Honestly folks how did we let this happen?

[Freewill]

Here is ONE judges opinion on the NSA spying, which I can't believe anyone defends. You need to read this article to realize how contorted the defense of the NSA spying really has become.

N.Y. Judge: NSA Spying ?Imperils Civil Liberties of Every Citizen? but ?Legal?

N.Y. Judge: NSA Spying “Imperils Civil Liberties of Every Citizen” but “Legal”

Southern District of New York Judge William Pauley III declared in a December 27 decision that the NSA surveillance program — which draws in every American's telephone records without a warrant or probable cause — was “legal” even though it “imperils the civil liberties of every citizen.” The decision contrasts sharply with a decision two weeks ago by Washington, D.C. District Court Judge Richard Leon that termed the warrantless surveillance program unconstitutional and “almost Orwellian.”

Almost Orwellian was no problem for Pauley, who found that the Constitution should not get in the way of programs the government claims have worked: “The question for this Court is whether the Government's bulk telephony metadata program is lawful. This Court finds it is.”

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

I don't disagree.

Look at the bigger picture: A key component in capitalism is the responsibility of our "leaders" to maintain sound economic policy, and our "leaders" (party affiliation irrelevant) have been an abject failure in that area. That lack of responsibility has spread to our culture, where we purchase homes and cars and myriad other items on credit, just as our "leaders" do.

Capitalism has been a success not in the plastic shit we can buy from China, it has been a success in the opportunity it has given people to improve their own lives and its ability to create. However, it has been corrupted and distorted almost beyond recognition, and that's what I mean by it "working too well". We have taken a good thing and made a caricature of it. And now, in some ways, we've become caricatures ourselves.

.

You must be living with a very different "capitalism" than we have on Planet Earth. On this planet, it has had the exact opposite effect.

Capitalism made the US the greatest country the world had ever seen. Our decline is in our slothful nature.

Close. Our decline is in the moral decay of our nation as a whole. We're under judgment. It won't be long now.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Now, now. I'm trying to play nice. "Due process" is a term that applies in different situations in different ways.

Legal Definition of Due Process

I think the link is correct that at the core it means "fairness." To me, fairness for the cleric, or a Nazi sympathizer in WWII Germany, would entail some notice that what he's doing is dangerous to the US, and we consider it a crime, and while we cannot extradite him, unless he desists we may take action to either extrajudically arrest him or flat out kill him. Rather than having the exec branch make this decision, I'd prefer the judiciary have some means of weighing the evidence to see if it's clear the individual is endangering us.

As for the cleric, besides having some judicial finding, imo the bastard got due process.

I said someone who was assisting the Nazis, not a sympathizer. You're going to have to show me if anyone was killed with a drone because they just sympathized with the terrorists.

So seriously, in WWII, if an American citizen was assisting the Nazis, you would try to contact them in Germany and let them know that's bad before just trying to kill them?

Keep in mind my position is that for Americans not in America is that the primary determinant is whether the American participation in the war is Constitutional. War for defense of the United States is Constitutional. Iraq was not Constitutional under HW, Clinton, W or Obama, so I am not arguing we should be killing Americans there with drones.

I'm sorry. I assumed my post covered someone assisting the Nazis in their war effort.

I think when we get into whether war is constititutional or not it confuses me. It is LEGAL to use military force simply by executive decree under War Powers. It's a political question as to whether the action is necessary to protect a vital interest.

For me, the cleric in Yemen satisfied the vital interest requirement. Killing Taliban in Pakistan .... not so much.

Correct.

And that has been the position of the courts for more than 20 years now (Dellums v. Bush (1990)), that the appropriate use of a president’s war powers is best determined through the political process, not the courts, where the people decide whether the president’s actions are Constitutional during a given General Election, such as in 2012, and if the people find the president has misused his powers, he is removed from office accordingly.

 

[Freewill]

Here are 10 alleged offenses of Obama. Now when you read this list open your mind and think, what would I say if this were Bush or even Reagan doing the same thing? It is hard not being partisan, really hard because we all think that the greater good is better then worrying about the things that don't seem to really effect us directly. But they can and do.

Top 10 Abusive Executive Actions

1.Amending Obamacare’s employer mandate, providing an unauthorized subsidy to congressional staff, and encouraging state insurance commissioners not to enforce certain requirements.

2.Inventing labor law “exemptions” in violation of the WARN Act so that workers would not receive notice of impending layoffs days before the 2012 election.

3.Waiving the mandatory work requirement under the 1996 comprehensive welfare reform law, which required able-bodied adults to work, prepare for work, or look for work in order to receive benefits under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.

4.Ignoring a statutory deadline and refusing to consider an application related to nuclear waste storage at Yucca Mountain, which activists sought to block for years.

5.Circumventing the Senate’s duty to provide advice and consent on appointments and instead making “recess” appointments in violation of Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution when the Senate was actually in session.

6.Deciding not to defend the constitutionality of the federal definition of marriage in court.

7.Implementing Common Core national standards through strings-attached waivers from the No Child Left Behind Act.

8.Intimidating Florida to stop its voter roll cleanup, which included removing ineligible voters such as noncitizens, before the 2012 election.

9.Imposing the DREAM Act by executive fiat under the guise of “prosecutorial discretion.”

10.Refusing to enforce federal drug laws in states that have legalized marijuana.

Top 10 Abusive Executive Actions by the Obama Administration

An Executive Unbound: The Obama Administration’s Unilateral Actions

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Or more so, how did it happen.

1. The NSA is spying on people with out warrant in violation of the COTUS.

2. We are assassinating people with out due process using predator drones some of them US citizens.

3. Changing law though executive fiat.

Now, it doesn't matter when or who started this but this is where we are at, how did we let this happen?

Reality tv and sporting events are much more entertaining than having to be bothered with something as petty as our civil liberties.

Or where reality TV and sporting events are much more entertaining than having to be bothered with making a good-faith, objective, factual, non-partisan determination as to whether our civil liberties have indeed been violated to begin with.

 

[Freewill]

Or more so, how did it happen.

1. The NSA is spying on people with out warrant in violation of the COTUS.

2. We are assassinating people with out due process using predator drones some of them US citizens.

3. Changing law though executive fiat.

Now, it doesn't matter when or who started this but this is where we are at, how did we let this happen?

Reality tv and sporting events are much more entertaining than having to be bothered with something as petty as our civil liberties.

Or where reality TV and sporting events are much more entertaining than having to be bothered with making a good-faith, objective, factual, non-partisan determination as to whether our civil liberties have indeed been violated to begin with.

So, with me being lazy, could you tell me which, if any, of the three you feel infringe on our civil liberties?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Or more so, how did it happen.

1. The NSA is spying on people with out warrant in violation of the COTUS.

2. We are assassinating people with out due process using predator drones some of them US citizens.

3. Changing law though executive fiat.

Now, it doesn't matter when or who started this but this is where we are at, how did we let this happen?

Reality tv and sporting events are much more entertaining than having to be bothered with something as petty as our civil liberties.

Or where reality TV and sporting events are much more entertaining than having to be bothered with making a good-faith, objective, factual, non-partisan determination as to whether our civil liberties have indeed been violated to begin with.

based on logic, or based on your twisted, degenerative view of the constitution and the molestation of it known as case law? Yeah, we know the answer from a partisan turd like you.

 

[Freewill]

Here is another article concerning the Drone program:

US drones strategy relies ‘too much on killing people, too little on solving the problems’

Amnesty International has issued a report claiming US officials responsible for carrying out drone strikes may have to stand trial for war crimes, listing civilian casualties in the attacks in Pakistan. Human Rights Watch issued a similar report on Yemen.

US drones strategy relies ?too much on killing people, too little on solving the problems? ? RT Op-Edge

US may be guilty of war crimes over drone use – Amnesty Intl

 

[gipper]

The hypocrisy of the political class and the government media complex is limitless.

If an R did things analogous to what BO has done, he/she would have been impeached and removed from office...rightfully so.

This could mean that we should only elect an R POTUS, if the rule of law is to be followed.

 

[Redfish]

Or more so, how did it happen.

1. The NSA is spying on people with out warrant in violation of the COTUS.

2. We are assassinating people with out due process using predator drones some of them US citizens.

3. Changing law though executive fiat.

Now, it doesn't matter when or who started this but this is where we are at, how did we let this happen?

How did this happen? We elected liberals.

 

[Freewill]

Or more so, how did it happen.

1. The NSA is spying on people with out warrant in violation of the COTUS.

2. We are assassinating people with out due process using predator drones some of them US citizens.

3. Changing law though executive fiat.

Now, it doesn't matter when or who started this but this is where we are at, how did we let this happen?

How did this happen? We elected liberals.

It at least started with Bush.

 

[kaz]

Well, I really do disagree there because I think it's vitally important that we afford US citizens some due process regardless of what they've done, or where they are. But, it's pretty juvenile to not admit that clerics preaching destruction of the US from a venue where we cannot arrest them get to play by the same rules you and I get.

However, I certainly do agree that Obama has not made the case for why we're targeting Taliban with nominal ties to US terrorism ... and I think W was clearly off the reservation too, for that matter.

So if an American citizen was in Germany assisting the Germans in WWII, you'd expect us to convict them in an American court before trying to kill them?

Military court or special court, not just the CIA.

I think we're a victim of our own success. You're a good guy, freewill, but I think you've lost touch with the reality of the world we live in.

 

[BlindBoo]

Isn't the issue really not whether or not an American citizen is targeted, but that our engaging in wars in the middle east is Unconstitutional since it's not for actual defense of the United States? If the war is constitutional, then I don't see the citizenship of who we target believing they are engaged in attacking America would be. And if the war is not constitutional, I don't see caring about the citizenship of who we target either, we shouldn't be doing it.

"Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force."

That was Jimmy Carter in 1980, However we've viewed the free flow of Oil from the ME vital to our national security since the end of WWII.

Carter Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Constitution doesn't give the government the authority to engage in wars because they are in our interest, they give the government the authority to engage in wars for defense.

Procuring oil isn't even an authority of the Federal government at all. Neither is restricting domestic exploration for energy.

Do you know how much our national defense relies on oil?

 

[kaz]

"Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force."

That was Jimmy Carter in 1980, However we've viewed the free flow of Oil from the ME vital to our national security since the end of WWII.

Carter Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Constitution doesn't give the government the authority to engage in wars because they are in our interest, they give the government the authority to engage in wars for defense.

Procuring oil isn't even an authority of the Federal government at all. Neither is restricting domestic exploration for energy.

Do you know how much our national defense relies on oil?

And?

 

[BlindBoo]

SOP. And we didn't put any of our soldiers or pilots in harms way to do it either. Good call on the Presidents part I'd say. Fuck those terrorists and death to any American who joins their cause and fights against our country.

[...]

If you choose to ignore the most fundamental moral aspect of the collateral consequences of the drone attacks, how do you feel about the kind of simmering hatred they inspire? How would you feel if your child, brother, friend, innocent of any offense, were apathetically killed by a drone?

Is the kind of vindictive loathing these lethal "mistakes" engender worth the likely consequences? For every one "terrorist" we kill with these attacks, how many more are we creating? The things we have done and are doing in the Middle East are not abstractions or video games. We are planting seeds of vengeful hatred in the hearts and minds of a people who are vindictive, patient, and suicidal. That has deadly potential.

Is the hatred any worse when the collateral damage is from satellite guided bombs, or Cruise Missiles, or cluster bombs, or strikes from an F-16, or a helicopter?

Non-interventionism is not how we got here. I understand our interventionism is one of the motivating factors of the terrorist who struck us on 9-11. But I don't believe in turning the other cheek either.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The hypocrisy of the political class and the government media complex is limitless.

If an R did things analogous to what BO has done, he/she would have been impeached and removed from office...rightfully so.

This could mean that we should only elect an R POTUS, if the rule of law is to be followed.

In the Obama column did they run out of stuff or is "pen and phone" supposed to mean something else?

 

[BlindBoo]

The Constitution doesn't give the government the authority to engage in wars because they are in our interest, they give the government the authority to engage in wars for defense.

Procuring oil isn't even an authority of the Federal government at all. Neither is restricting domestic exploration for energy.

Do you know how much our national defense relies on oil?

And?

And what? Is that a yes I do, so what, or is that a no?

 

[kaz]

Do you know how much our national defense relies on oil?

And?

And what? Is that a yes I do, so what, or is that a no?

And what is the relevance of the observation? What conclusion do you draw from that? Clearly we have enough domestic oil for defense, so what difference does your statement make? My questioned seemed perfectly clear the first time.

 

[BlindBoo]

And?

And what? Is that a yes I do, so what, or is that a no?

And what is the relevance of the observation? What conclusion do you draw from that? Clearly we have enough domestic oil for defense, so what difference does your statement make? My questioned seemed perfectly clear the first time.

That it is of such vital interest to the US that even lily livered, peacenik, appeaser President Jimmy Carter was willing to go to the mattresses over it.

 

[Freewill]

So if an American citizen was in Germany assisting the Germans in WWII, you'd expect us to convict them in an American court before trying to kill them?

Military court or special court, not just the CIA.

I think we're a victim of our own success. You're a good guy, freewill, but I think you've lost touch with the reality of the world we live in.

The reality is that the world is hating the US for what we have done. At least that is my opinion. You need to read an article on how they target suspected "terrorists." They pay someone a large sum of money, for them, to plant a tracking device on the car or location of the suspect. How else could they target someone? So that person doesn't like someone, let the US take them out. That may be what happened to the young 16 year old boy that the US killed, apparently, according to Gibbs, because he had a bad father. Which is one of the sickest things I ever heard to excuse a killing of an innocent boy.