Reply With Quote
Does the US Cons ution say something about keeping us tucked in dry beds, safe from the marauding mitts of greasy bearded terrorists, that I missed the first time through?
I never asked for the protection. I doubt I really need it. I'm an unwilling consumer, you might say.
Does the US Cons ution say something about keeping us tucked in dry beds, safe from the marauding mitts of greasy bearded terrorists, that I missed the first time through?
Marque and reprisal?
Does it go back to piracy?
I simply pointed out that there is a cons utional prevision that a judicial warrant is clearly not needed.
I think the purpose was because of piracy, but I'm not sure on that point.
Depends. If you ask Dave Addington, he might find something in Article II about protection from men with robes...
Is it significant to you that marque and reprisal was originally included, and the sort of warrants issuing now aren't?
Special laws had to be passed to give them legal effect. We're way past the matter of finding a saving predicate in the US cons ution or case law for the warrants, the authority is ultimately derived from the MCA of 2006 and the AUMF, plus the Patriot Act, (three acts of Congress) plus the say so of the US President on extrajudicial sanctions.
I hate how this policy made, and continues to make, the US President a jailer, a hitman and (maybe, again) a torturer.
Does anybody else see the problem, here?
Why do all these things fall on the President?
So some one should have to be personally responsible for jailing people indefinite under sometimes harsh conditions, or ordering them assassinated?
And that someone should be the President?
Does this kind of power strike anyone else as being somewhat regal in its discretion?
The state already kills Americans at home, occasionally with no due process.
The act of doing it abroad makes us literally a world police force. The use of deadly force being alright if someone is in danger is the usual cop rule. Put it on the president and the whole world and add a little paranoia from 9/11. Everything is justified to the suits and the public thinks they're safe.
How many people actually realize how the executive has expanded since the inception of the U.S.A? It doesn't take a crystal ball to plot a trend into the future. At least we will all be dead before we bow to a king. The next few generations? Maybe not. Add in the trend towards a world government and who knows where we are headed.Does this kind of power strike anyone else as being somewhat regal in its discretion?
My mention of Dave Addington was no casual... goes hand in hand with sabar's last point...
i just wanted to repeat the obvious
American citizens killed, by their own government, deprived to the right to go to trial, to defend themselves in a court of law.
i can hardly believe i am typing that.
but i am not surprised, because Average Joe and Mary have been sucked dry of their blood and savings, burdened with debt, the death of overtime, the stagnation of wages, outsourcing, the rise in cost of health care, shady financial business practices, the loss of the power of a citizen's vote and political funding, fear of terrorism, fear fear fear,
eh. people have too many things to worry about now to put up a fight for stuff like this anymore.
sad times.
I have similar feelings. I'll leave it at that rather than starting more controversy, except to say, I'm sure there can be times when the actions are justified.
I understand doing it covertly, all the while preserving the plausible deniability of key political figures. Making it official US policy directed by the President of the USA puzzles me a bit.
Putting US citizens on notice in effect puts everyone else on notice too. I agree it makes us look like world police, but would add that has been the implicit paradigm (global force projection) for quite some time.
Until the next attack, yes.
No doubt the failure of government measures to protect us next time will be cited as cause to sacrifice yet more civil liberties and personal privacy on the altar of our insecurity.
Between the Civil War and Grover Cleveland not much, but starting with Cleveland they get more and more powerful.
Progressivism advertised and delivered an activist state, Wilson first attached the incomes of Americans to their government, then he took us to war in Europe "to keep the world safe for Democracy," after promising to keep us out in 1916.
Starting with FDR (New Deal) and Truman (National Security Act of 1947) there is a quantum leap: the Cold War kept centralization on the front burner practically until the present, and terrorism appears to intensify the trend.
One can hope.
Reviving outlawry is an ominous note; the amplitude of extrajudicial hanky-panky and the prospect of show trials in the USA, are chilling
Quien sabe?
I am less sure about the prospect of world government perhaps than you.
Europe can't even get its together, but the whole world? Forget it.
Right. Plenty are quick to drop Franklin's quote about those willing to part with liberty for security deserving neither, but that is precisely what is offered by their favorite politicians today.
Yes, we are progressing towards one unified, standardized, and genized America, at a much more rapid pace than ever before. Oddly enough, we think that we've never been more free or more individualistic.
Such faith in the capacity and bona fides of government is unusual in these pages...
...except as propounded by you, regarding the very extremest countermeasures of power.
How utterly simple and generous of you. I have not seen such faith in all of Texas.
There you go again, misunderstanding me.
I never said I had such faith, and saying I'm sure something can be justified does not mean I would agree with their decisions.
Is English your second language by chance?
So when you said:I never said I had such faith, and saying I'm sure something can be justified does not mean I would agree with their decisions.
...you meant us to infer nothing whatsoever about whether that justification was ultimately amenable to you, even though you were *sure of it*. Nothing.I'm sure there can be times when the actions are justified.
Hence your reference to justification was pro forma rather than technical, and not meant to endorse any conclusions already baked in the process.
Were you afraid this by now very carefully hedged bit o' provocation:
...would cause a riot or something?I'm sure there can be times when the actions are justified.
...if you are avoiding saying anything at all about the actions or the justifications in advance, as you seem to have suggested, how could there have been any foreseeable controversy in connection with what you were about to say?
Whence therrefore, the conceit of reluctance?
Last edited by Winehole23; 02-09-2010 at 01:07 AM.
Keep guessing...
Maybe some day you'll start understanding my perspective isn't so alien.
What is a justification? A reason someone forms for an action. You or I may or may not agree with someone elses justification. This is an area that becomes a huge grey line. I'm even unsure myself where I can find justification for such actions, but I'll bet I could under some. I'll bet you could too. We will likely disagree in what is and is not justified, but we all can find such a point I bet.
This is like saying different people have different opinions. It's a ing commonplace, WC.
You thought talking about this was provocative?
Provocative, No.
Ever think that maybe I like to see how people respond to simple remarks. See what people like you read into them. How your bias influences what you think I meant?
How many times have I remarked about parsing words correctly?
And on top of it all, what you ultimately meant by *sure* was not sure, not sure at all. lol.
Not sure about the actions, nor about their possible justifications. Now you're pretending you meant nothing by it...
When a minute ago you were pretending to be wary of starting a row.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
