HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Holy shit! Ted Cruz said ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 10:22 PM

Holy 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

46 replies, 3635 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 46 replies Author Time Post
Reply Holy shit! Ted Cruz said he's planning on introducing legislation... (Original post)
ProSense Mar 2013 OP
LiberalFighter Mar 2013 #1
busterbrown Mar 2013 #34
Cha Mar 2013 #2
Ian David Mar 2013 #3
randome Mar 2013 #4
ProSense Mar 2013 #7
mimi85 Mar 2013 #5
spanone Mar 2013 #6
ChoppinBroccoli Mar 2013 #8
MannyGoldstein Mar 2013 #9
ProSense Mar 2013 #10
MannyGoldstein Mar 2013 #11
ProSense Mar 2013 #12
MannyGoldstein Mar 2013 #13
ProSense Mar 2013 #14
MannyGoldstein Mar 2013 #15
ProSense Mar 2013 #17
MannyGoldstein Mar 2013 #18
ProSense Mar 2013 #20
MannyGoldstein Mar 2013 #23
ProSense Mar 2013 #25
AnotherMcIntosh Mar 2013 #24
WinkyDink Mar 2013 #28
Marr Mar 2013 #39
TheKentuckian Mar 2013 #40
stopthefrauds Mar 2013 #16
MannyGoldstein Mar 2013 #19
stolenliberty Mar 2013 #26
MannyGoldstein Mar 2013 #27
NRaleighLiberal Mar 2013 #29
MannyGoldstein Mar 2013 #30
bhikkhu Mar 2013 #21
reformist2 Mar 2013 #22
abelenkpe Mar 2013 #33
zeemike Mar 2013 #37
davidn3600 Mar 2013 #31
bhikkhu Mar 2013 #35
Jim Lane Mar 2013 #42
marble falls Mar 2013 #32
The Green Manalishi Mar 2013 #36
Cha Mar 2013 #38
Scuba Mar 2013 #41
ProSense Mar 2013 #43
Scuba Mar 2013 #44
Bonobo Mar 2013 #45
morningfog Mar 2013 #46

Response to ProSense (Original post)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 10:31 PM

1. How many Repubicans are an imminent threat?

Last edited Thu Mar 7, 2013, 01:06 AM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Reply #1)

Thu Mar 7, 2013, 12:47 AM

34. Youíre fucking with me?

They are committing terrorists attacks on our Country every day..
Bringing down the economy as hard as they can certainly defines terror!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 10:37 PM

2. to me this sounds like posturing from the teabagger.. as in

"if he was born in the US why won't he release his long form birth certificate?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 10:38 PM

3. As opposed to Americans who are just annoying? Is this to protect street mimes? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 10:41 PM

4. So how would one deal with an imminent threat then?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #4)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 11:04 PM

7. The point is

"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?





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 10:57 PM

5. Ted Cruz = Joe McCarthy n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 11:00 PM

6. k&r...

imminent threat is subjective

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Reply #6)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 11:04 PM

8. Exactly. How Do You Define "Imminent"? And "Threat" For That Matter?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChoppinBroccoli (Reply #8)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 11:13 PM

9. 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.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #9)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 11:24 PM

10. So you support this new legislation?

"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.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #10)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 11:27 PM

11. He absolutely makes the claim.

Absolutely.

Who gets to decide if al Awlaki's 16-year-old son, a US citizen, was turned to Freedom Mist for good reason?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #11)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 11:29 PM

12. Link to the President saying he has the right to shoot Americans on U.S. soil on a "hunch"?

Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #12)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 11:36 PM

13. He refuses to say that his right to execute has any check or balance

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #13)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 11:41 PM

14. Nonsense. Holder also rejected the argument you claim. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #14)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 11:42 PM

15. And what did Holder say? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to ProSense (Reply #17)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 11:49 PM

18. And who decides what's an imminent threat? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #18)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 11:52 PM

20. Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022470744#post9

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #23)

Thu Mar 7, 2013, 12:04 AM

25. What does that have to do with the OP? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #18)

Thu Mar 7, 2013, 12:00 AM

24. Guys like this one, and his higher-ups

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #9)

Thu Mar 7, 2013, 12:19 AM

28. The operative term's being "COPS." As in "ARREST the suspect." AS IN: Act Constitutionally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChoppinBroccoli (Reply #8)

Thu Mar 7, 2013, 01:37 AM

39. In terms of foreign drone strikes, the Obama Administration recently defined "imminent threat" as,

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #39)

Thu Mar 7, 2013, 02:35 AM

40. This is a critical point the Administration has already defined "imminent threat"

and that definition is broad and unchecked.

If you aren't God then that is too much license.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)


Response to stopthefrauds (Reply #16)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 11:52 PM

19. Hmmm.. Spelling is OK. But grammar gives it away.

Nice try, though. Did Karl buy you a spell-checker for Xmas?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #19)


Response to stolenliberty (Reply #26)

Thu Mar 7, 2013, 12:18 AM

27. Finally! Someone who really understands me.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #27)

Thu Mar 7, 2013, 12:31 AM

29. did I get him too fast, Manny?



thought it was sarcasm at first....good grief!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NRaleighLiberal (Reply #29)

Thu Mar 7, 2013, 12:34 AM

30. Well, I suppose it was for the best.

No more bad boys for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 11:56 PM

21. That's pretty much how its always been for anyone in a position of responsibility

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 11:58 PM

22. So this whole thing is an Obama-bash-athon, when in fact both sides endorse thug tactics.


Really disappointing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Reply #22)

Thu Mar 7, 2013, 12:42 AM

33. Pretty much. Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Reply #22)

Thu Mar 7, 2013, 01:17 AM

37. Just another version of good cop-bad cop

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Thu Mar 7, 2013, 12:35 AM

31. So I guess the billion dollar question is: "What is an imminent threat?"

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidn3600 (Reply #31)

Thu Mar 7, 2013, 01:08 AM

35. As mentioned upthread, every beat cop is assumed to be capable of making that judgement

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bhikkhu (Reply #35)

Thu Mar 7, 2013, 07:37 AM

42. True -- and so is everyone who's NOT a beat cop

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Thu Mar 7, 2013, 12:37 AM

32. He's correct the way a broken clock is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Thu Mar 7, 2013, 01:16 AM

36. American citizen on American soil = province of the police

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Thu Mar 7, 2013, 01:30 AM

38. Have you seen ABL's reply to Rand Paul, ProSense?

"Rand Paul is Cordially Invited to Kiss My Ass"

Rand Paul has been droning on about drones for 7 hours. In that time, he could have introduced a damn bill that would repeal the AUMF, which is the reason motherfuckers are freaking out that the Black Dude in the White House is going to drone strike them in the Whole Foods parking Lot.


Rand Paul wonít take the time to introduce a bill to repeal the AUMF (because that would require him to put his money where his pie hole is), but he WILL take the time to try to attach a Personhood Amendment to a fucking flood insurance bill. Thatís right. A personhood amendment. To a fucking flood insurance bill.


Oh, and while he quotes Glenn Greenwald and and feigns outrage about drone strikes, he enthusiastically supports the Stand Your Ground laws that are the direct cause of the deaths of so many black people in this country ó like Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis.

MORE.. http://angryblackladychronicles.com/2013/03/06/rand-paul-is-cordially-invited-to-kiss-my-ass/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Thu Mar 7, 2013, 06:19 AM

41. Sad when our policies allow nutjobs like Cruz to look like the sane ones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #41)

Thu Mar 7, 2013, 07:52 AM

43. Cruz looks "sane" asking about killing someone for drinking coffee?

Why not ask if the President believes he can invade Texas?

I mean, that's a similar straw man.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #43)

Thu Mar 7, 2013, 07:53 AM

44. I didn't suggest it makes Cruz look sane all the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Thu Mar 7, 2013, 07:54 AM

45. As long as they don't try to torture the word "imminent" as the DOJ did in their memo. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Thu Mar 7, 2013, 07:55 AM

46. I have a better idea, repeal the AUMF.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread