Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Greenwald: How extremism is normalized: Obama's Radical Interpretation of The Bill of Rights [View all]TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)219. In granting powers it is dangerous territory to even for a second, to allow any separation
from any particular President and the Presidency. Power granted to one is freely given to all, there is not so much as an iota of sequestration. If you wouldn't trust power in the hands of Nixon, Reagan, or BushCo (arguable all the same effective entity) then you don't trust Obama, Carter, or Kennedy with the power because if you do you surely give it with the same hands to the crew that cannot be trusted.
Getting caught up in the individuals is not rational or is following a set of rules that do not actually exist in the real world.
History indicates more potential for harm will always be created than good because more harmful hands will hold it and abuse their stewardship. This is why good people that agreed deeply with FDR didn't support him on stacking the bench, the precedent would be too dangerous and absurd.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
234 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Greenwald: How extremism is normalized: Obama's Radical Interpretation of The Bill of Rights [View all]
Karmadillo
May 2012
OP
Openly calling for the murder of Americans is not "protected political speech."
TheWraith
May 2012
#31
by this rationale, every teabagger proclaiming to "water the tree of liberty" is free game.
nashville_brook
May 2012
#33
Yep. And there is quite a bit of talk about an American civil war (and death for us liberals)
Luminous Animal
May 2012
#39
No answer, no surprise. Of course they should not be targeted and assassinated, but how long before
sabrina 1
May 2012
#109
Really. There was a trial held to consider whether or not Awlaki's speech was protected?
Luminous Animal
May 2012
#34
Have you read the story about the cannibal attacker in Miami, shot by a police officer?
TheWraith
May 2012
#46
please explain how this relates to POTUS "Terror Tuesdays" where they decide who to drone kill
nashville_brook
May 2012
#57
Um, lets see. Saving a guy from having his face eaten off while people are witnessing it...
Luminous Animal
May 2012
#63
In granting powers it is dangerous territory to even for a second, to allow any separation
TheKentuckian
Jun 2012
#219
It's sad that the debate centers around an American citizen and not all human beings.
Zalatix
Jun 2012
#231
There is a wide expanse between protected speech and speech warranting execution.
morningfog
May 2012
#35
WWII deaths have absolutely nothing to do with innocent civilians dying from
morningfog
May 2012
#65
The AUMF is terribly flawed and was written in a state of emergency OVER A DECADE AGO.
morningfog
May 2012
#86
It is also widely accepted that the AUMF is a horrendous piece of legislation.
morningfog
May 2012
#96
ANd the Supreme Court, when challenges to provisions have made it that far.
morningfog
May 2012
#100
Congress never did declare war on terror, come to think of it. Good thing too, because
coalition_unwilling
May 2012
#161
Your tune will change the moment you are unfairly accused of being a terrorist and a drone strike
Zalatix
Jun 2012
#216
yeah, and we rushed in to protect the innocent in that war. we're the aggressors here.
nashville_brook
May 2012
#69
We're the aggressors here? Perhaps you slept in on September 11th, 2001? n/t
Bolo Boffin
May 2012
#76
If you ahve to go back 11 years to defend and justify a tactic, I would say that tactic has failed.
morningfog
May 2012
#78
I'm waiting for Dennis Kucinich to introduce a repeal of the AUMF he voted for. nt
msanthrope
May 2012
#87
The use of military force against Al Qaeda and associated orgs does continue, yes.
Bolo Boffin
May 2012
#91
Actually, if you go back and look at US foreign policy for the past forty years,
MadHound
May 2012
#107
As Abraham Lincoln once said, "The best way to get rid of an enemy is
coalition_unwilling
May 2012
#163
There are 2-3 million southeast Asians still waiting for some karmic payback to us, come
coalition_unwilling
May 2012
#162
And that is one of the reasons why he was respected. He is an honest man, he, like a majority of
sabrina 1
May 2012
#195
He gained respect during the Bush years by writing about that Admin's excesses
Luminous Animal
May 2012
#200
Putting Iraq casualties in perspective: besides the estimated 1 million Iraqis
coalition_unwilling
May 2012
#164
Before Operation Desert Shield/Storm, Iraq had the highest per-captia standard of living
coalition_unwilling
May 2012
#197
the 16-year old was killed by a drone at a BBQ...far from a battlefield.
nashville_brook
May 2012
#67
So you're going around this thread chiding people for saying that the son was the target?
Bolo Boffin
May 2012
#125
Ah, good, you're back on topic, thank you, your strawman act was getting boring,
MadHound
May 2012
#129
"I'm not chiding you for saying Al-Banna was the target" -- the hell you aren't!
Bolo Boffin
May 2012
#132
It's positively medieval is what it is. Think Star Chamber (or some such
coalition_unwilling
May 2012
#165
Interesting. Your own goverernment won't coonfirm that. YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT
Luminous Animal
May 2012
#119
Where the hell did you get that from? Jeesh. I was speaking directly to you.
Luminous Animal
May 2012
#128
Is this a purity test? Am I suspect? Do I need to show my birth certificate?
Luminous Animal
May 2012
#144
Perhaps I have a Brazilian boyfriend and my opinion is suspect.Perhaps some people think I am Kenyan
Luminous Animal
May 2012
#158
You don't have to say shit about your citizenship status to this one. Tell him to "Lighten Up, eh"
DisgustipatedinCA
May 2012
#191
Bolo Boffin apologizes the same way Romney does: "If I offended anyone, I
coalition_unwilling
May 2012
#166
Military targets don't get the same kind of due process as an accused criminal. n/t
Bolo Boffin
May 2012
#73
Have I said this is because the President doing it has a D behind his name?
Bolo Boffin
May 2012
#113
Putting your words into my mouth, which is what you did, is the very definition
Bolo Boffin
May 2012
#118
Well, when someone is rude enough to put words into my mouth to knock them down
Bolo Boffin
May 2012
#127
And again what is this non-response supposed to mean? That you're afraid to answer the question?
Zalatix
Jun 2012
#226
If by self-explanatory you mean "a copout and an evasive response", perhaps you are right.
Zalatix
Jun 2012
#232
It gives the meaning I always felt was meant when Bush said he was "The Decider".
Gregorian
May 2012
#2
Who would Mittens, the chickenhawk war cheerleader 'decide' to take out, is a good question, too.
freshwest
May 2012
#6
There was a thread recently on a number of North Koreans who had died in "car accidents"
Gregorian
May 2012
#10
not only would this not "be recognized" by the writers of the Constitution, it's exactly what they
nashville_brook
May 2012
#13
I'll take the constitutional scholar's interpretation over that of a Brazilian asswipe any day.
Tarheel_Dem
May 2012
#7
so, for you "due process" = the (current) president gave it some thought while walking the dog
nashville_brook
May 2012
#11
i'm wondering if some folk's willingness to grant kinglike authority to the president
nashville_brook
May 2012
#18
does it upset you that the president has "Terror Tuesdays" when he decides who to kill...
nashville_brook
May 2012
#53
Yeehaw! And Gore invented the internet, Kerry is a coward, and Obama was born in Kenya. It's true
Luminous Animal
May 2012
#54
I can't figure out how Brazilian got in there? Even if true, is it supposed to be an insult?
Luminous Animal
May 2012
#26
clearly, Americans living in other countries are suspect. targets, if you will...
nashville_brook
May 2012
#30
What he's not an Amurrican? Oh wait, yes he is. It's his boyfriend that is Brazilian.
Luminous Animal
May 2012
#24
precisely -- this is essentially a refusal to assent to the Constitution
nashville_brook
May 2012
#32
It seems like they are caring quite a bit about 100+ years of western dominance...
Luminous Animal
May 2012
#41
so, don't criticize illegal assassination on the part of a Dem POTUS, b/c
nashville_brook
May 2012
#42
Your bolded part should resonate with all people seeking peace. How can we expect
Luminous Animal
May 2012
#60
very good point -- here's some first person statements by drone strike victims (Harper's)
nashville_brook
May 2012
#62
well...war is a racket...and to keep the racket going there has to be conflict...
nashville_brook
May 2012
#205
That was Clinton who did that. It was Clinton's Secretary of State, Albright who said the death
Luminous Animal
May 2012
#45
Woo-hoo. Let's bring back Star Chamber while we're at it. It's OK because it's our
coalition_unwilling
May 2012
#169
I've used to think that Republicans were unprincipled and Democrats were principled.
BlueCheese
May 2012
#171
I'm really going to be holding my nose when I go into the voting booth in November - n/t
coalition_unwilling
May 2012
#172
How is this different from Pres. Assad ordering some FSA figure shot, or Kadaffi's assassinations?
leveymg
May 2012
#181