Voting is the best revenge! (Election results 2012)

[BobCox2]

I like this Guy


Wyden Statement on DOJ Memo on the Killing of Americans During Counterterrorism Operations

Tuesday, February 5, 2013 Washington, D.C. – US Senator Ron Wyden, a senior member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, made the following statement today regarding a Justice Department paper entitled “Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Against a U.S. Citizen Who Is a Senior Operational Leader of Al-Qa’ida or An Associated Force” which was made public yesterday by NBC News:
“As I and ten other senators told the President yesterday, if individual Americans choose to take up arms against the United States, there will clearly be some circumstances in which the President has the authority to use lethal force against those Americans, just as President Lincoln had the authority to use force against the Confederate Army during the Civil War. At the same time, it is vitally important for Congress and the American public to have a full understanding of how the executive branch interprets this authority, so that Congress and the public can decide whether the President’s power to deliberately kill American citizens is subject to appropriate limitations and safeguards. Every American has the right to know when their government believes that it is allowed to kill them.
“The Justice Department memo that was made public yesterday touches on a number of important issues, but it leaves many of the most important questions about the President’s lethal authorities unanswered. Questions like ‘how much evidence does the President need to decide that a particular American is part of a terrorist group?’, ‘does the President have to provide individual Americans with the opportunity to surrender?’ and ‘can the President order intelligence agencies or the military to kill an American who is inside the United States?’ need to be asked and answered in a way that is consistent with American laws and American values. This memo does not answer these questions.
“I will continue to press the Administration to provide Congress with any and all legal opinions that outline the President’s authority to use lethal force against Americans, and I will not be satisfied until I have received them. I have not yet received an official response to the letter than I sent to Deputy National Security Advisor Brennan on this topic three weeks ago, but I look forward to raising the issue with him again at his nomination hearing this Thursday.”
The letter that Senator Wyden and ten other Senators sent to President Obama regarding these legal opinions can be found here. The letter that Senator Wyden sent to Deputy National Security Advisor Brennan, which includes detailed questions about the President’s lethal authorities, can be found here. And the letter that Senator Wyden sent to Attorney General Holder on this topic can be found here.

[SaroDarksbane]

I'm actually from Oregon (the southern, redneck part), and people could do a lot worse than having Wyden as a senator.

[BobCox2]

I'm actually from Oregon (the southern, redneck part), and people could do a lot worse than having Wyden as a senator.

That's weak.

[jmervyn]

I'm actually from Oregon (the southern, redneck part), and people could do a lot worse than having Wyden as a senator.

That's weak.

Agreed. The "Southern, Redneck part" of Oregon is what's normally known as Northern California.


So, aside from the deafening chirping of crickets, has anyone heard the mainstream Left condemning Obama's approval both of "indefinite detention without trial" (particularly for those nasty whistle-blower types) and now "oops I blew you away" for American citizenry - and their families?

There is a darkly comic aspect to this, I suppose: Here's a president who once taught classes in constitutional law and swore up and down that America doesn't torture, that he was against "dumb wars" waged by his predecessors, that he was more transparent than a glass of triple-filtered water, and who won a goddamned Nobel Peace Prize! And he turns out to be not just a little iffy when it comes to being constrained in his willingness to break all sorts of rules but downright godawful.

[SaroDarksbane]

So, aside from the deafening chirping of crickets, has anyone heard the mainstream Left condemning Obama's approval both of "indefinite detention without trial" (particularly for those nasty whistle-blower types) and now "oops I blew you away" for American citizenry - and their families?

Didn't you get the memo? The left is required to believe that all the things they hated about Bush are okey-dokey when a democrat is in office, and the right is required to believe that everything Bush did that they defended when he was in office are now part of a giant conspiracy to drag the US into a fascist dictatorship.

When the next Republican gets elected, they'll all switch sides like the lemmings they are. The anti-war protesters will be back out in force, and the Republicans will be molesting children in airport security lines "for freedom".

'Murrica.

[jmervyn]

Didn't you get the memo? The left is required to believe that all the things they hated about Bush are okey-dokey when a democrat is in office, and the right is required to believe that everything Bush did that they defended when he was in office are now part of a giant conspiracy to drag the US into a fascist dictatorship.

That's why I was asking the OTF - it helps map who's who and reveals any targets who haven't been brainwashed either way yet.

When the next Republican gets elected, they'll all switch sides like the lemmings they are. The anti-war protesters will be back out in force, and the Republicans will be molesting children in airport security lines "for freedom".

'Murrica.

You still lack realism. P.J. O'Rourke said it best, and I know I'm repeating myself:

"The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it."

EDIT - mind you, I don't underestimate the iniquity of the GOP core any longer, particularly after the dick move at the convention against the TEA party, maneuvers against conservatives like Allen West, and Rove's new PAC. Just that I incorrectly assumed they would have been in remission like the cancer they are.

I will admit I'm shamed to say that back after 9/11 I once thought, 'hey, maybe bringing all these mis-managed agencies into the Dept. of Homeland Security will fix them!' Said it on these forums, even.

[Stevinator]

So, aside from the deafening chirping of crickets, has anyone heard the mainstream Left condemning Obama's approval both of "indefinite detention without trial" (particularly for those nasty whistle-blower types) and now "oops I blew you away" for American citizenry - and their families?

I'll join that rant. I understand the necessities of war, but the president should not be able to go around killing whatever American Citizens they want without at least giving them an opportunity to surrender themselves and face the charges, and their accusers, and whatever evidence may be available (even if they never would surrender, they should have the opportunity). That simply not possible if the kill list is secret. It's a violation of due process, and you can't just send the white house lawyer out and say, well, but we wanted to. What's to stop them from killing any of the rest of us if the whole thing is covert.

Plus, the war on terror is no more a war than the war on drugs. I know that's a bit of an pivot on my part, but I didn't think we'd see the war powers expanding in 2013 back in 2001.


And lastly, I'm concerned about the use of drones, because it takes the person pulling the trigger away. Now the "trigger" is pulled by some bureaucrat at a desk somewhere. It's frightening. it seems like I was just *****ing about red light cameras, and now the robots are killing people. There's no one left to say, hey, this is an unlawful order.


Granted, the guy may very well have been guilty (and who knows for the son), but that's not really the point is it? We'll never know if he was if the evidence is secret and the sentence was secret.



Anyway, the other post is too long, and i need to sleep, but *** wedding cake !=state recognition of *** marriage. Even without legal acceptance of marriage, that lawsuit could still have come forward from a *** wedding ceremony that would not have been legally recognized. Gays always could have the ceremony, I'm saying there's no legal difference in recognizing *** marriage. The issues are separate, and you're purposefully conflating them.

[jmervyn]

It's a violation of due process, and you can't just send the white house lawyer out and say, well, but we wanted to. What's to stop them from killing any of the rest of us if the whole thing is covert.

You need to look over that last link in particular. As far as Gibbs' excuses for THE WON go, if Obama (and now we know that extends to undefined senior officials' level) thinks you have anything to do with a "terrorist", including the grave offense of being related to them, you're fair game.

To be clear, I'm quite an advocate of assassination. I think we need more of it, not less; as far as I'm concerned we ought to be vaporizing Hamas sub-humans on the balconies they're preaching Islamism from. That's not what is being discussed here; we're talking about the open hypocrisy of claiming we don't assassinate (Executive Order 12333) when we obviously do.

And lastly, I'm concerned about the use of drones, because it takes the person pulling the trigger away. Now the "trigger" is pulled by some bureaucrat at a desk somewhere. It's frightening. it seems like I was just *****ing about red light cameras, and now the robots are killing people. There's no one left to say, hey, this is an unlawful order.

So if we drip water on their head from a drone, is it legal?

The issues are separate, and you're purposefully conflating them.

Drivel from you remains drivel. Making queer marriage a protected class obviously allows lawsuits just like this to be brought - WHICH IS THE WHOLE FECKING POINT OF THE CAMPAIGN.

[Stevinator]

You need to look over that last link in particular. As far as Gibbs' excuses for THE WON go, if Obama (and now we know that extends to undefined senior officials' level) thinks you have anything to do with a "terrorist", including the grave offense of being related to them, you're fair game.

To be clear, I'm quite an advocate of assassination. I think we need more of it, not less; as far as I'm concerned we ought to be vaporizing Hamas sub-humans on the balconies they're preaching Islamism from. That's not what is being discussed here; we're talking about the open hypocrisy of claiming we don't assassinate (Executive Order 12333) when we obviously do.
So if we drip water on their head from a drone, is it legal?

It's about the transparency of it and that as American Citizens, we should have certain protections. Assassinating a foreign leader should be allowed if we've declared war.

Even killing an american who happened to be fighting along with a declared enemy is legal.

What's not legal is making a secret list that contains american citizens, and then secretly killing them and asking other countries to say it was them. The fact that we used a drone is really a side issue. I think using robots as police is scary.

Drivel from you remains drivel. Making queer marriage a protected class obviously allows lawsuits just like this to be brought - WHICH IS THE WHOLE FECKING POINT OF THE CAMPAIGN.

I don't want a separate class, i want *** marriage to be the same as straight marriage. Sexual orientation discrimination lawsuits would have nothing to do with that.

"Queer marriage" is not a protected class. The individuals involved are homosexuals, which is a protected class, whether they are married or not. If it was a birthday cake instead of a wedding cake, the lawsuit would still exist. If you fire someone because they are ***, it doesn't matter if they're married or not, they can sue you either way. Two separate issues. Two separate things.

One day i'd like to think we could drop protected classes entirely.

[jmervyn]

It's about the transparency of it and that as American Citizens, we should have certain protections. Assassinating a foreign leader should be allowed if we've declared war.

As it stands, I believe you have it precisely the wrong way.

I don't want a separate class, i want *** marriage to be the same as straight marriage.

Except that it is not and never will be. Queer couples can't have children - perhaps you ought to re-take your biology class. Marriage is the thousands-of-year-old social and religious construct for A) nurturing, raising, and protecting children that are its purpose, and B) acting in lieu of legal documentation for the passing of inheritance. In both cases there are alternate methods freely available, and you already decided those have to do with the insanity of religious people rather than the fact that you hate religious concepts because of the guilt you secretly harbor.

Sexual orientation discrimination lawsuits would have nothing to do with that.

You spew so much bullcrap I'm surprised your skin doesn't turn brown. {waits for racist sneer}

"Queer marriage" is not a protected class.

That's precisely what it is (that is, "queer marriage" is an attempt to define a protected class which does not exist).

The individuals involved are homosexuals, which is a protected class, whether they are married or not.

Homosexuals are not a protected class. This is part of the all-fronts effort to fabricate that status.

If it was a birthday cake instead of a wedding cake, the lawsuit would still exist. If you fire someone because they are ***, it doesn't matter if they're married or not, they can sue you either way.

False again. It is only because of stupidity such as that you espouse that these lawsuits are being entertained. If I protested someone refusing to bake me a Christian cake, you'd cheer the baker and probably raise funds for his legal fees. Your bigotry and hatred rankles.

One day i'd like to think we could drop protected classes entirely.

YOU'RE ONE OF THE GREATEST ADVOCATES, YOU FECKIN' HYPOCRITE!