General Discussion

Rex

(65,616 posts)

27. No he can't, sounds like some BS from commondreams.org

Reply to xchrom (Original post)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 02:20 PM

Mar 2013

nt.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

97 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Holder: Obama Can Target US Citizens on US Soil for Killing [View all] xchrom Mar 2013 OP

That whole... 99Forever Mar 2013 #1

Farewell, Due Process. We are going to miss you. dixiegrrrrl Mar 2013 #2

"I want you to know this administration is totally committed to protecting the people." jsr Mar 2013 #6

".... the people of the 1%" dixiegrrrrl Mar 2013 #25

If you actually read the letter, Holder doesn't say anything controversial. geek tragedy Mar 2013 #3

Are you saying mzmolly Mar 2013 #16

How about not reading stuff into the letter that wasn't there? Bake Mar 2013 #18

Think, read, think, then react. geek tragedy Mar 2013 #21

So what's wrong with stating unequivocally where the boundaries to lethal force lie? Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2013 #34

Because in the real world it's not plausible to state geek tragedy Mar 2013 #40

"The US military will not be used on US soil against its citizens Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2013 #43

The 9/11 attacks were not a general insurrection. geek tragedy Mar 2013 #45

False analogy. Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2013 #51

You just changed your own rule. geek tragedy Mar 2013 #53

When have riots been judged as un unlawful use of military force? Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2013 #54

They are law enforcement situations, not military ones. geek tragedy Mar 2013 #55

Actually, the topic of discussion is Holder's broad response to Paul's broad question onenote Mar 2013 #56

so you would oppose the use of the military to stop a RW domestic terror group onenote Mar 2013 #46

Is that what Awlaki was doing? Or his 16-year old son during a separate, dedicated drone strike? Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2013 #52

Why is that "presumably" what the article is referring to. Its not the topic of Paul's inquiry onenote Mar 2013 #58

So in other words -- we're at the mercy of our masters without due process or judicial review Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2013 #60

You've conceded that we're at the "mercy of our masters" without due process onenote Mar 2013 #65

Because unless you have a crystal ball you can't possibly foresee every onenote Mar 2013 #44

david koresh? waco 1993 spanone Mar 2013 #4

Unrec. More anti-Obama spin and BS from common dreams. FSogol Mar 2013 #5

How about Jonathan Turley's view on the subject, then? dixiegrrrrl Mar 2013 #7

Just curious, but why should we care about Turley's views on this or any other issue? nt. OldDem2012 Mar 2013 #47

+ struggle4progress Mar 2013 #57

This message was self-deleted by its author struggle4progress Mar 2013 #59

because as far as constitutional scholars go, turley eats obama's lunch.. frylock Mar 2013 #63

LOL. You seem to have a bit of a personal attitude.... OldDem2012 Mar 2013 #69

i do indeed. frylock Mar 2013 #72

You do understand Turley is a right winger, don't you? nt. OldDem2012 Mar 2013 #73

i'm a policy guy, not a personality guy.. frylock Mar 2013 #74

You need to do a little better homework on the people you reference in your posts on DU.... OldDem2012 Mar 2013 #80

wowie. you've put a lot of thought into this.. frylock Mar 2013 #85

as "constitutional scholars" go, Turley is third rate, at best onenote Mar 2013 #90

Well, they are consistent. great white snark Mar 2013 #20

True dat! n/t FSogol Mar 2013 #24

Why is Holder still in office? talkingmime Mar 2013 #8

Any replacement would be just as bad, or even worse.... forestpath Mar 2013 #9

Really? He's incompetent and ineffective. How could you get worse? talkingmime Mar 2013 #10

Yeah, like Obama would replace him with somebody better....NOT. forestpath Mar 2013 #13

I just can't understand why he hasn't already. It doesn't make sense. talkingmime Mar 2013 #15

But it's in keeping with his other horrible choices. None of it makes sense. forestpath Mar 2013 #17

I think a lot of it is to appease the GOP wingnuts. But geeze, they held up Hagel!!! talkingmime Mar 2013 #22

It makes perfect sense. Ganja Ninja Mar 2013 #26

Occam's Razor! immoderate Mar 2013 #35

I use the spelling "Ockham", but the concept goes back at least as far as Ptolemy. talkingmime Mar 2013 #68

word up frylock Mar 2013 #64

This subthread didn't get the point. DevonRex Mar 2013 #49

Because Obama wants him there. woo me with science Mar 2013 #67

The only circumstance this could even be justified nadinbrzezinski Mar 2013 #11

It was a very hypothetical question. Bake Mar 2013 #19

Ummm GRENADE Mar 2013 #79

Holder didn't grab any kind of authority. He ducked the question that geek tragedy Mar 2013 #23

fuck freedom and our constitution , who needs them right? bowens43 Mar 2013 #12

It really is time for Dems to mobilize against the Obama Admin and push him (back?) to the left. reformist2 Mar 2013 #14

"we"? speak for yourself please snooper2 Mar 2013 #37

No he can't, sounds like some BS from commondreams.org Rex Mar 2013 #27

GOOD FUCKING GOD. woo me with science Mar 2013 #28

Woo me with deja vu, Woo. tridim Mar 2013 #29

Your point? Puzzledtraveller Mar 2013 #30

There's a DU rule against saying something more than once???? dixiegrrrrl Mar 2013 #31

*snicker* *cough* *SNORT* Naw, woo. Obama'd just leave us totally unprotected, not fight back. DevonRex Mar 2013 #32

12/7/41 was perpetrated by Americans? Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2013 #36

I see you didn't actually read the article. DevonRex Mar 2013 #39

How do you think the Administration should react to an armed rebellion against the government? n/t yodermon Mar 2013 #33

Why, suh, they should suhrenduh to General Lee immediately!! LOL!!! DevonRex Mar 2013 #42

There were no US citizens involved with Pearl Harbor or 9 11 superpatriotman Mar 2013 #38

US citizens were on the planes that were used. geek tragedy Mar 2013 #41

You're just trying to confuse the absolutists onenote Mar 2013 #48

At least 48 civilians were killed during the attack on Pearl Harbor... OldDem2012 Mar 2013 #50

I'm not sure anyone can understand anything Holder says or writes. Autumn Mar 2013 #62

U.S. citizens were not attacking us. GreenStormCloud Mar 2013 #70

The majority of the US citizens were hit by descending US antiaircraft fire... OldDem2012 Mar 2013 #75

The U.S. civilians were not targeted and killed deliberately by the U.S. GreenStormCloud Mar 2013 #86

Americans were not involved in the PLOTTTING with either attack superpatriotman Mar 2013 #76

If US citizens launch an attack on a US facility/US citizens on US soil, would that not... OldDem2012 Mar 2013 #78

Yes we do, McVeigh, for example superpatriotman Mar 2013 #82

Nope. Because local police forces are empowered to handle local problems. nt. OldDem2012 Mar 2013 #83

Did you ever actually read Holder's letter to Rand Paul? struggle4progress Mar 2013 #61

The F-16s from Langley would have brought down United Flight 93 if necessary FarCenter Mar 2013 #66

Your point? It would have been to prevent MORE casualties. WinkyDink Mar 2013 #87

So you agree that the President can order the killing of some Americans to save other Americans. FarCenter Mar 2013 #97

Easy solution: mwrguy Mar 2013 #71

Now just how freakin' special is this? Holder and his lads can't get enough evidence to indepat Mar 2013 #77

Fucksake. Context, people. Spider Jerusalem Mar 2013 #81

Unfortunately, we're dealing with the context-blind. nt. OldDem2012 Mar 2013 #84

Two scenarios zipplewrath Mar 2013 #88

As mentioned, Holder purposely ducked the question being asked. BlueCheese Mar 2013 #89

where in Paul's letter does it say what you say it does? onenote Mar 2013 #91

Come on. Everybody knows what question Paul wanted answered. BlueCheese Mar 2013 #92

I've worked on and around the Hill for 30 years onenote Mar 2013 #95

Okay, I'll defer to your experience. BlueCheese Mar 2013 #96

Due process is important, but... tarheelsunc Mar 2013 #93

We have arrived 29 years late guardian Mar 2013 #94