Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

USA Politics - Hamster Wheel

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

USA Politics - Hamster Wheel

Old 22nd Jun 2014, 22:39
  #20141 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Holly Beach, Louisiana
Posts: 916
What Lois Lerner Thinks of Congress

Boudreaux Bob is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2014, 22:41
  #20142 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 55
Posts: 4,245
I liked the comment from one of the committees to the IRS head hincho the other day re the missing emails.

Along the lines of "No one believes you"
500N is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2014, 23:22
  #20143 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 665
I spilled my coffee on the keyboard when John Kerry came on the radio to say that he was going to Iraq only to help, but the US would never suggest who should lead Iraq. Is he really that thick, or is that he thinks the rest of the world is that thick?
Andu is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2014, 00:20
  #20144 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,510
Perhaps Susan Rice's speech writer was moonlighting for Kerry.

Does seem a rather daft statement.
West Coast is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2014, 00:29
  #20145 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 55
Posts: 4,245
"but the US would never suggest who should lead Iraq."

I didn't see that but I did see the headlines in the last day that said
that the US might be interested in a new Iraqi PM.


Which ever way the wind blows ..................
500N is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2014, 01:32
  #20146 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 809
I
didn't see that but I did see the headlines in the last day that said
that the US might be interested in a new Iraqi PM.
They have no say in who leads Iraqi, they had an election, who ever won gets to decide. All they have to decide is if they can deal with and to what lengths they will go to to help.

At the present rate though, the Clergy might well go, "well we can take the moral high ground and gave this democratic stuff a go, now its our turn".
rh200 is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2014, 03:57
  #20147 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 78
Posts: 4,580
Heard from more than one imam:
"Democracy is a streetcar you ride until reaching your destination; then you step off."
barit1 is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2014, 18:16
  #20148 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: USA
Age: 56
Posts: 664
So "the government" decides you, Mr. American citizen, are an "enemy" and legally kill you without due process.

Court releases memo justifying drone attacks on U.S. citizens | Reuters

The memo, prepared by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, says that because the U.S. government considered al Awlaki to be an "operational leader" of an "enemy force," it would be legal for the CIA to attack him with a drone "as part of the United States' ongoing non-international armed conflict with al Qaeda," even though he was a U.S. citizen.
An Administration can now decide an American citizen is "an enemy" and can kill him or her because it says so.

What could possibly go wrong?

Any analogies regarding the Department of Justice and BATFE and dead law enforcement agents, the Department of State and dead diplomats, or the IRS and thousands of Americans unduly and unethically, if not illegally, harassed is purely coincidental.

No crying when the next President, regardless of party, does it and takes it a step further.
brickhistory is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2014, 18:26
  #20149 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 55
Posts: 4,245
Did anyone see the article in the US where some law makers want to try to draw back some of the illegal power that Obama has ?

I only caught a glimpse of it and when I went back I couldn't find it.

It essentially was saying that Obama was over riding the constitution and
they wanted to use the law to bring him back to heel.
500N is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2014, 18:29
  #20150 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: USA
Age: 56
Posts: 664
Yes. George Will wrote an essay supporting some scholars' idea of taking a case to court.

The hurdles are numerous.

Right now, the only block is through the power of the purse, which Congress is not exercising, or impeachment which is pointless because to convict, 2/3 of the Senate must vote after the House has had an impeachment trial.

Not gonna happen.

Don't think the Framers envisioned a separate but equal branch of government, i.e., the Legislature, being so supine regarding the Executive.
brickhistory is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2014, 19:21
  #20151 (permalink)  

Aviator Extraordinaire
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 72
Posts: 2,394
So "the government" decides you, Mr. American citizen, are an "enemy" and legally kill you without due process.
It is going to be interesting to see what the court will finally rule. If the judge is a Democratic appointee, I think I know what the ruling will be and off to the Supreme Court.

Actually, either way I believe that this will end up with the Supreme Court, where it should be.
con-pilot is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2014, 22:13
  #20152 (permalink)  
Hardly Never Not Unwilling
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 481
While I understand and sympathize with the position that US citizens are entitled by the Constitution to due process, I have no problem with the targeting of US citizens who have taken up arms against the United States.

When the preponderance of evidence indicates an individual has taken up the Jihad banner, and his actions constitute a threat to the Republic, I think he is a legitimate target and fair game for liquidation. He has become a mortal enemy.

I realize the threat that one day such targeting could be used as justification to direct government power against domestic dissenters, I don't see that as a current threat - yet.
BenThere is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2014, 22:39
  #20153 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,510
Sorry Ben, we part ways there. There are lines that aren't meant to be crossed, this is one.

I shed no tears for those who are at the receiving end of a hellfire to be sure. I do shed a tear for the constitution as it's be chipped away at. Biden's words have been echoed elsewhere on PPRuNe today, this is a big F'in deal. If it becomes easy to kill US citizens minus due process, it worries me what other constitutional rights are only a Harvard lawyers interpretation away from not being as sacrosanct as once thought.
West Coast is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2014, 23:32
  #20154 (permalink)  

Aviator Extraordinaire
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 72
Posts: 2,394
Sorry Ben, we part ways there. There are lines that aren't meant to be crossed, this is one.
Sad to say Ben I agree with West on this.

We cannot kill American citizens, no matter where they are, just because a President thinks they are guilty of something.

Now that is a real red line that should never be crossed.

If they are engaged in active combat against US forces, or getting ready to commit a terrorist act such as setting off a bomb or hijack an aircraft, fine take them out.

But riding down a road with his son with him. No.
con-pilot is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2014, 23:41
  #20155 (permalink)  
Hardly Never Not Unwilling
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 481
If they are engaged in active combat against US forces, or getting ready to commit a terrorist act such as setting off a bomb or hijack an aircraft, fine take them out.
That's what I'm talking about. Those actively engaged in war against us deserve no Constitutional protections.
BenThere is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2014, 23:47
  #20156 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: USA
Age: 56
Posts: 664
I realize the threat that one day such targeting could be used as
justification to direct government power against domestic dissenters, I don't see that as a current threat - yet.
This is my point.

If Barry can decide to off an American on his say so (again, no tears shed over this dead traitor or if an American takes up arms against us and is killed in battle) in Yemen, what is to prevent him or a successor from edging the line a step closer to your "yet?"

Why can't the case be made for some lonely highway in New Mexico if the President decides someone is a threat?
Much easier to kill a 'terrorist' with a Hellfire than risk an arrest.

This is where "yet" is headed. If not by Barry, then by a successor.

The power and ability to kill Americans on his word alone is not something I want any President to have.
brickhistory is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2014, 23:59
  #20157 (permalink)  
Hardly Never Not Unwilling
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 481
So if BinLaden had been a US citizen you would have put him off limits to any sort of extra-judicial retribution?
BenThere is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2014, 00:06
  #20158 (permalink)  
Hardly Never Not Unwilling
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 481
They were a well-armed militia, Caco.
BenThere is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2014, 00:06
  #20159 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,510
That's what I'm talking about. Those actively engaged in war against us deserve no Constitutional protections.
Finger on trigger, yes. Dead.

Problem is we run into what the definition of is is as the government determines what is actively engaged or whatever their term is.
I have been heartened to see individuals quietly spirited out of Libya of late rather then summarily dealt with. If we can do that to them, we should afford a US citizen the same level of consideration.
West Coast is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2014, 00:08
  #20160 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,510
So if BinLaden had been a US citizen you would have put him off limits to any sort of extra-judicial retribution?
In a word, yes.
West Coast is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.