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.

(Politico)   "Five questions about Obama's Natl. Sec. address" Who did you drone? Why did you wait so long to tell us? Was Congress involved? Why won't you answer my questions? Hey, what's that buzzing noise overhead?   (politico.com) divider line 76
    More: Interesting, obama, Michael McCaul, National Archives  
•       •       •

677 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 May 2013 at 8:12 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-24 11:39:22 AM  

vygramul: mrshowrules: The only thing that gives me pause is that this is something that would have been done under Dubya.

WOULD have been done?


Very interesting.  Like I said, there was a work around.  Obama must have been presented this work-around as an option.  Why (unlike Dubya) did he choose the more more honest (although problematic) approach.
 
2013-05-24 11:42:28 AM  

DarnoKonrad: vygramul: War Powers Act is in effect, the president isn't completely free to act.

Never been tested, and likely unconstitutional.  Authorizations of force are largely window dressing to show the world congress and the president are on the same page, but it's not what really gives power of command to the president.


That's why I phrased it that way - "Not only that, but so long as the War Powers Act is in effect, the president isn't completely free to act." - otherwise, that would have been a pretty verbose way of simply saying, "The War Powers Act limits him."

Neither side wants to take it to the Court, though, as neither side wants to lose.
 
2013-05-24 11:47:27 AM  

qorkfiend: DarnoKonrad: vygramul: War Powers Act is in effect, the president isn't completely free to act.

Never been tested, and likely unconstitutional.  Authorizations of force are largely window dressing to show the world congress and the president are on the same page, but it's not what really gives power of command to the president.

If the War Powers Act is unconstitutional, it's because it delegates too much Congressional authority to the Executive. We're not really talking about the power of command here - no one disputes that the President is Commander-in-Chief - we're talking about what the President has to command and the scope under which he can issue legal commands, both of which are powers Constitutionally delegated to Congress.


I'm not sure that it's as clear as you suggest. It's clear that boots on the ground doesn't require a DoW - Jefferson did that against the Barbary states, though he consulted with Congress first. The consultation was over whether a DoW was required, though, and not whether he was compelled to ask Congress. A wise executive would, of course. Like many things, there were some things that were so obvious they didn't write them down or assumed everyone understood the context. (Hence, the Second Amendment's under-specific wording.)
 
2013-05-24 11:50:34 AM  
Congress granted the President the power of martial law(patriot act) and the ability to kill anyone anywhere, but congress failed to realize that one day the president would be Black and a Democrat.


/Yo homey. You said I could kill anyone. Anywhere. The paper is right here. So shut the f*ck up, ok.
 
2013-05-24 11:55:47 AM  

Almost Everybody Poops: My one question: Why did you drone Al-Awlaki's son?


He wasn't targeted. He just happened to be around someone who was targeted. This has been known for a while now.
 
2013-05-24 11:57:11 AM  

Nabb1: Imminent danger is a factor, as you pointed out. And yes, out government kills people once there has been a trial, conviction and appeals process which are supposed to afford them both substantive and procedural due process. We are killing people from the sky because one branch of the government has unilaterally decided they need to die for crimes they probably committed or may commit in the future.


Aren't you supposed to be a lawyer? Or am I thinking of somebody else?
 
2013-05-24 12:00:07 PM  

sheep snorter: Congress granted the President the power of martial law(patriot act) and the ability to kill anyone anywhere, but congress failed to realize that one day the president would be Black and a Democrat.


/Yo homey. You said I could kill anyone. Anywhere. The paper is right here. So shut the f*ck up, ok.


Here's a dumb question but has the Patriot Act never been challenged through the SCOTUS?
 
2013-05-24 12:16:52 PM  

mrshowrules: sheep snorter: Congress granted the President the power of martial law(patriot act) and the ability to kill anyone anywhere, but congress failed to realize that one day the president would be Black and a Democrat.


/Yo homey. You said I could kill anyone. Anywhere. The paper is right here. So shut the f*ck up, ok.

Here's a dumb question but has the Patriot Act never been challenged through the SCOTUS?


The Patriot act was a conglomeration of new laws and changes to laws that already existed at the time.  Some of them have been struck down, some have been expired, and some have been extended.  I believe there have been SCOTUS cases regarding evidence gathered by provisions of the act and most of them did not rule in favor of it.
 
2013-05-24 12:19:33 PM  

Tor_Eckman: mrshowrules: sheep snorter: Congress granted the President the power of martial law(patriot act) and the ability to kill anyone anywhere, but congress failed to realize that one day the president would be Black and a Democrat.


/Yo homey. You said I could kill anyone. Anywhere. The paper is right here. So shut the f*ck up, ok.

Here's a dumb question but has the Patriot Act never been challenged through the SCOTUS?

The Patriot act was a conglomeration of new laws and changes to laws that already existed at the time.  Some of them have been struck down, some have been expired, and some have been extended.  I believe there have been SCOTUS cases regarding evidence gathered by provisions of the act and most of them did not rule in favor of it.


Thanks.  I hope they flush the rest of it down the toilet eventually.
 
2013-05-24 12:21:19 PM  

Tor_Eckman: mrshowrules: sheep snorter: Congress granted the President the power of martial law(patriot act) and the ability to kill anyone anywhere, but congress failed to realize that one day the president would be Black and a Democrat.


/Yo homey. You said I could kill anyone. Anywhere. The paper is right here. So shut the f*ck up, ok.

Here's a dumb question but has the Patriot Act never been challenged through the SCOTUS?

The Patriot act was a conglomeration of new laws and changes to laws that already existed at the time.  Some of them have been struck down, some have been expired, and some have been extended.  I believe there have been SCOTUS cases regarding evidence gathered by provisions of the act and most of them did not rule in favor of it.


Pretty much. The warrantless GPS device was challenged (though I don't know if a related provision was struck, or the conviction was simply overturned), but the ACLU and others have succeeded in getting provisions about national security letters, "sneak and peek" searches, and vaguely-worded "material support of terrorism" laws struck down.
 
2013-05-24 12:30:02 PM  

Sock Ruh Tease: What is the difference between an American citizen and terrorist killed in a drone attack (al-Awlaki) vs. an American citizen and terrorist being shot to death by police officers (Tamerlan Tsarnaev)?

Arguably, both are defensive actions. The second is a more immediate concern (terrorists shooting back at cops) while the first is more preemptive. But besides that, what difference is there really? Governments kill their own people all of the time. Feigning shock and outrage because it's done with a certain tool in a certain way is a biatchildish. There are good reasons to oppose the government's killing of citizens but "but drones!" isn't it.


A better police example would be Aaron Bassler:

Gianulias asked Jones how the deputies identified Bassler and if they asked him to surrender before shooting him.
"I can't share any of those details yet," Jones said. "I can tell you Aaron Bassler never fired a shot. There is a likelihood he never did see the officers (before engagement)."

Nothing defensive about it, at least in the traditional sense of the term. If you're believed to be dangerous enough, it's completely fair game to use lethal force in any situation where you're not actively surrendering.
 
2013-05-24 01:11:28 PM  
Criminals should be tried in a court. Obama could at least pretend to care about rule of law.
 
2013-05-24 02:01:11 PM  

Sock Ruh Tease: What is the difference between an American citizen and terrorist killed in a drone attack (al-Awlaki) vs. an American citizen and terrorist being shot to death by police officers (Tamerlan Tsarnaev)?

Arguably, both are defensive actions. The second is a more immediate concern (terrorists shooting back at cops) while the first is more preemptive. But besides that, what difference is there really? Governments kill their own people all of the time. Feigning shock and outrage because it's done with a certain tool in a certain way is a biatchildish. There are good reasons to oppose the government's killing of citizens but "but drones!" isn't it.



Anything is arguable, but a "preemptive defensive action" is an offensive action run through a PR spin cycle.

There was enough probable cause that Tsarnaev was not only a terrorist, but was a immediate threat to American citizens, therefore lethal force was justified in his case.

There was no probable cause to assume Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was a threat to American interests, even though it is possible that he could be come one when he grew up. Still, ordering an assassination in which a U.S. citizen was at best collateral damage is unfounded, outrageous, and unlawful.

The fact that Obama says he felt bad about it might appease the DNC white knights on here, but this raises serious questions to the moral character and consistency of the President's foreign policy.
 
2013-05-24 02:04:25 PM  

James F. Campbell: Criminals should be tried in a court. Obama could at least pretend to care about rule of law.


I guess now you want to disarm police because they might kill them without a trial. I mean, you pretend to care about the rule of what area man believes law to be.
 
2013-05-24 02:32:26 PM  
Responding to people's concerns? That's awfully suspicious.
 
2013-05-24 07:07:12 PM  

vygramul: James F. Campbell: Criminals should be tried in a court. Obama could at least pretend to care about rule of law.

I guess now you want to disarm police because they might kill them without a trial. I mean, you pretend to care about the rule of what area man believes law to be.


Take your false dilemma and shove it up your ass.
 
2013-05-24 07:31:12 PM  

James F. Campbell: vygramul: James F. Campbell: Criminals should be tried in a court. Obama could at least pretend to care about rule of law.

I guess now you want to disarm police because they might kill them without a trial. I mean, you pretend to care about the rule of what area man believes law to be.

Take your false dilemma and shove it up your ass.


Area man passionate defender of what he imagines logical fallacies to be.
 
2013-05-25 01:24:59 AM  
images.politico.com
 
2013-05-25 01:35:04 AM  
Now, I just don't get it...

George Bush has a couple of bad guys water boarded and gains Intel that ultimately results in finding UBL and the libs cry that he is worse than Hitler.

Obama tosses the whole Due Process and turns Americans (albeit, Bad Americans) into grease stains on the desert and the libs decry him our savior akin to the second coming of Jesus who totally deserves our worship and that Nobel Peace Prize.

farm9.staticflickr.com
 
2013-05-25 07:00:33 AM  
From TFA:

The best indicator that Obama could be serious this time might be his willingness to devote an hour-long speech to the issue

images.encyclopediadramatica.se
 
2013-05-25 07:28:22 AM  

vygramul: James F. Campbell: vygramul: James F. Campbell: Criminals should be tried in a court. Obama could at least pretend to care about rule of law.

I guess now you want to disarm police because they might kill them without a trial. I mean, you pretend to care about the rule of what area man believes law to be.

Take your false dilemma and shove it up your ass.

Area man passionate defender of what he imagines logical fallacies to be.


Also, it wouldn't kill you to read a goddamn book or something every once in a while. Jesus H. Christ.
 
2013-05-25 07:43:20 AM  

James F. Campbell: vygramul: James F. Campbell: vygramul: James F. Campbell: Criminals should be tried in a court. Obama could at least pretend to care about rule of law.

I guess now you want to disarm police because they might kill them without a trial. I mean, you pretend to care about the rule of what area man believes law to be.

Take your false dilemma and shove it up your ass.

Area man passionate defender of what he imagines logical fallacies to be.

Also, it wouldn't kill you to read a goddamn book or something every once in a while. Jesus H. Christ.


Area man takes 24 hours and that's the best he could come up with.
 
2013-05-25 09:16:05 AM  

vygramul: James F. Campbell: vygramul: James F. Campbell: vygramul: James F. Campbell: Criminals should be tried in a court. Obama could at least pretend to care about rule of law.

I guess now you want to disarm police because they might kill them without a trial. I mean, you pretend to care about the rule of what area man believes law to be.

Take your false dilemma and shove it up your ass.

Area man passionate defender of what he imagines logical fallacies to be.

Also, it wouldn't kill you to read a goddamn book or something every once in a while. Jesus H. Christ.

Area man takes 24 hours and that's the best he could come up with.


This coming from a man repeatedly raping the dessicated corpse of a four-year-old Onion article. Come on, man. Just let it go and accept that you suck.
 
2013-05-25 09:24:24 AM  
Also, vygramul, I've long had you labeled as an idiot, and this thread merely confirms that suspicion. I would like to point out that actual liberal intellectuals know better than to white knight Obama just because he's a Democrat. You're not so much a "reality-based intellectualist" as you are a strident, bootlicking zealot with a severe case of party-induced myopia.
 
2013-05-25 09:59:35 AM  

James F. Campbell: vygramul: James F. Campbell: vygramul: James F. Campbell: vygramul: James F. Campbell: Criminals should be tried in a court. Obama could at least pretend to care about rule of law.

I guess now you want to disarm police because they might kill them without a trial. I mean, you pretend to care about the rule of what area man believes law to be.

Take your false dilemma and shove it up your ass.

Area man passionate defender of what he imagines logical fallacies to be.

Also, it wouldn't kill you to read a goddamn book or something every once in a while. Jesus H. Christ.

Area man takes 24 hours and that's the best he could come up with.

This coming from a man repeatedly raping the dessicated corpse of a four-year-old Onion article. Come on, man. Just let it go and accept that you suck.


Area man faps to the thought of necrophilia.
 
2013-05-25 10:01:16 AM  

James F. Campbell: Also, vygramul, I've long had you labeled as an idiot, and this thread merely confirms that suspicion. I would like to point out that actual liberal intellectuals know better than to white knight Obama just because he's a Democrat. You're not so much a "reality-based intellectualist" as you are a strident, bootlicking zealot with a severe case of party-induced myopia.


Area man passionate defender of what he imagines reality to be.
 
Displayed 26 of 76 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 »
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