By The Right Scoop


Rep. Trey Gowdy raises an interesting question regarding the DOJ drone memo and the fact that it says on page 5 that the DOJ assumes that both the 4th and 5th amendments attaches to a U.S. citizen while traveling abroad. His question, in short, is that if a U.S. citizen traveling abroad enjoys the full panoply of constitutional protections, then how is it different if this same US citizen is on American soil? Does it only come down to whether some senior level DOJ official makes a determination on the feasibility of capture?

Watch:

About 

Blogger extraordinaire since 2009 and the owner and Chief Blogging Officer of the most wonderful and super fantastic blog in the known and unknown universe: The Right Scoop

Trending Now

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.


NOTE: If the comments don't load properly or they are difficult to read because they are on the blue background, please use the button below to RELOAD DISQUS.

  • notsofastthere

    Once again, the congress is ignored and given the ‘bird’ by Holder and the administration.
    They continue to act on their own.

    • Jazzee

      we deserve an answer
      keep asking the idiot obama does he plan to kill American citizens?????????????????? force the arrogant jerk to answer

  • RocklinConservative

    “That is of LITTLE consolation if you are DEAD!” WOW! Shoot first ask questions later! That’s why we need our guns!

    • Spartan4Palin

      That’s why this administration has distanced itself from legitimate leg work in the field by either FBI or CIA to establish the real threat, or a mere suggestion of threat. Because once they are dead they no longer justify the need for miranda or constitutional protections.

      And if it works without pushback by Congress on those citizens abroad, they would gladly justify its need to do it on US soil.

      That’s why the FBI would have NEVER gone over to Tunisia if it hadn’t been for Graham going in front of the media to demand an answer to why they hadn’t questioned ANYONE on Benghazi!

  • TexasPGRRider

    THAT is the 64 dollar question my friend….

    • tshtsh

      $64 question indeed. I thought the whole reason for this what ever it is was to be able to treat U.S. citizens as enemy combatants on U.S.soil for whatever the admin deems, i.e. political differences that is why they also needed the ammo.

  • JS

    Not DOJ President Obama is the one who makes the decision, one man has the power to kill in the name of America now.

  • Sober_Thinking

    How is the DOJ even relevent anymore – other than to prop up and back Obama as he snubs his nose at America and the Constitution?

    Holder is such a waste of flesh. And Obama and his regime are disgusting – arrogant, and completely lawless.

  • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

    I really love Trey Gowdy. This was great. “We have not had much success getting the executive branch to enforce laws against itself…” No kidding!

  • colliemum

    He’s got a sharp mind, has Rep Gowdy.

    However, I doubt he’ll get a satisfactory answer, not from Holder.

    When are they going to start impeachment procedures? What else must happen before it’s too late?

  • Sober_Thinking

    Lol… those clowns are just making it up as they go along.

    Trey Gowdy ROCKS!

  • jdbaird

    When has the Constitutionality of an action stopped Obama before, and what’s anybody going to do about it? Gowdy’s wasting his breath, even if Obama himself were sitting there, he could say: “oh well, I don’t go by the Constitution” and there’s nothing anybody could do to stop him.

    • Conservator1

      Can you believe Obama was a Senior Lecturer at University of Chicago Law from 1996 to 2004 teaching constitutional law? I wonder who’s constitution he taught; perhaps the Republic of Iran.

      • Nukeman60

        I think he taught 2 classes – one titled “How to navigate around the Constitution” and a second one titled “The three branches of government – who needs them“.

        • Aworldinchaos

          Next will be ‘how the constution/people bet me’, from cell66, block B

          • Nukeman60

            One can only hope we prevail. With the 1st amendment at my keyboard, and the 2nd amendment in my hands, I will give it MY best attempt (I was going to say my best shot, but some liberal would construe that as an assassination attempt which I did not intend).

            • Aworldinchaos

              I agree, when talking guns have be careful as said “That is of little consolation if you are dead!” because words can mean anything,bull****

      • williamm

        Yes I can believe it. It’s important to know the Constitution to destroy it. Evil people can use the 1st amendment to preach their communist ideas, same with allowing Cair and congressmen like Keith Ellison to preach their islamic ideas.

        The first amendment allows people like John Brennan to publicly talk about the beaulty of Islam.

        I don’t call it a religion because it’s really an ideology and the Quran is not their bible, but their constitution that gives women no rights.

      • jdbaird

        Yeah, I can believe it. It’s just a piece of paper to him…It proves the utter stupidity of the oblivious American people having elected him to office not once but twice.

      • 57thunderbird

        That is a myth.The only part of the Constitution that he taught was all based around the 14th amendment.

    • las1

      Oh yes! There’s plenty they could do. But that’s not the issue. What’s at issue is the will to do.

      Art. II Sec. 4, “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”

      The “high” part of crimes and misdemeanors would refer to the position of the office holder and not the crime itself. Given the “high” position and the relationship of the perpetrator to the country, these are transgressions that only a “high” official could commit given the position he holds.

      I would definitely start with Obama’s “inaction” in Bengazi. Secondly would be Obama’s revolving door ingress of Islamists, with terrorist Muslim Brotherhood ties, to the White House. But of course, the “will” to do so is simply not there.

      Under this subversive, the list of impeachable offenses is virtually endless. Economic sabotage could be another worth investigating.

      It’s interesting that perjury is not necessarily defined as “lying under oath”. In application to the President, perjury means “violation of one’s oath (or affirmation)”, or simply put: a false oath. That one alone should have Obama sitting in prison… like yesterday.

      • jdbaird

        I mean, in my fondest fantasies I see him getting thrown out of the white house back to the gutter he came from, but there’s just no way that’s going to happen.

  • c4pfan

    Can’t see it yet. What was the answer? Thanks.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

    God Bless that man for trying.

  • deeme

    The answer is as soon as they disarm U.S…I guess the time has come where we don’t need a President anymore , he seems kind of useless and like he is causing more harm then good..How about just One Guy who will protect the Constitution..

  • Nukeman60

    Gowdy: “Is there criminal review?”

    Law Professor: “If the government wants to indict one of it’s officers for violating a criminal statute, certainly.”

    Therein lies the rub. The DoJ and Holder will never indict themselves or one of their officers for violating any criminal statutes. Heck, they won’t even arrest or indict any of “their people”, in Holder’s words.

    • OneThinDime

      Spot on. It’s like an underling of Holder is supposed to head up the criminal contempt charges against Holder, not happening.

  • OneThinDime

    Best line from Rep Gowdy: “That is of little consulation if you are dead” responding to the gov’t idiot: “I think the feasibility ‘of capture’ should be reviewable after the fact”.

    Gowdy confirms what posters here have been saying, there is nothing to stop Obama for killing Americans here at home without due process.

  • factsobill

    America’s enemies are in that pool of perp’s known as Americans. Government’s answer is to change the rules so they can circumvent The Constitution! They know sheeple for what they are, an expendable resource to be manipulated politically for the whims of O! How’d they get here? We let them in under the guise of Free Trade, so we could sell them stuff! Like Hershey’s and Budweiser, isn’t this a wonderful thing > the Government doesn’t trust us ,cause they know what they’d do! This is the “dread” at the bottom of O’s paranoiac foundation of Lies!

  • crakpot

    Amendment 4
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    I don’t read “feasibility of capture” anywhere in that. “Probable cause” means you have a reason, not a logistics problem.

    • clockwindingdown

      It would be pretty hard not to qualify for “feasibility of capture”. The only real way I could see it applied would be under a time constraint, as in if someone was known to be setting a bomb and it was due to detonate soon. Of course then that would fall under “probable cause”… So yeah pretty much everything else is “feasible”…

      Did I mention that I could listen to Rep. Trey Gowdy for hours. This guy truly likes the law and the way it is supposed to work.

  • armyvet10

    In my mind there are some questions the current DOH and Obama need to answer.

    1. With politicians blanketing themselves with the “Plausible Deniability” defense, and given the vagueness of the memo as to when a U.S. Citizen can be engaged and targeted for neutralization, who will provide oversight to hold those that abuse this power accountable for wrongful death? The answer is more frightening than the question. Obama and Holder both know that there will be no oversight committee, just these two getting away with murder.

    2. With trust in the government waning faster than the price of gasoline fluctuating at the pump, when does this administration start going after their own? Truth be told, the liberals, whether Republican or Democrat, have used the uniformed to get past even caring if the people they swore to protect start objecting. The only reason Obama and Holder give a crap less is they think the current gun control measures they are trying to push, along with all the weapons and ammunition they are stockpiling will be enough to keep the sheeple in line. Why else try and silence the patriots who are screaming for Americans, all Americans to wake up?

    3. This is perhaps just me, but why was the jack hole being questioned by Senator Gowdy laughing? Like his boss, the ever narcissistic fud pucker coward in chief, and his main squeeze Eric “I will Hold your Koolaide” Holder he thinks that all Americans should be subjugated to whatever this corrupt administration wishes.

    • 57thunderbird

      Well said vet.

    • clockwindingdown

      I do hope you are looking into running for a political office. If you would just say things like that while campaigning, win or loose, it would invoke some to think!

      • armyvet10

        My reservations of political public service are rooted not in fear, but in the knowledge of my own limitations. In my opinion, knowledge of personal limitations is where too many politicians fail. But perhaps if our politicians can once again become humble, and realize they are but servants and not royalty, we may save our country yet. I am grateful to have had been able to serve this country in the military, and if I were called upon to serve in a political capacity, I but pray God would guide my steps. Thanks for your words, they are humbling.

        • clockwindingdown

          Knowing your own limitations makes you a better candidate. To know one limitations is not a failing but a sign of strength. We all have limitations/weakness’ and strength. People whom are successful find others they can count on to assist where the needs require.

          Life is a team sport, marriage is a team sport, business is a team sport. Even a single proprietor relies on others, printers, bankers, USPS, UPS, suppliers, etc..
          Successful business’ hire employees to fill weak spots, resulting in a stronger company.

          The issue is finding others one can trust, are honest, reliable, accountable. As ex military you know all about team work. You will continue to learn, you will make mistakes, you will also have success’.

          My question is do you see anyone else stepping up, someone you will support above yourself, someone you believe would do better? If you see that person support them, if needed strengthen their limitations, if not then you are the right person.

          The worse that could happen is you could win… In which case don’t come blame me… If you decide to run let us know, so we can gather support for you.

  • bongobear

    That’s of little consequence if you’re dead…well said.

  • DebbyX

    I like to wipe the smirk off their faces. Trey Gowdy is so brilliant, he’s scary.

    I’m going to have to look up panoply.

    • OneThinDime

      Gowdy is smart, no doubt. But the memo clearly lays out the Constitutional provisions and many on this site have had the same discussions.

  • edsmanedup

    I said this yesterday, the German Fascist Party known as a National-sozialist (members ), once in power. Ignored the Laws and Authorities of their Country and were killing off all resistance in a few short years.

    Question; Obama third term??? or Michelle for President… be very afraid…

  • edsmanedup

    Panoply.., Umbrella…

  • pingan

    tinyurl.com/cnaff79