General Discussion

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)

69. What a steaming load of apologist bullshit.

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 01:30 PM

Mar 2013

Sitting here arguing that the President should have the right to murder Americans in our own country without due process.

It is beyond putrid and disgusting and offensive that this OP even stands at what is supposed to be a democratic website.

This is what this country has become, when corporations own our government and our media and have their ugly, slimy tentacles of propaganda everywhere around us, down to discussion boards on the internet. Portraying any of this as even remotely constitutional, and pretending that reasonable people can have reasonable arguments about whether the President should have the right to murder any of us is pure fascist propaganda, and it should have no place whatsoever on DU.

What utter, steaming, reeking indefensible BULLSHIT.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

74 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Eric Holder states obvious, Rand Paul uses it to troll gullible liberals [View all] geek tragedy Mar 2013 OP

The problem is the openness of interpretation of "extraordinary circumstances" napoleon_in_rags Mar 2013 #1

That power has always been there. You can't have an interpretation geek tragedy Mar 2013 #2

I made this post a few minutes before you posted: napoleon_in_rags Mar 2013 #8

I think that is the key. We the people are supposed to screen the crazies out. Not elect them. stevenleser Mar 2013 #9

Yep. If there's a military, the power to abuse it exists. geek tragedy Mar 2013 #10

He didn't say that though, did he? He didn't say "We've always had the authority to kill people HiPointDem Mar 2013 #12

He wasn't asked about "preemptive targeted assassination." geek tragedy Mar 2013 #15

That's not the only problem. The language of that letter is not specific enough to rule out HiPointDem Mar 2013 #11

How many hypotheticals was he supposed to run through? geek tragedy Mar 2013 #13

I read his first paragraph, thanks. HiPointDem Mar 2013 #14

perhaps he should have simply ruled out preemptive assassination, period. much clearer and to the HiPointDem Mar 2013 #17

Problem is, that wasn't the question that was asked. geek tragedy Mar 2013 #20

It's the context of Paul's question, as the US is presently doing targeted, preemptive HiPointDem Mar 2013 #24

"Overseas" is an important distiction jeff47 Mar 2013 #31

I think it makes for a political trap. napoleon_in_rags Mar 2013 #18

no president has ever had any trouble 'acting in an actual catastrophe' & little trouble making HiPointDem Mar 2013 #22

That danger has existed since 1789. geek tragedy Mar 2013 #57

Holder's statement does not rule out preemptive assassinations of americans in the US. That's HiPointDem Mar 2013 #61

So by not saying something he said the opposite? Nt geek tragedy Mar 2013 #62

If your aim is to rule something out categorically, you do that. If your aim is to leave the door HiPointDem Mar 2013 #63

His intent was to say as little as possible. geek tragedy Mar 2013 #64

It's what the Pauls do: ProSense Mar 2013 #3

What kind of range do drones have? NightWatcher Mar 2013 #4

The question was more general--whether the President had the authority geek tragedy Mar 2013 #6

The question isn't just about drones jeff47 Mar 2013 #26

Hell, GWB could have order military jet fighters to shoot down the planes that flew into the WTC. Lint Head Mar 2013 #5

Exactly. Paul's question was idiotic. nt geek tragedy Mar 2013 #7

yes; but could he have ordered drones to kill the 911 plotters before the fact is actually the HiPointDem Mar 2013 #19

No, that's not the question. That's not what Paul geek tragedy Mar 2013 #21

that's the context of paul's question, as the US is presently using preemptive drone strikes against HiPointDem Mar 2013 #23

That wasn't Paul's question. Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer. geek tragedy Mar 2013 #25

= 'we reject the use of force -- in cases where law enforcement is the best means to stop a HiPointDem Mar 2013 #27

Yes, in the circumstances of an attack, not to preempt an attack. geek tragedy Mar 2013 #32

'force necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances of an attack' can = forestalling HiPointDem Mar 2013 #35

Except for the part where they said that they explicitly reject the use geek tragedy Mar 2013 #41

except they *didn't* say that; they left the door open for droning. HiPointDem Mar 2013 #42

You told me you read this part: geek tragedy Mar 2013 #46

Holder wrote an intelligent response to an idiot. ProSense Mar 2013 #29

And "overseas" is a very important distinction jeff47 Mar 2013 #28

it's not a very important distinction at all. do you have a problem with the fact that no russian HiPointDem Mar 2013 #30

It is important because it limits the options of the President. jeff47 Mar 2013 #36

are we at war against yemen? HiPointDem Mar 2013 #38

We're at war with the Al Queda aligned groups in Yemen. jeff47 Mar 2013 #39

Are we at war with YEMEN? You required a declaration of war for the russians to drone us. HiPointDem Mar 2013 #40

If the Russians were at war with the NRA, jeff47 Mar 2013 #43

and how about if the russians declared war against the aspca? or the naacp? how would you HiPointDem Mar 2013 #44

It's legal. It doesn't matter if I like it or not. jeff47 Mar 2013 #47

Really? Because those words aren't anywhere in the letter Rand Paul wrote onenote Mar 2013 #33

other words that are not in the letter = a categorical refusal of the right to do preemptive strikes HiPointDem Mar 2013 #34

Then Rand Paul should have asked if the President had the authority geek tragedy Mar 2013 #49

You are correct in that Holder did not answer the geek tragedy Mar 2013 #50

Why haven't you accepted Rand Paul into your heart? Robb Mar 2013 #16

!!! Tarheel_Dem Mar 2013 #37

K&R!!! freshwest Mar 2013 #56

Because a drone strike against American citizens would have thwarted Pearl Harbor. WilliamPitt Mar 2013 #45

Perhaps you should re-read Paul's question. geek tragedy Mar 2013 #48

This message was self-deleted by its author Purveyor Mar 2013 #51

+1 EOM Purveyor Mar 2013 #52

Headlines-Eric Holder for US Supreme Court. Simply the best. Rand Paul indicted for treason. graham4anything Mar 2013 #53

Just what we need on the court another corporate sell out n/t dflprincess Mar 2013 #55

My only worries about the drone program is making sure... Comrade_McKenzie Mar 2013 #73

Fuck Paul. Fuck drones. Fuck Holder. think Mar 2013 #54

+1 forestpath Mar 2013 #58

Agreed. davidthegnome Mar 2013 #65

As you may have guessed think Mar 2013 #66

Not offended at all. davidthegnome Mar 2013 #67

Finally a post that makes sense. Bluenorthwest Mar 2013 #68

"Like." hay rick Mar 2013 #59

He states that prevention of terrorist attacks within the US is the job of law geek tragedy Mar 2013 #60

What a steaming load of apologist bullshit. woo me with science Mar 2013 #69

Lying about what I wrote and then piling on with insults geek tragedy Mar 2013 #70

You seem to have a problem with being a Democrat... Comrade_McKenzie Mar 2013 #72

For anyone siding with REPUBLICAN Rand Paul, I suggest this: Comrade_McKenzie Mar 2013 #71

Oh for fuck's sake. woo me with science Mar 2013 #74