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.

(Yahoo)   Old Man McCain shows his pimp hand: "If Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously, he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms. He needs to know what he's talking about"   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 226
    More: Amusing, Rand Paul, John McCain, Republican, dorms, filibusters, senior senator, laws of war, online social networks  
•       •       •

2594 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Mar 2013 at 5:04 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-08 07:22:59 PM

fusillade762: "To my party, I'm a bit disappointed that you no longer apparently think we're at war," Graham said.

This has always bugged me. What country are we at war with? Has a declaration been issued?


Mm, we're "at war" with Terror, and still are, and will be until some President has the balls and intestinal fortitude to declare what a waste of time, money and human life it has been. I hope it happens in my lifetime; but it's the reason we're even having this drone debate in the first place.

Drones and strikes on people in non-declared combat zones in friendly (or at least non-hostile) countries is the entirely foreseeable result of the "Global War on Terror" which was declared by George W. Bush in his speech whenever that was in 2001, and some people tried to warn everyone else that this was going to happen; but nobody was listening. If you declare "a war" on a tactic and on small, disorganized, nonaligned groups, then sooner or later the "war" has no boundaries and is taking place in no country; and then you have a problem. You can either attack that small group in whatever (non-hostile) country they're holed up in with conventional military force--and thus declare war on that country for no reason--OR you use a remotely piloted drone with attendant plausible deniability and less collateral damage.

The third option, the BETTER option, is to stop this asinine "war on terror" and turn this back into a criminal problem and let the civil authorities deal with it like we did all through the last century. When the USS Cole was attacked by terrorists, Clinton sent in the FBI, not the Marines, and they pretty well broke the back of that al-Qaeda cell in Yemen without so much as one Hellfire missile being dropped by anyone. Ditto the 1993 WTC bombing, and those guys are all in prison now. But as long as everyone wants this to be a "war" on terror, then it has to be a war, and the solution has to be a military one. Hence: drones.

I don't like it either, so if you want to start a petition to get the President to declare a ceasefire in the "war on terror", the idea is free, and then we could stop arguing about this nonsense once and for all.
 
2013-03-08 07:22:59 PM
www.catholic.com
 
2013-03-08 07:25:05 PM

schrodinger: Rand Paul spent 13 hours attacking a strawman that no one was defending in the first place (whether or not the US can use drone attacks on US soil against NON-COMBATIVEcitizens on US soil.) That's not standing up for principle, that's being an attention whore.


From Holder's first letter, dated March 4, on "whether the President has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial"- "Were such an emergency to arise, I would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the President on the scope of his authority."

From Holder's second letter, dated March 7 (during or shortly after the filibuster) - "Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?" The answer to that question is no."

The first letter is boilerplate.  This is the sort of thing a lawyer says when he wants to say neither yes nor no.  And it was in response to an important question of principle regarding the limits of executive power.

The second letter is an actual no.  (A no to a slightly different question than was first asked, but still a no, and in writing.)

Yes, Paul was grandstanding.  But when you get an evasive response to an important question, grandstanding is in order.  Kudos to Paul for getting the actual "no."  And fark McCain for complaining about it.  Paul just did what McCain no longer has the spine to do.
 
2013-03-08 07:25:31 PM

1derful: Libs love John McCain because he's a loser.


If Bush were President then every one of these douchebags who are attacking Paul would crown him with laurels for suggesting that the AG not equivocate on the question of whether or not the POTUS has authority to kill American citizens on American soil.


If "Libs loved John McCain" so farking much, he'd have won the Presidency in 2008, you complete and utter partisan dipshiat.

I love it when Idiot "Fark independents" are the ones that decide what "Libs love". Go fark off, seriously.
 
2013-03-08 07:26:47 PM
So, am I supposed to cheer for the douchey attention whore who is against gay marriage, a woman's right to choose and believes states should have more rights than people, or for the doddering old fool who unleashed Sarah Palin on the rest of America?

I choose...neither.

Put 'em in a steel cage and let 'em duke it out, while 'The Party of 'No' crumbles around them.
 
2013-03-08 07:28:40 PM

Gyrfalcon: fusillade762: 

...

...Drones and strikes on people in non-declared combat zones in friendly (or at least non-hostile) countries is the entirely foreseeable result of the "Global War on Terror" which was declared by George W. Bush in his speech whenever that was in 2001, and some people tried to warn everyone else that this was going to happen...

...


the new "this": ayup
 
2013-03-08 07:29:43 PM

Duck_of_Doom: RevMercutio: He really isn't. John McCain has always been an asshole, despite the so-called "Maverick" narrative people bought into 13 years ago.

Not to white-knight McCain, but being an asshole can still be considered Maverick-y.  Especially in a sea of toadies, potato-heads, and differently-flavored assholes.  His asshole behavior may go against the grain of the normal assholes.

And for nothing: when I see the name Rand Paul, I keep thinking someone forgot a comma, and the name is really Paul Rand.  Preemptive apologies to anyone named Paul Rand.


Problem: Your last name sounds like a first name.
Solution: Give your son a first name that sounds like a last name!
 
2013-03-08 07:30:29 PM

MasterThief: schrodinger: Rand Paul spent 13 hours attacking a strawman that no one was defending in the first place (whether or not the US can use drone attacks on US soil against NON-COMBATIVEcitizens on US soil.) That's not standing up for principle, that's being an attention whore.

From Holder's first letter, dated March 4, on "whether the President has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial"- "Were such an emergency to arise, I would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the President on the scope of his authority."

From Holder's second letter, dated March 7 (during or shortly after the filibuster) - "Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?" The answer to that question is no."

The first letter is boilerplate.  This is the sort of thing a lawyer says when he wants to say neither yes nor no.  And it was in response to an important question of principle regarding the limits of executive power.

The second letter is an actual no.  (A no to a slightly different question than was first asked, but still a no, and in writing.)

Yes, Paul was grandstanding.  But when you get an evasive response to an important question, grandstanding is in order.  Kudos to Paul for getting the actual "no."  And fark McCain for complaining about it.  Paul just did what McCain no longer has the spine to do.


If only there were some branch of government that could be specifically empowered to do things create laws, laws that could set limits on executive power. It's a real shame that such a thing does not exist and thus Rand Paul cannot be elected to such a body so he could make laws clarifying the limits of executive power, leaving him with no other option than pulling an attention whoring PR stunt.
 
2013-03-08 07:34:23 PM

MasterThief: Yes, Paul was grandstanding.  But when you get an evasive response to an important question, grandstanding is in order.  Kudos to Paul for getting the actual "no."  And fark McCain for complaining about it.  Paul just did what McCain no longer has the spine to do


Hear hear. I think Rand is doing what the Democrats didn't have the will to force the Republicans to do: Kill the idiotic institution of filibuster by doing it live on CSPAN. No wonder McCain hates him.
 
2013-03-08 07:38:57 PM
McCain is a one trick pony now.  All he can do is talk shiat about others.  Sometimes he pulls it off, sometimes he yells at clouds.
 
2013-03-08 07:42:09 PM
First - I know that Congress passed these laws.  Second - Replace Obama and his advisers with any future president and his/her advisers.

The fact of that matter is this:

Obama has declared that the executive branch has the right to kill an American citizen abroad when not actively engaged in combat.  He killed Anwar Awlaki with no trial, no warning, and no evidence presented (neither before nor after).  He killed an American citizen without due process, for reasons that only he and his close advisers know.

If he is capable of doing this to an American overseas, is he capable of doing it to an American on US soil?  Rand Paul asked that question, and received an answer of: "in certain circumstances, yes".  The problem with that answer is, that Obama and his close advisers are the ones that determine those certain circumstances.  If Obama and his advisers determined that favorable reporting on Al Qaeda was enough to kill an American - based on the legal reasoning so far presented by his DoJ - it would be entirely legal to assassinate that American on US soil with no trial or evidence.  He killed Awlaki with no trial or evidence for reasons known only to him, so presumably he could do the same to an American on US soil.

Rand Paul asked for clarification on that issue.  Which is an entirely necessary thing to do.  At this point in time, based on the actions and statements of the administration, Obama had the ability to determine whether or not a US citizen was worthy of being killed, with no oversight or explanation, and then kill them, as long as the president determined the situation was warranted.  And again, there have been no explicit definitions given as to what determines if a situation warrants assassination.

Holder responds that a citizen has to be actively engaged in combat on US soil for an assassination with no judicial oversight to take place.  This seems to have satisfied Rand, but in reality, we still need a definition for combat.  Perhaps there is one out there, but we need an explicit definition from the administration as to what they determine combat to consist of.

From Google:


NounFighting between armed forces.VerbTake action to reduce, destroy, or prevent (something undesirable).Sure, we can all think that combat means actively firing shots at a federal building, but as that definition shows, combat is a vague term.  Publishing articles that go against federal government's policies could be defined as combat - and I can easily find examples where that is the case, if you would like me to.  And again, who is it that defines the word combat?  Obama and his advisers.

This is the current legal precedent, based on actions and statements from the Obama administration:

The executive branch has the right to assassinate any American citizen without trial if they are engaged in combat (as the executive branch defines) or it is an extraordinary circumstance (as the executive branch defines).

Without explicit definitions of those words, we've given the executive branch the role of judge jury and executioner, and thank god people like Rand Paul are out there bringing light to these issues.
 
2013-03-08 07:44:16 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: MisterRonbo: Funny, my recollection was that many libs (including me) kept saying that his anti-war stance was the one thing RON PAUL got right.

My recollection is none of us wanted to crown him with laurels, and pretty much marked him as a crank the instant we discovered the newsletters.


Understanding that RON PAUL'S early political career centered on the issue of 'Judicial/Federal Overreach' vis a vis busing helps too.

YARLY!
 
2013-03-08 07:45:05 PM

MattStafford: First - I know that Congress passed these laws.  Second - Replace Obama and his advisers with any future president and his/her advisers.

The fact of that matter is this:

Obama has declared that the executive branch has the right to kill an American citizen abroad when not actively engaged in combat.  He killed Anwar Awlaki with no trial, no warning, and no evidence presented (neither before nor after).  He killed an American citizen without due process, for reasons that only he and his close advisers know.

If he is capable of doing this to an American overseas, is he capable of doing it to an American on US soil?  Rand Paul asked that question, and received an answer of: "in certain circumstances, yes".  The problem with that answer is, that Obama and his close advisers are the ones that determine those certain circumstances.  If Obama and his advisers determined that favorable reporting on Al Qaeda was enough to kill an American - based on the legal reasoning so far presented by his DoJ - it would be entirely legal to assassinate that American on US soil with no trial or evidence.  He killed Awlaki with no trial or evidence for reasons known only to him, so presumably he could do the same to an American on US soil.

Rand Paul asked for clarification on that issue.  Which is an entirely necessary thing to do.  At this point in time, based on the actions and statements of the administration, Obama had the ability to determine whether or not a US citizen was worthy of being killed, with no oversight or explanation, and then kill them, as long as the president determined the situation was warranted.  And again, there have been no explicit definitions given as to what determines if a situation warrants assassination.

Holder responds that a citizen has to be actively engaged in combat on US soil for an assassination with no judicial oversight to take place.  This seems to have satisfied Rand, but in reality, we still need a definition for combat.  Perhaps there is on ...


I think we can safely say that no one on here, aside from a few well known partisans, cares about this subject.  When you boil it down, you get the simple reality that the American people trust this President.

Without that mistrust, there's not going to be any outrage.  Sorry.  No one gives a fark.
 
2013-03-08 07:56:15 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: 1derful: Libs love John McCain because he's a loser.

If we truly loved losers, we'd be voting Republican.



OH SNAP!
 
2013-03-08 07:56:18 PM
georgeireton.com
 
2013-03-08 07:59:24 PM
Infernalist: I think we can safely say that no one on here, aside from a few well known partisans, cares about this subject.  When you boil it down, you get the simple reality that the American people trust this President.

If that were really the case, the American people would be imbeciles beyond hope. The fact is that most Americans with all of their chromosomes should think it's a bad idea for anyone to kill them without due process. But the average guy doesn't have the time or inclination to read the white papers or follow the stories on the internet.

Most major media outlets aren't really covering what's happening. CNN spent more coverage on the fact that lions are carnivores than they did the filibuster.


Whether you believe that the executive does or does not have the power to order the assassination of U.S, citizens, it's an important debate that everyone should care about.
 
2013-03-08 07:59:49 PM
Can't fly a plane and win an election outside of Aripiostan. The man is a born looser.
 
2013-03-08 08:01:38 PM

1derful: Infernalist: I think we can safely say that no one on here, aside from a few well known partisans, cares about this subject.  When you boil it down, you get the simple reality that the American people trust this President.

If that were really the case, the American people would be imbeciles beyond hope. The fact is that most Americans with all of their chromosomes should think it's a bad idea for anyone to kill them without due process. But the average guy doesn't have the time or inclination to read the white papers or follow the stories on the internet.

Most major media outlets aren't really covering what's happening. CNN spent more coverage on the fact that lions are carnivores than they did the filibuster.


Whether you believe that the executive does or does not have the power to order the assassination of U.S, citizens, it's an important debate that everyone should care about.


Once again, no one cares, man.  That's why there's no protests, no fury, demands for investigations.  They look at the President and go "No, it's cool, we trust him."

Hang it up.
 
2013-03-08 08:07:20 PM

MasterThief: The first letter is boilerplate. This is the sort of thing a lawyer says when he wants to say neither yes nor no. And it was in response to an important question of principle regarding the limits of executive power.


The first question didn't have a "Yes" or "No" answer because it was a stupid question that lacked any of the clarifying details necessary to give a meaningful response. It's basically someone asking "Is it legal to kill a person?" and leaving it at that.
 
2013-03-08 08:09:49 PM

Biological Ali: The first question didn't have a "Yes" or "No" answer because it was a stupid question that lacked any of the clarifying details necessary to give a meaningful response. It's basically someone asking "Is it legal to kill a person?" and leaving it at that.


And the proper response from the DoJ should have been - it is legal to kill someone given these specific conditions.  Instead, the response was - it is legal to kill someone whenever an extraordinary circumstance (defined by the executive branch) happens.  It would be akin to saying it is legal to kill person when I say it is legal to kill that person.
 
2013-03-08 08:12:21 PM

Infernalist: 1derful: Infernalist: I think we can safely say that no one on here, aside from a few well known partisans, cares about this subject.  When you boil it down, you get the simple reality that the American people trust this President.

If that were really the case, the American people would be imbeciles beyond hope. The fact is that most Americans with all of their chromosomes should think it's a bad idea for anyone to kill them without due process. But the average guy doesn't have the time or inclination to read the white papers or follow the stories on the internet.

Most major media outlets aren't really covering what's happening. CNN spent more coverage on the fact that lions are carnivores than they did the filibuster.


Whether you believe that the executive does or does not have the power to order the assassination of U.S, citizens, it's an important debate that everyone should care about.

Once again, no one cares, man.  That's why there's no protests, no fury, demands for investigations.  They look at the President and go "No, it's cool, we trust him."

Hang it up.


It's another example of the Republican party running against their version of President Obama, not the actual President.  I think most people think the Attorney General's response to the question even before his letter clarifying it was reasonable: if the United States is under military attack, then a military response, which might include drones.  They just don't buy into the "Farbongo is history's greatest monster" mindset you need to really be worked up about this.

In short, most voters do not believe President Obama would use drones against American citizens unless really, really bad shiat was going down.  And there's nothing in any evaluation of Obama's true record that doesn't come from a derp site that suggests he would.
 
2013-03-08 08:13:20 PM

1derful: Infernalist: I think we can safely say that no one on here, aside from a few well known partisans, cares about this subject.  When you boil it down, you get the simple reality that the American people trust this President.

If that were really the case, the American people would be imbeciles beyond hope. The fact is that most Americans with all of their chromosomes should think it's a bad idea for anyone to kill them without due process. But the average guy doesn't have the time or inclination to read the white papers or follow the stories on the internet.

Most major media outlets aren't really covering what's happening. CNN spent more coverage on the fact that lions are carnivores than they did the filibuster.


Whether you believe that the executive does or does not have the power to order the assassination of U.S, citizens, it's an important debate that everyone should care about.


The AG said the President MIGHT be allowed to use drones on American citizens if there's a Pearl Harbor/9-11-scale attack perpetrated by American citizens. Y'know, a situation in which he, and any other President, would be allowed to order the killing of said American citizens via other military weaponry.
 
2013-03-08 08:14:11 PM

jake_lex: if the United States is under military attack, then a military response, which might include drones.


That isn't what the letter said - it said under extraordinary circumstances, and gave two examples (9/11 and Pearl Harbor).  The executive branch can determine anything to be an extraordinary circumstance, given that text (and not have to defend it in court).
 
2013-03-08 08:15:07 PM

LordJiro: The AG said the President MIGHT be allowed to use drones on American citizens if there's a Pearl Harbor/9-11-scale attack perpetrated by American citizens. Y'know, a situation in which he, and any other President, would be allowed to order the killing of said American citizens via other military weaponry.


That isn't what he said.  He said extraordinary circumstances, but did not define extraordinary circumstances.  He gave two examples, but examples are not a definition.
 
2013-03-08 08:15:39 PM
"Holy lack of self-awareness, Batman!" - Robin
 
2013-03-08 08:16:37 PM

vernonFL: McCain is right.





If you want to be taken seriously, you can't pull cheap political stunts just to get your base riled up.


I see this has been taken care of.
 
2013-03-08 08:17:06 PM

Don't Troll Me Bro!: "Holy lack of self-awareness, Batman!" - Robin


"Holy balls! How did McCain get replaced with RON PAUL in my head, Batman?!?!" - DTMB
 
2013-03-08 08:17:50 PM
McCain's Benghazi bullsh*t was slightly less idiotic than Paul's "cafe experience" bullsh*t but the difference doesn't leave enough room for McCain to call out Paul for riling the rubes.

/imitation is the sincerest form of flattery
 
2013-03-08 08:18:42 PM

1derful: Infernalist: I think we can safely say that no one on here, aside from a few well known partisans, cares about this subject.  When you boil it down, you get the simple reality that the American people trust this President.

If that were really the case, the American people would be imbeciles beyond hope. The fact is that most Americans with all of their chromosomes should think it's a bad idea for anyone to kill them without due process. But the average guy doesn't have the time or inclination to read the white papers or follow the stories on the internet.

Most major media outlets aren't really covering what's happening. CNN spent more coverage on the fact that lions are carnivores than they did the filibuster.


Whether you believe that the executive does or does not have the power to order the assassination of U.S, citizens, it's an important debate that everyone should care about.



Relax. You're not important enough to assassinate.
 
2013-03-08 08:19:32 PM

MattStafford: And the proper response from the DoJ should have been - it is legal to kill someone given these specific conditions. Instead, the response was - it is legal to kill someone whenever an extraordinary circumstance (defined by the executive branch) happens.


What do you mean by "Instead"? The executive is the one that gets to make the call about the need to use immediate military force for national defense. Should Holder have lied and given a different answer, or perhaps pretended not to know the answer?
 
2013-03-08 08:24:52 PM

Infernalist: I think we can safely say that no one on here, aside from a few well known partisans, cares about this subject.  When you boil it down, you get the simple reality that the American people trust this President.


I trust this President.  I don't trust his successors.

Precedents, how do they work?
 
2013-03-08 08:31:53 PM

Infernalist: 1derful: Infernalist: I think we can safely say that no one on here, aside from a few well known partisans, cares about this subject.  When you boil it down, you get the simple reality that the American people trust this President.

If that were really the case, the American people would be imbeciles beyond hope. The fact is that most Americans with all of their chromosomes should think it's a bad idea for anyone to kill them without due process. But the average guy doesn't have the time or inclination to read the white papers or follow the stories on the internet.

Most major media outlets aren't really covering what's happening. CNN spent more coverage on the fact that lions are carnivores than they did the filibuster.


Whether you believe that the executive does or does not have the power to order the assassination of U.S, citizens, it's an important debate that everyone should care about.

Once again, no one cares, man.  That's why there's no protests, no fury, demands for investigations.  They look at the President and go "No, it's cool, we trust him."

Hang it up.


Does Rand Paul believe in the second amendment? Does he believe in self defense? What's to stop him from shooting me to death and then claiming that I attacked him first?
 
2013-03-08 08:32:25 PM
The funniest thing about Rand Paul's bullshiat is that he thinks a legal opinion is going to keep some "Future Hitler" from drone bombing Americans.
 
2013-03-08 08:33:01 PM

Biological Ali: What do you mean by "Instead"? The executive is the one that gets to make the call about the need to use immediate military force for national defense. Should Holder have lied and given a different answer, or perhaps pretended not to know the answer?


Perhaps I wasn't clear - the difference is this:

The president can assassinate an American citizen given the following conditions: x, y, z.

The president can assassinate an American citizen based on secret conditions.

If you don't think that there is a difference there, you're insane.
 
2013-03-08 08:36:40 PM

MattStafford: The president can assassinate an American citizen given the following conditions: x, y, z.

The president can assassinate an American citizen based on secret conditions.


What do you mean by "secret conditions"? We're about to head into tinfoil territory, aren't we?
 
2013-03-08 08:37:18 PM
I'm fairly liberal, but I gotta favor Rand Paul. Unlike the angry old man, Paul ballsed up and did a real life filibuster, not the wimpy one today where someone files some paperwork. Plus, he demanded answers on a real issue of assassinating Americans, not waving the bloody shirt of J. Christopher Stevens to avoid fiscal and gun control debate.
 
2013-03-08 08:42:18 PM

Biological Ali: What do you mean by "secret conditions"? We're about to head into tinfoil territory, aren't we?


What do you mean what do I mean?

What are the specific conditions where the president can assassinate a US citizen.  What was the official reason the executive branch gave for assassinating Awlaki?
 
2013-03-08 08:43:36 PM

MisterRonbo: Infernalist: I think we can safely say that no one on here, aside from a few well known partisans, cares about this subject.  When you boil it down, you get the simple reality that the American people trust this President.

I trust this President.  I don't trust his successors.

Precedents, how do they work?


Oh, I agree 100%, and I also believe that before these 4 years are up, we'll see an effort by this President to strip those provisions out via some other method that the GOP doesn't anticipate.

Just because that's how he seems to do things.
 
2013-03-08 08:44:56 PM

MattStafford: What was the official reason the executive branch gave for assassinating Awlaki?


This can't possibly be a serious question.
 
2013-03-08 08:47:11 PM
img48.imageshack.us

Sure thing, John...
 
2013-03-08 08:48:27 PM

MattStafford: The president can assassinate an American citizen given the following conditions: x, y, z.

The president can assassinate an American citizen based on secret conditions.

If you don't think that there is a difference there, you're insane.


One requires algebra?
 
2013-03-08 08:53:11 PM

Biological Ali: This can't possibly be a serious question.


I assure you, it is a serious question.  The administration said that he was an imminent threat, and said no more.  They have not shown, in a court of law, any evidence indicating that he was an imminent threat.  The only official reason released as to why he was killed is that the administration deemed him an imminent threat.

There is no official definition of imminent threat.  So as far as I can surmise, the administration killed Awlaki because they believed him to be a threat, and they are not required to provide evidence (either before or after) showing this to be true.
 
2013-03-08 08:53:48 PM
To me all this drone stuff is such a non-issue.  If you leave America, go overseas, join Al-Qaeda and proclaim that you want to kill Americans, don't be surprised if we take your ass out.

The other issue, domestic drone strikes is so idiotic it barely merits mention.  If you really think the government is going to blow up your house with a HELLFIRE MISSILE then you need therapy.
 
2013-03-08 08:58:07 PM

steverockson: To me all this drone stuff is such a non-issue.  If you leave America, go overseas, join Al-Qaeda and proclaim that you want to kill Americans, don't be surprised if we take your ass out.

The other issue, domestic drone strikes is so idiotic it barely merits mention.  If you really think the government is going to blow up your house with a HELLFIRE MISSILE then you need therapy.


Furthermore, as pointed out, if our government got to the point where it *would* blow up your house with a Hellfire, it doesn't matter one farking iota what the law says.
 
2013-03-08 09:09:19 PM

Infernalist: MisterRonbo: Infernalist: I think we can safely say that no one on here, aside from a few well known partisans, cares about this subject.  When you boil it down, you get the simple reality that the American people trust this President.

I trust this President.  I don't trust his successors.

Precedents, how do they work?

Oh, I agree 100%, and I also believe that before these 4 years are up, we'll see an effort by this President to strip those provisions out via some other method that the GOP doesn't anticipate.

Just because that's how he seems to do things.


.....what?
 
2013-03-08 09:13:28 PM

LordJiro: steverockson: To me all this drone stuff is such a non-issue.  If you leave America, go overseas, join Al-Qaeda and proclaim that you want to kill Americans, don't be surprised if we take your ass out.

The other issue, domestic drone strikes is so idiotic it barely merits mention.  If you really think the government is going to blow up your house with a HELLFIRE MISSILE then you need therapy.

Furthermore, as pointed out, if our government got to the point where it *would* blow up your house with a Hellfire, it doesn't matter one farking iota what the law says.


Wouldn't be the first time.

www.everythingology.com

 
2013-03-08 09:14:12 PM

BMFPitt: Infernalist: MisterRonbo: Infernalist: I think we can safely say that no one on here, aside from a few well known partisans, cares about this subject.  When you boil it down, you get the simple reality that the American people trust this President.

I trust this President.  I don't trust his successors.

Precedents, how do they work?

Oh, I agree 100%, and I also believe that before these 4 years are up, we'll see an effort by this President to strip those provisions out via some other method that the GOP doesn't anticipate.

Just because that's how he seems to do things.

.....what?


What part of that post confused you?
 
2013-03-08 09:15:23 PM

MattStafford: I assure you, it is a serious question. The administration said that he was an imminent threat, and said no more.


On the off chance that you're serious...

"But most of his crime was sympathizing, and was it enough of a standard? I think in a court - in a treasonous court, I think Awlaki would have been convicted of treason. Were I a juror, I would have voted that he was committing treason and I wouldn't have had trouble at all with a drone strike on him."

Rand Paul specifically mentions Awlaqi several times as an example of a drone strike that he was perfectly okay with. Granted, his grasp of how criminal justice works in the US seems a little shaky, since he appears to think that a drone strike could be ordered as a punishment for treason, but you get the picture.

In the end, neither of Rand Paul's questions were about anything the administration actually has actually done, or plans to do for that matter. They were about (quite poorly defined) hypothetical situations that are far removed from normal military conduct.
 
2013-03-08 09:17:56 PM

Infernalist: BMFPitt: Infernalist: MisterRonbo: Infernalist: I think we can safely say that no one on here, aside from a few well known partisans, cares about this subject.  When you boil it down, you get the simple reality that the American people trust this President.

I trust this President.  I don't trust his successors.

Precedents, how do they work?

Oh, I agree 100%, and I also believe that before these 4 years are up, we'll see an effort by this President to strip those provisions out via some other method that the GOP doesn't anticipate.

Just because that's how he seems to do things.

.....what?

What part of that post confused you?


The part about him giving up executive powers. Not sure if serious.
 
2013-03-08 09:18:50 PM

Biological Ali: MattStafford: I assure you, it is a serious question. The administration said that he was an imminent threat, and said no more.

On the off chance that you're serious...

"But most of his crime was sympathizing, and was it enough of a standard? I think in a court - in a treasonous court, I think Awlaki would have been convicted of treason. Were I a juror, I would have voted that he was committing treason and I wouldn't have had trouble at all with a drone strike on him."

Rand Paul specifically mentions Awlaqi several times as an example of a drone strike that he was perfectly okay with. Granted, his grasp of how criminal justice works in the US seems a little shaky, since he appears to think that a drone strike could be ordered as a punishment for treason, but you get the picture.

In the end, neither of Rand Paul's questions were about anything the administration actually has actually done, or plans to do for that matter. They were about (quite poorly defined) hypothetical situations that are far removed from normal military conduct.


Here's another hypothetical situation to mull over:

A military officer has been discovered to be in the process of traveling to deliver sensitive information to members of a terrorist organization.  This information will, in the long run, result in probable death to a number of Americans.

The treasonous officer is not partaking in combat, but he's also far beyond the reach of conventional US personnel.  There's no chance of capturing him or stopping him at this point.

Drone strike or no?
 
Displayed 50 of 226 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report