On Tuesday, the Department of Justice sent shockwaves through the nation when Attorney General Eric Holder informed Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) in writing that the White House would be within its legal authority to execute an American citizen via drone on U.S. soil if that person was determined to pose a threat to national security.
Texas Senator Ted Cruz takes on Attorney Eric Holder on that question. What follows is video which reflects the disingenuous, and I’d say cavalier, response from Holder. However, Cruz takes that response – head on.
Having said that, the natural consequence of the “drone issue” is the direct confrontation of federal use of “kill authorization” when the identified person(s) are not posing an imminent risk to anyone else.
Such was the case in Waco Texas when President Clinton, through his AG, intentionally, and with malice of forethought, killed the Branch Divinians – albeit before drones were a tool for their use.
Imagine, if instead of firebombing the compound in Waco with tanks and armored vehicles, the Clinton Administration through AG Janet Reno, had authorized the military to deploy and use F-16’s to bomb the compound. Such is the analogy of consequence with drones.
Similarly, what about Ruby Ridge and Randy Weaver’s family? Again, another Democrat President. The Weavers were summarily executed by federal law enforcement while at home, of no risk to anyone, and under watch. Their dog was shot, the son who initially ran to get the dog, was shot in the back, and Randy’s wife Vicki was shot and killed, all while the feds were executing a fraudulent arrest warrant based on a secretarial/clerical mistake in mis-dating a court appearance.
Read the full account at wikipedia. And note:
At the trial that followed, Weaver was ultimately acquitted of all charges except missing his original court date and violating his bail conditions, for which he was sentenced to 18 months and fined $10,000. Credited with time served, Weaver spent an additional 4 months in prison. Weaver’s defense attorney, Gerry Spence, rested his case without offering a defense. Instead he convinced the jury to find as they did merely through his cross-examination and discrediting of the government witnesses and evidence.
It is reasonable to assume that if the same, or similar, circumstances existed today, as they were in the previous two examples, the U.S. government would have drone capacity to engage in both situations. Both Waco and Ruby Ridge were ultimately determined to have been horrific consequences from failed federal policy and extreme development of operational rules of engagement.
It might not be Bill Clinton in the Oval Office, but given the propensity of Progressive and angry President Obama to engage the use of drones, well, you can see how appropriate it is for both Rand Paul and Ted Cruz to demand specific answers.