Honestly folks how did we let this happen?

[BlindBoo]

Are you saying he was targeted like his traitorous father was? The ground we are standing on is that the drone war in Yemen is a continuing operation against al Qaeda and it's affiliates. It is completely authorized by Congress.

Are you saying that his assassination is warranted because congress said it's ok to arbitrarily pick American citizens or foreigners as targets to combat terrorism? Should anyone be held accountable for the death of this American citizen?

And congress doesn't get to skirt international law and give the prez assassination powers ina country we are not at war with. This rule by men shit is the problem. We've abandoned the rule of law in favor of the rule of elitist men. And apparently a lot of you are OK with that.

Is it interesting the reaction to the Russian and Crimea. They must stop yet we bomb at the will of the CIA.

Wait, wasn't the topic the NSA, Drone Warfare and EO's?

Pole Vaulting?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

What difference, at this point, does it make? You're completely fine with the assassination of american citizens based on arbitrary designation without trial. So we may as well move on to other areas where you can show the hypocrisy.

But the Bush war was just simply wrong right? Even though congress voted for it?

 

[bendog]

Well, if an American citizen puts himself in a geographic location where it is impossible to obtain physical custody of him, and thereby give him due process via a court by attempting to prove he has committed crimes endangering American lives, does he just get a free pass? I'd agree if we proposed there should be some process in which a non-political appointee, such as a criminal court, made some finding that the individual could either choose to present himself for trial or suffer extra-judicial consequenses, i.e. a drone.

 

[kaz]

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?

It could be argued that the Great American Experiment worked too well, that capitalism has worked too well. We've become fat, lazy and happy, more interested in "selfies" and Kim Kardashian than in maintaining excellence. We've dropped our guard, we've dropped our standards, we just don't care what's going on outside our little personal bubbles.

So we let our "leaders" get away with shit like this. Who cares? What really matters is that I get that new iPhone.

.

If capitalism worked, there wouldn't be a $17 trillion national debt. The failure of humanity is faith in money.

So government running up $17 trillion in debt proves to you that ... capitalism ... doesn't work. So does your credit card balance prove to you that your employer doesn't pay you enough?

 

[kaz]

What difference, at this point, does it make? You're completely fine with the assassination of american citizens based on arbitrary designation without trial. So we may as well move on to other areas where you can show the hypocrisy.

But the Bush war was just simply wrong right? Even though congress voted for it?

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.

 

[BlindBoo]

What difference, at this point, does it make? You're completely fine with the assassination of american citizens based on arbitrary designation without trial. So we may as well move on to other areas where you can show the hypocrisy.

But the Bush war was just simply wrong right? Even though congress voted for it?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk]You keep using that word. - YouTube[/ame]

ar·bi·trary
adjective \ˈär-bə-ˌtrer-ē, -ˌtre-rē\
: not planned or chosen for a particular reason : not based on reason or evidence
: done without concern for what is fair or right

I supported President Bush and the effort to kill or capture those responsible for the attack on 9-11.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

not based on reason or evidence

Dullard.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

What difference, at this point, does it make? You're completely fine with the assassination of american citizens based on arbitrary designation without trial. So we may as well move on to other areas where you can show the hypocrisy.

But the Bush war was just simply wrong right? Even though congress voted for it?

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.

We're pretty f'in far past deciding whether or not the wars are constitutional. Now we've also moved on to arbitrarily, evidence free, as evidence is used in courts, not assassination lists, whether its OK to kill them based on whims, not the law.

 

[BlindBoo]

What difference, at this point, does it make? You're completely fine with the assassination of american citizens based on arbitrary designation without trial. So we may as well move on to other areas where you can show the hypocrisy.

But the Bush war was just simply wrong right? Even though congress voted for it?

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

 

[bendog]

What difference, at this point, does it make? You're completely fine with the assassination of american citizens based on arbitrary designation without trial. So we may as well move on to other areas where you can show the hypocrisy.

But the Bush war was just simply wrong right? Even though congress voted for it?

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.

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.

 

[BlindBoo]

not based on reason or evidence

Dullard.

So you're okay with Americans joining al Qaeda, helping to plot the killing of other Americans wherever and whenever they can huh?

You hate President Obama that much?

Or you just going to stick with(perhaps double down on) your arbitrary nonsense?

 

[Knowit]

The two party dictators are not for the people and haven't been for 100 years and still the American people won't vote third party.

VOTE THIRD PARTY !

 

[Freewill]

not based on reason or evidence

Dullard.

So you're okay with Americans joining al Qaeda, helping to plot the killing of other Americans wherever and whenever they can huh?

You hate President Obama that much?

Or you just going to stick with(perhaps double down on) your arbitrary nonsense?

No, we are not secure with the CIA being judge, jury and executioner.

 

[Sherry]

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?

If you would have told me 10 years ago that liberals would stand for such things under any admin, I would not have thought it possible...I truly believed that those were unwavering principles that transcended political affiliation.

 

[Freewill]

Well, if an American citizen puts himself in a geographic location where it is impossible to obtain physical custody of him, and thereby give him due process via a court by attempting to prove he has committed crimes endangering American lives, does he just get a free pass? I'd agree if we proposed there should be some process in which a non-political appointee, such as a criminal court, made some finding that the individual could either choose to present himself for trial or suffer extra-judicial consequenses, i.e. a drone.

Fine then. Have at least a trial in abstentia not let Just the CIA pick and choose. But then again we are the most powerful so if they can't stop us tough.

 

[kaz]

What difference, at this point, does it make? You're completely fine with the assassination of american citizens based on arbitrary designation without trial. So we may as well move on to other areas where you can show the hypocrisy.

But the Bush war was just simply wrong right? Even though congress voted for it?

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.

 

[kaz]

What difference, at this point, does it make? You're completely fine with the assassination of american citizens based on arbitrary designation without trial. So we may as well move on to other areas where you can show the hypocrisy.

But the Bush war was just simply wrong right? Even though congress voted for it?

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.

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?

 

[Mojo2]

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 can your question be answered without citing who is doing it now?

We have been telling you since 2007 that this guy was going to be a problem.

Your failure to listen and pay attention is how we got here.

IRVING KRISTOL: If you had asked any liberal in 1960, we are going to pass these laws, these laws, these laws, and these laws, mentioning all the laws that in fact were passed in the 1960s and ‘70s, would you say crime will go up, drug addiction will go up, illegitimacy will go up, or will they get down?

Obviously, everyone would have said, they will get down. And everyone would have been wrong.

Now, that’s not something that the liberals have been able to face up to.

They’ve had their reforms, and they have led to consequences that they did not expect and they don’t know what to do about.

Silt 3.0: Baby It's Cold Outside (first half)

Liberals simply can't be allowed the reins of power.

This always happens to a greater or lesser degree.

 

[MikeK]

If capitalism worked, there wouldn't be a $17 trillion national debt. The failure of humanity is faith in money.

Capitalism works -- but only when controlled by socialist regulations such as those put in place during FDR's administration. Our cyclical economy was healthy until the Reagan Administration commenced the progression of deregulation which continued through the Clinton and Bush administrations.

All that is needed to repair the damage is replace the controls which have been removed, beginning with the 91% progressive tax rate, off-shore banking restrictions, import tariffs, and savings bank regulations. And it is important to commence serious prosecutions on Wall Street to let those bandits know the party is over.

Jeebus this is compound stupidity.

Is a moronic insult your best effort? Nothing more specific and substantive than that?

 

[kaz]

What difference, at this point, does it make? You're completely fine with the assassination of american citizens based on arbitrary designation without trial. So we may as well move on to other areas where you can show the hypocrisy.

But the Bush war was just simply wrong right? Even though congress voted for it?

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.

We're pretty f'in far past deciding whether or not the wars are constitutional. Now we've also moved on to arbitrarily, evidence free, as evidence is used in courts, not assassination lists, whether its OK to kill them based on whims, not the law.

I understand what you're saying, but it seems hard to separate since it's still fruit of the poisoned tree. How can you validate killing an American in an invalid war? I have a hard time making that distinction.