Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Congress to get access to drones. This will make the GOP civil war far more entertaining   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 78
    More: Followup, GOP, President Obama, congresses, civil wars  
•       •       •

1100 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Feb 2013 at 10:37 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



78 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-07 09:50:22 AM  
I'd be up for a GOP only version of the Hunger Games.
 
2013-02-07 10:03:43 AM  
Which civil war.  The one within the GOP or the one that half the GOP stupidly believes is soon to occur nationally.
 
2013-02-07 10:41:58 AM  
I can actually hear half the GOP fapping right now.
 
2013-02-07 10:42:00 AM  

UberDave: Which civil war.  The one within the GOP or the one that half the GOP stupidly believes is soon wants to occur nationally.



ftfy

/They tried democracy, and they don't much care for it.
 
2013-02-07 10:44:56 AM  
So he's going to try to explain himself?

What a tyrant. RIP Freedom.
 
2013-02-07 10:48:30 AM  
The only time members of Congress do anything is when they think something hasn't been screwed enough, so I think they are drones.
 
2013-02-07 10:52:08 AM  
"...legal basis for authorizing drone strikes against U.S. citizens believed to be senior al-Qaeda members."

What about junior members?
 
2013-02-07 10:55:18 AM  

dryknife: "...legal basis for authorizing drone strikes against U.S. citizens believed to be senior al-Qaeda members."

What about junior members?


They get a terse email.
 
2013-02-07 10:58:49 AM  
I thought the GOP leadership were Koch-controlled drones.
 
2013-02-07 11:03:28 AM  
I thought they already confirmed Kerry as SoS.

// wakka wakka wakka
 
2013-02-07 11:44:04 AM  

dryknife: "...legal basis for authorizing drone strikes against U.S. citizens believed to be senior al-Qaeda members."

What about junior members?


We wait until they get a field promotion after we take out their previous bosses.
 
2013-02-07 11:48:53 AM  

dryknife: What about junior members?


They get an IRS audit.
 
2013-02-07 11:51:28 AM  
So that's the spin? It'll make the GOP argue with itself? You don't think the Democrats are split on whether to support their president or due process of law?
 
2013-02-07 11:52:18 AM  

dryknife: "...legal basis for authorizing drone strikes against U.S. citizens believed to be senior al-Qaeda members."

What about junior members?


There aren't really senior al-Qaeda members, but it was decided that using the term sounds like "Señor," and Republicans would then follow along with the hopes of killing illegal immigrant terrorists.
 
2013-02-07 11:55:58 AM  
That article has zero information.
No wonder it greenlighted.

Here's the scoop, for those of you who can read:

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-exclusive-j us tice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans ?lite
 
2013-02-07 11:56:33 AM  

jigger: So that's the spin? It'll make the GOP argue with itself? You don't think the Democrats are split on whether to support their president or due process of law?


Democrats pretty reliably support all wars so its not that big a topic.
 
2013-02-07 11:56:37 AM  

jigger: So that's the spin? It'll make the GOP argue with itself? You don't think the Democrats are split on whether to support their president or due process of law?


Of course they are. The difference is Democrats don't have to make an about-face after demonizing the black President these last four years. John Bolton and Lindsey Graham do: Linky
 
2013-02-07 12:03:17 PM  

socodog: That article has zero information.
No wonder it greenlighted.

Here's the scoop, for those of you who can read:

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-exclusive-j us tice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans ?lite


Holder's logic regarding this speaks to an ongoing, echo chamber within the Executive Branch, one that seems to propose and validate ideas counter to Constitutional principles without any outside checks.

That said, the outside checks involve Congress (Ugh) and the Supreme Court (Scalia, anybody?). So....how are we not f*cked, is my question?
 
2013-02-07 12:09:16 PM  

verbaltoxin: socodog: That article has zero information.
No wonder it greenlighted.

Here's the scoop, for those of you who can read:

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-exclusive-j us tice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans ?lite

Holder's logic regarding this speaks to an ongoing, echo chamber within the Executive Branch, one that seems to propose and validate ideas counter to Constitutional principles without any outside checks.

That said, the outside checks involve Congress (Ugh) and the Supreme Court (Scalia, anybody?). So....how are we not f*cked, is my question?


This may just be reiterating what you said, but does anyone remember this whole thing playing out about 8 years ago?

When the NYT revealed the existence of the domestic warrantless wiretapping program the Bush people had been running since 200...2? '03?, Congress began howling their little heads off. "Why can't there be a warrant?" and "Who approved/es this?" and "What recourse do citizens have?" and a whole host of privacy objections (some even from Republicans).

When it came to a vote, Congress essentially rubber-stamped it as-is.

This drone program may make for good headlines now, but whenever Congress gets around to voting on its legality (sometime 2015ish, by my math), you can rest assured they'll vote to approve.
 
2013-02-07 12:26:19 PM  

Dr Dreidel: verbaltoxin: socodog: That article has zero information.
No wonder it greenlighted.

Here's the scoop, for those of you who can read:

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-exclusive-j us tice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans ?lite

Holder's logic regarding this speaks to an ongoing, echo chamber within the Executive Branch, one that seems to propose and validate ideas counter to Constitutional principles without any outside checks.

That said, the outside checks involve Congress (Ugh) and the Supreme Court (Scalia, anybody?). So....how are we not f*cked, is my question?

This may just be reiterating what you said, but does anyone remember this whole thing playing out about 8 years ago?

When the NYT revealed the existence of the domestic warrantless wiretapping program the Bush people had been running since 200...2? '03?, Congress began howling their little heads off. "Why can't there be a warrant?" and "Who approved/es this?" and "What recourse do citizens have?" and a whole host of privacy objections (some even from Republicans).

When it came to a vote, Congress essentially rubber-stamped it as-is.

This drone program may make for good headlines now, but whenever Congress gets around to voting on its legality (sometime 2015ish, by my math), you can rest assured they'll vote to approve.


It's already legal.  The "War on Terror" that Congress passed in a panic after 9/11 lets the President do more or less whatever he likes as long as he mentions terrorism in the same sentence.
 
2013-02-07 12:34:08 PM  
Remember, folks:  The nice people in office won't be in charge forever.  Our system is set up to ensure that the devil you know will eventually be replaced by the devil you do not know.  What happens when a real fascist gets ahold of this apparatus?

Everybody wants to make it some racist shiat about Obama.  I'm not worried about him aside from his incremental power grab and constitutional subversion.  I'm worried about the guy down the road.
 
2013-02-07 12:44:04 PM  

ArkPanda: It's already legal. The "War on Terror" that Congress passed in a panic after 9/11 lets the President do more or less whatever he likes as long as he mentions terrorism in the same sentence.


Well, in that sense, the drone program is "legal" now only because there's no law against - same as the warrantless wiretapping program was before 2005ish. Similar to then, we have howls of outrage (though this time, it's as loud from the right as from the left), and Congressional calls for information-sharing and hearings and such.

Once the issue fades from public memory and Congress actually makes the program 100% legal with a law in support and everything, it'll be legal (without quotation marks).

// and now we see why such law is a bad idea
// you know, for the 7 of us who didn't see this coming in October 2001
 
2013-02-07 01:14:18 PM  

lilbjorn: dryknife: What about junior members?

They get an IRS audit.


A fate worse than death.
 
2013-02-07 01:24:07 PM  

jigger: So that's the spin? It'll make the GOP argue with itself? You don't think the Democrats are split on whether to support their president or due process of law?


Yeah, but Democrats have always been a much more dissenting opinion-friendly party. It's one of the MANY reasons a minority of Repubs can still hold the majority hostage. And why now that there's FINALLY dissent in the GOP ranks, it's a CIVIL WAR! Because before this, anyone who disagreed was summarily drummed out as a RINO.
 
2013-02-07 01:32:00 PM  
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-02-07 01:40:37 PM  

socodog: Remember, folks:  The nice people in office won't be in charge forever.  Our system is set up to ensure that the devil you know will eventually be replaced by the devil you do not know.  What happens when a real fascist gets ahold of this apparatus?

Everybody wants to make it some racist shiat about Obama.  I'm not worried about him aside from his incremental power grab and constitutional subversion.  I'm worried about the guy down the road.


BUT BUT BUT 0-BONOBO IS TEH REAL FASHIST!!

I hear this sh*t so damn often from the idiots around here it makes me wanna punch them all in the eye and then puke in their faces. And then firehose them off and do it again in their other eye.
 
2013-02-07 01:41:07 PM  

socodog: Remember, folks:  The nice people in office won't be in charge forever.  Our system is set up to ensure that the devil you know will eventually be replaced by the devil you do not know.  What happens when a real fascist gets ahold of this apparatus?

Everybody wants to make it some racist shiat about Obama.  I'm not worried about him aside from his incremental power grab and constitutional subversion.  I'm worried about the guy down the road.


The united stares government is perfect and infallible forever. What are ya some kind of commie rat?
 
2013-02-07 01:45:23 PM  

socodog: Remember, folks: The nice people in office won't be in charge forever. Our system is set up to ensure that the devil you know will eventually be replaced by the devil you do not know. What happens when a real fascist gets ahold of this apparatus?


By "this apparatus", I assume you mean the US military?
 
2013-02-07 02:06:26 PM  
No, son. I mean the secret system of assassination they're using extrajudicially on US citizens.
 
2013-02-07 02:09:32 PM  

socodog: No, son. I mean the secret system of assassination they're using extrajudicially on US citizens.


...AKA the US military.
 
2013-02-07 02:13:45 PM  
AKA the CIA.
 
2013-02-07 02:27:29 PM  

Dr Dreidel: ArkPanda: It's already legal. The "War on Terror" that Congress passed in a panic after 9/11 lets the President do more or less whatever he likes as long as he mentions terrorism in the same sentence.

Well, in that sense, the drone program is "legal" now only because there's no law against - same as the warrantless wiretapping program was before 2005ish. Similar to then, we have howls of outrage (though this time, it's as loud from the right as from the left), and Congressional calls for information-sharing and hearings and such.

Once the issue fades from public memory and Congress actually makes the program 100% legal with a law in support and everything, it'll be legal (without quotation marks).

// and now we see why such law is a bad idea
// you know, for the 7 of us who didn't see this coming in October 2001


More than seven of us saw it coming. I reiterate my question: how are we not f*cked?
 
2013-02-07 02:30:46 PM  
I like how you get all these GOP bunker dwellers who are convinced that when the civil war comes the military would never be able to fire upon a REAL AMERICAN, and thus side with them.

Forgetting of course that Cletus would shoot first, always, no exceptions.
 
2013-02-07 02:32:38 PM  

Biological Ali: socodog: No, son. I mean the secret system of assassination they're using extrajudicially on US citizens.

...AKA the US military.


Biological Ali: By "this apparatus", I assume you mean the US military?


Or the CIA.  Again, this gets at what you and I were discussing yesterday about the blurred lines and all.
 
2013-02-07 02:33:31 PM  

socodog: Remember, folks: The nice people in office won't be in charge forever. Our system is set up to ensure that the devil you know will eventually be replaced by the devil you do not know. What happens when a real fascist gets ahold of this apparatus?

Everybody wants to make it some racist shiat about Obama. I'm not worried about him aside from his incremental power grab and constitutional subversion. I'm worried about the guy down the road.


This.
 
2013-02-07 02:35:02 PM  

verbaltoxin: how are we not f*cked?


At the moment, my genitals are unengaged with another's genitals, mouth or anus (and vice-versa).

// much to my dismay
// oh, you meant politically, in this case?
// nono, we're farked
// proper farked
 
2013-02-07 02:40:50 PM  

socodog: AKA the CIA.


Or the CIA, sure.

Anyway, rather than get into another protracted debate, I think I'll just link to the opinion of the judge who dismissed the lawsuit brought by Aulaqi's father against his inclusion on the "capture or kill" list. With all this brouhaha over "extrajudicial" actions, I think some people forget (or perhaps don't know) that there already has been judicial involvement in this process which has vindicated the administration's position.

I suspect that the legal basis that the administration will provide to Congress here will be quite similar to the arguments they made in that case.
 
2013-02-07 02:46:17 PM  
I think I'm gonna get my own drone. For home defense only of course.
 
2013-02-07 02:48:10 PM  

Biological Ali: which has vindicated the administration's position.


Let's be clear, you are not defending just the Obama Administration.  You are defending the current and all future Administrations holding this position.

"...legal basis for authorizing drone strikes against U.S. citizens believed to be senior al-Qaeda members."

Yeah I'm pretty sure that guy is a senior al-Qaeda member, let's drone him.  The intelligence community has never been wrong.  That's why we found all those WMD trucks in Iraq.
 
2013-02-07 02:50:28 PM  
here's the latest on the subject:


WASHINGTON (
  Citing budgetary concerns, the United States announced today that it would discontinue regular Saturday drone strikes on U.S. citizens, beginning in 2014.

In announcing the decision, the White House spokesman Jay Carney acknowledged that the cutback in drone service was "bound to be controversial." "In the United States, we've always prided ourselves on our ability to target our citizens with drone strikes, Monday through Saturday, regardless of the weather," he said. "We know that losing Saturday drone service is going to take some getting used to."

But the move to cut back drone service drew sharp criticism from a longtime defender of the program, the former Vice-President Dick Cheney. "Like most Americans, I thought I'd never see the day when drones just up and take Saturdays off," he said. "This would never be happening if I were still President."
As if to silence critics, Mr. Carney assured reporters that drones could "still get the job done" Monday through Friday, and reminded U.S. citizens to update the government on any change of address so the drones would know where to reach them.


borowitz
 
2013-02-07 02:50:42 PM  

lennavan: Biological Ali: socodog: No, son. I mean the secret system of assassination they're using extrajudicially on US citizens.

...AKA the US military.

Biological Ali: By "this apparatus", I assume you mean the US military?

Or the CIA.  Again, this gets at what you and I were discussing yesterday about the blurred lines and all.


Well sure, but the CIA has essentially had a quasi-military role since it was formed. It's certainly not a new or recent trend.
 
2013-02-07 02:52:17 PM  

Biological Ali: Well sure, but the CIA has essentially had a quasi-military role since it was formed. It's certainly not a new or recent trend.


I don't disagree.  You missed this part of my post:

Biological Ali: Lennavan:  Again, this gets at what you and I were discussing yesterday about the blurred lines and all.


The CIA.  All the fun of the military without all those pesky laws.
 
2013-02-07 02:52:43 PM  
The 16 page doc from DOJ that came out this week is so ambiguous in its language.  Anybody could be targeted.  The "reasons" for targeting would be swept under the rug as "state secrets".  Your right to life as a citizen should be worth more than "imminent", "could", and "maybe".
 
2013-02-07 02:56:31 PM  

lennavan: Biological Ali: which has vindicated the administration's position.

Let's be clear, you are not defending just the Obama Administration.  You are defending the current and all future Administrations holding this position.

"...legal basis for authorizing drone strikes against U.S. citizens believed to be senior al-Qaeda members."

Yeah I'm pretty sure that guy is a senior al-Qaeda member, let's drone him.  The intelligence community has never been wrong.  That's why we found all those WMD trucks in Iraq.


I strongly recommend reading the entire decision. It addresses just about every legal objection you could think of.
 
2013-02-07 03:20:32 PM  

lennavan: Biological Ali: Well sure, but the CIA has essentially had a quasi-military role since it was formed. It's certainly not a new or recent trend.

I don't disagree.  You missed this part of my post:

Biological Ali: Lennavan:  Again, this gets at what you and I were discussing yesterday about the blurred lines and all.

The CIA.  All the fun of the military without all those pesky laws.


Well sure, the lines are blurred but I assumed you were more interested in recent changes, as opposed to things that have been going on for the better part of a century.
 
2013-02-07 03:22:11 PM  

Biological Ali: I strongly recommend reading the entire decision. It addresses just about every legal objection you could think of.


I have zero doubt this will be considered completely legal.  That's the problem I have with it.  How can you not have gotten that by now?

Yes, I read it.  I would say it blurs the lines between military and civilian but that's dishonest.  It just completely ignores the lines and pretends they are the same thing.  If we determine an American Civilian is in al-Qa'ida, we can assassinate him with our civilian drones because of this military authorization and we're at war with that civilian except we're gonna totally consider him an enemy force.

Further, there are no boundaries.  If the US says some guy in France is a terrorist and France disagrees, this document gives the POTUS authority to order a strike in France on that terrorist.  Yes, I admit this scenario seems very unlikely but that it's even possible doesn't strike you as a bad thing?
 
2013-02-07 03:24:46 PM  
Laws are legal, citizen.  Now get back to producing.
 
2013-02-07 03:45:12 PM  

lennavan: I have zero doubt this will be considered completely legal. That's the problem I have with it. How can you not have gotten that by now?


Your argument, as I understand it, is that this is indicative of a recent trend - that perhaps there was some period in the past when things were done differently. What this decision shows, among other things, is that this is how things have been for a long time, even before George W. Bush and the Patriot Act and all those other terrible things that Changed America Forever. Read, for instance, the reference to the case regarding Clinton's strike on the pharmaceutical facility in Sudan.
 
2013-02-07 03:52:37 PM  
Access to drones? Is this some innuendo about the congressional Pages?
 
2013-02-07 03:53:39 PM  
Another tool of the Obama administration, to begin changing over from democracy to a socialist state lead by a dictator.
 
Displayed 50 of 78 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report