General Discussion

Raggaemon

(70 posts)

15. From a 60's liberal, I never thought I'd say this ....

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 03:16 PM

Feb 2013

Wonder WHY republicans get away with portraying democrats as weak on national defense ? Here we go again getting bogged down in the "nuances" and complexities of issues with no simple answers, but hearing people like Rachel Maddow who I am a huge fan of, arguing in defense against "Americans" being targeted for killing. How is it possible to get these people and bring them to trail ? convicting them in abstentia ? OK, but who goes to handcuff them ? It's not like sending police officers after suspects, these people plot then hide amongst civilians. Unless everyone forgot those "presidential daily briefings" that warned of an immenent attack on American soil where the Bush administration took no actions, what's the Obama administration supposed to do ? There is no margin for error for this man, ANY attack on our soil or even attacks like the incident in Benghazi ( and we see what happened there ) gives rise to the GOP playing the IMPEACHMENT card.

So ... what would YOU do if you were the president and YOU were told that the intel community has active information on people gathering to plot an attack on the United States ? Would YOU feel comfortable parsing over defintions ?

NO, I do not believing that war is the answer, I do not agree that drone warfare is humane, but what's humane about the challenge of protecting this country from people who's goal is killing Americans, sending troops any better ?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

109 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Rude Pundit: Things in the Memo on the Killing of Americans ... [View all] meegbear Feb 2013 OP

K&R LiberalEsto Feb 2013 #1

SIGH n/t hootinholler Feb 2013 #2

"The fact that a Democrat is president does not change that." Hell Hath No Fury Feb 2013 #3

Is it unquestionably OK, as seems, if we're Ghost Dog Feb 2013 #90

It's called paranoia. It's an illness, and it seems to have infected our government. JDPriestly Feb 2013 #4

Obama's definition of "Stand Your Ground" National Level KakistocracyHater Feb 2013 #57

I think it's called "empire", actually. Marr Feb 2013 #61

yeah & the U.S. is tracking close to the British Empire KakistocracyHater Feb 2013 #82

Add to this the "austerity" con being played Vinnie From Indy Feb 2013 #5

Wrong is wrong lark Feb 2013 #6

a sad and disgusted K & R...... dhill926 Feb 2013 #7

Re: Number 6 - colorado_ufo Feb 2013 #8

K&R Solly Mack Feb 2013 #9

Sadly Kpete, dotymed Feb 2013 #10

This is a topic for which the Rude Pundit's style is totally appropriate. Comrade Grumpy Feb 2013 #11

I almost didn't read this excellent post by "RP" because they are KoKo Feb 2013 #49

Were Duer 157099 Feb 2013 #12

Yeah caraher Feb 2013 #71

As a commentator . . . another_liberal Feb 2013 #13

RE: As a commentator Raggaemon Feb 2013 #18

There are laws . . . another_liberal Feb 2013 #41

don't worry, the Patriot Act is now being used against KakistocracyHater Feb 2013 #59

Scary as hell. another_liberal Feb 2013 #63

when they get away with certain things they push KakistocracyHater Feb 2013 #81

At what point Deny and Shred Feb 2013 #85

RE: There are laws ... Raggaemon Feb 2013 #107

"...and then something happens, an attack here or there ?" Volaris Feb 2013 #64

Well, that's right--if Americans in this country were actively engaged in a terror plot, and could msanthrope Feb 2013 #24

Who decides . . . another_liberal Feb 2013 #43

The Executive Branch does. A Judge would defer, citing fugitive status. nt msanthrope Feb 2013 #69

So . . . another_liberal Feb 2013 #87

No--but you have no 4th amendment rights if you are a non-custodial enemy combatant. nt msanthrope Feb 2013 #89

I think the law . . . another_liberal Feb 2013 #93

Certainly a non-custodial enemy combatant has rights. Just not under the 4th. nt msanthrope Feb 2013 #94

And who has the power . . . another_liberal Feb 2013 #95

The CIC does. Take it up with the Founders. nt msanthrope Feb 2013 #97

Where is that in the Condtitution . . . another_liberal Feb 2013 #98

Yes. The AUMF of 9/18/2001 authorizes the President to kill Al Qaeda msanthrope Feb 2013 #100

So, . . . another_liberal Feb 2013 #103

Read the AUMF. It doesn't specify Afghanistan. msanthrope Feb 2013 #104

"Antiquated concept or not, any non-State armed organization . . . another_liberal Feb 2013 #105

You forget your American history. The Barbary pirates were not a nation state msanthrope Feb 2013 #106

I disagree . . . another_liberal Feb 2013 #108

Over 1300 dead Americans since Sandy Hook! SCVDem Feb 2013 #14

Massacres perpetrated by domestic right-wing extremists who have been incited to acting out their indepat Feb 2013 #50

Difference Democracyinkind Feb 2013 #101

From a 60's liberal, I never thought I'd say this .... Raggaemon Feb 2013 #15

How do you know they deserve to be killed? Since when is a President KoKo Feb 2013 #34

We invaded two countries over this quaker bill Feb 2013 #54

The redefinition of the word "imminent" is important here. TroglodyteScholar Feb 2013 #37

Dems get called that because they WON WW2 & GOP KakistocracyHater Feb 2013 #60

Given that FBI agents were rooming with a couple of the 9/11 hijackers at one point-- eridani Feb 2013 #72

Welcome to our brave new land. You write shit on a memo Catherina Feb 2013 #16

@Catherina Raggaemon Feb 2013 #20

LMAO. Nice avatar. Surprised it's not a Che avatar. n/t Catherina Feb 2013 #32

Stop It Now! He Is A 60's Liberal BLAH BLAH BLAH See His Other Post HangOnKids Feb 2013 #35

Slap a D after the name to push the most rightwing, extremist agendas Catherina Feb 2013 #55

same ones who do 'rendition', seems to work just fine KakistocracyHater Feb 2013 #62

Yet the things we WANT Obama to do he can't because "the President doesn't have that much power" FiveGoodMen Feb 2013 #77

There is of course some awkwardness in the legal language that is ripe for lambast... ellisonz Feb 2013 #17

We might be only two posters in this thread that have read the memo. msanthrope Feb 2013 #21

I hope others will find the time to read it in full. ellisonz Feb 2013 #26

Greenwald will post, thus saving many from actually having to read what they are outraged over. msanthrope Feb 2013 #28

That's my suspicion too - the Courts won't want to touch it. ellisonz Feb 2013 #30

I'm sure we will see some ACLU and CCR litigation, as we should. msanthrope Feb 2013 #31

This message was self-deleted by its author amandabeech Feb 2013 #86

ellisonz ......For YOU! More Data...if you choose to read it... KoKo Feb 2013 #42

I think there are political, moral, and strategic arguments that can be made against the policy... ellisonz Feb 2013 #83

I'm sorry but I'm not concerned over this. gholtron Feb 2013 #19

You should be concerned as an American Citizen about Rule of Law... KoKo Feb 2013 #44

It still does not change my mind. gholtron Feb 2013 #45

If you read it...then I would expect to see your "personal" counter KoKo Feb 2013 #47

Post removed Post removed Feb 2013 #67

This is what the Constitution says about Treason gholtron Feb 2013 #74

You seem to ignore the "convicted" and "open court" parts Fiendish Thingy Feb 2013 #92

Evidence they chose to align with anyone? This isn't one person but rather policy. TheKentuckian Feb 2013 #48

I disagree gholtron Feb 2013 #65

You want evidence Well gholtron Feb 2013 #70

The list is a secret, you have no evidence. The process is secret and unsupervised, you have no TheKentuckian Feb 2013 #102

Won't someone PLEASE think of the terrorists! sagat Feb 2013 #22

Do you mean . . . another_liberal Feb 2013 #96

Somehow this MUST be the fault of the Republicans in Congress. Luminous Animal Feb 2013 #23

1. The Rude Pundit can call the police on his neighbor if he feels that they are a threat Freddie Stubbs Feb 2013 #25

Glenn Greenwald, "Expanding the concept of "imminence" beyond recognition" Luminous Animal Feb 2013 #27

If that's what Greenwald is decrying, the he knows he doesn't have a legal msanthrope Feb 2013 #29

That was a very good read. n/t KoKo Feb 2013 #33

This should be an OP. nt woo me with science Feb 2013 #38

Should we howl in anger at what the FBI did in Alabama? ieoeja Feb 2013 #36

You cannot be a fugitive beyond justice when you aren't indicted or charged TheKentuckian Feb 2013 #52

Another Sad and Disgusted K&R n/t Egalitarian Thug Feb 2013 #39

I know...it's another sad and disgusted k&R here, too.... KoKo Feb 2013 #40

+1 And another...and another...and another... woo me with science Feb 2013 #51

Another disgusted and angry K&R n/t Catherina Feb 2013 #56

Other than those right-wingy thingys, I love virtually everything our President has indepat Feb 2013 #46

The Right's fear of governmental tyranny seems justified at the moment. Jeevus Feb 2013 #53

What kind of asshole thinks this is ok??? whatchamacallit Feb 2013 #58

"What kind of asshole thinks this is ok???" OnyxCollie Feb 2013 #75

Hey, he's got a Nobel Peace Prize. It's all good. jsr Feb 2013 #66

I voted for President Obama twice and gave his 2012 campaign money.... steve2470 Feb 2013 #68

I'm with you on that Puzzledtraveller Feb 2013 #91

The difficulty Willendorf Feb 2013 #73

k/r 840high Feb 2013 #76

DURec leftstreet Feb 2013 #78

well I be "drone'd "... dtom67 Feb 2013 #79

I'm guessing, I'm hoping adieu Feb 2013 #80

"imminent threat". Didn't W use that phrase a lot? n/t Fire Walk With Me Feb 2013 #84

Funny how the folks who protested this long ago malthaussen Feb 2013 #88

Says who? treestar Feb 2013 #99

kick woo me with science Feb 2013 #109