Politico reported on Ted Cruz's grilling of Eric Holder regarding a question of whether the President can order a drone strike on an American citizen who is known to be involved in terrorist activity if that person is at a cafe but not actively posing a threat of violence. Cruz was asking if it's allowed Constitutionally, but Holder avoided giving a yes or no answer. Below is part of the conversation as reported in the article.
Cruz clarified that he was talking about a terrorist suspect, but one not presently carrying out an attack.
“I would not think in that situation the use of a drone or lethal force would be appropriate,” Holder said. He noted that law enforcement has greater ability to capture a suspect in the U.S. than in some places abroad.
Cruz said he was asking a legal question, not one about propriety. “I find it remarkable that with a hypothetical that is deliberately very simple you’re unable to give a one word, one syllable answer: no,” the freshman Texas senator said.
“Translate my appropriate to: no,” Holder said. “I thought I was saying no.”
This morning I heard several pundits criticizing Cruz because they said Holder answered the question before Cruz's final exasperation and before Holder said translate inappropriate to no. Holder also said he had answered the question, yet, Holder had not answered the question. Clarity is what Rand Paul and Ted Cruz and a few others are demanding, yet clarity is hard to come by. Joe Scarborough, on Morning Joe, also criticized Cruz after listening to the above conversation, implying that Cruz was out of line by saying Holder couldn't give a simple yes or no answer.
Okay, here's clarity -- No, of course not.
When Holder said that use of a drone in the situation Cruz suggested would not be appropriate, that says nothing about whether Holder believes it's forbidden legally. I have a right of free speech, but excercising that right at times might be found inappropriate by others who think silence would be more appropriate -- however, being judged inappropriate says nothing about whether free speech is a right or not. Surely the intelligent pundits on the Left, and the Centrists like Scarborough, can tell the difference between a clear response and a response that equivocates. Surely, they must know the difference, so why do they pretend that Holder was being clear? This is why I write about the media and the political class. It's this type of dishonesty that's slowly destroying open debate and creating unnecessary division. It's deceitful.