminent danger where the use of deadly force is justified. Nevertheless, we do not give anyone -- whether beat cop, ordinary civilian, or FBI agent -- carte blanche to use deadly force with that justification. The decision, although it may have been made in the heat of the moment, is always subject to review after the fact. The descriptions in this thread give me the impression that Cruz's bill would simply restate this general rule and make explicit that it applies to the President and those acting at his or her direction.
marble falls
(57,083 posts)The Green Manalishi
(1,054 posts)Not that there's much difference between some of the SWAT units and the military these days. But still, that would be and should be the firewall.'' OTOH, there have been plenty of times the army has been called in (desegregation, anyone_
Obviously exceptions to be made in case of an armed insurrection.
Cha
(297,229 posts)MORE.. http://angryblackladychronicles.com/2013/03/06/rand-paul-is-cordially-invited-to-kiss-my-ass/
Scuba
(53,475 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)Why not ask if the President believes he can invade Texas?
I mean, that's a similar straw man.