Reply With Quote
I could totally see Richard Pryon playing West on SNL back in the day.
SA210 with no backbone.
I could totally see Richard Pryon playing West on SNL back in the day.
also, cutting and pasting in multiple threads. not that there's anything wrong with that, but he has nothing to say about it apart from what he's been told to say.SA210 with no backbone.
Do you agree with Krauthammer?
not a bit.
Agreed. I also couldn't believe my ears when I kept hearing neocons coming out of the woodwork saying this thing validates dubya's torture and shady actions (torture, indefinite detention, ext. rendition etc).
How about they're all reprehensible, illegal and wrong?
Abby is a hottie, btw
Abby Martin talks about the recent US Senate filibuster of Chuck Hagel's nomination as Secretary of Defense, adding that John Brennan's nomination should have been the one filibustered.
Abby Martin: Filibuster Brennan, Not Hagel! | Weapons of mass Distraction
Sheeeeep!!!
.
Ben Swann Full Disclosure takes a look by CIA Director nominee John Brennan's statements from the past about absolute human rights and his current role in coordinating U.S. drone strikes
Full Disclosure: Does CIA Director Nominee John Brennan Not Believe in "Absolute Human Rights"
lol Internet grills Obama on questions msm won't ask, but he still lies of course.
Cenk is wrong about one thing, Ben Swann asked Obama these questions before the Daily Show.
"President Barack Obama touched on a slew of issues in his second Google Hangout, repeating the major points from Tuesday's State of the Union speech but also directly addressing the viability of the penny, the Benghazi hearings, drone strikes on American citizens, his daughters' math and science skills, and the GOP blocking a confirmation vote on Chuck Hagel's nomination as secretary of defense."*
In a recent Google Hangout, President Obama took questions from a handful of bloggers. The questions were tough, and they grilled the president on his drone policy, much more than any mainstream press have ever. Why were these bloggers and the daily show the only ones to pose these critical questions? Cenk Uygur breaks it down.
*Read more from MSNBC:
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/02/14/six-th...
TYT: Drones - Web Press GRILLS Obama
internet isn't mainstream? where do you live?
If Cornel West is just saying "Innocent children got killed, therefore, war crimes"... then he's dumb. I'm pretty hopeful that it's more in-depth than that...
you're defending the drone strikes LnGrrrR? they're consonant with the law of war how, please?
How are they not? I guess one can go on a case by case basis regarding target selection, but a missile strike is a missile strike.
Let them answer first what country we are legally at war with.
.
Pathetic Media Outraged Over Obama Golf Secrecy, But Not Drone Assassinations
Youtube - TYT
The White House Press Corps is finally standing up to the president on his transparency...over a golf game with Tiger Woods. What about real news?
when Cenk says to the msm, "You suck at your jobs!"
There's nothing inherently illegal about drones, or drone strikes themselves, assuming a) the war they're involved in is legal and b) the targets that the drones are striking are legal. There's no difference (in a "just war" sense) between a drone strike killing innocent bystanders unintentionally or a bomb/rocket/other projectile killing innocent bystanders unintentionally.
That's why I said that if Cornel West's argument is STRICTLY that it's a war crime because innocent civilians were killed, it's a poor argument.
You need to catch up on how Congress punted its war power to the executive. God knows about what else you are ignorant.
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011...tutional-view/
"Some would claim, and news articles are already reporting on it, that the 1973 war powers resolution authorizes the President to start a war as long as it’s reported to Congress within 48 hours. Then, Congress would have 60 days to authorize the action, or extend it.
The only question you should have to ask for this would be – “where in the Cons ution is congress given the authority to change the cons ution by resolution?”
It doesn’t. And that resolution, in and of itself, is a Cons utional violation."
Why are you droning on about Libya now?
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011...tutional-view/
"Some would claim, and news articles are already reporting on it, that the 1973 war powers resolution authorizes the President to start a war as long as it’s reported to Congress within 48 hours. Then, Congress would have 60 days to authorize the action, or extend it.
The only question you should have to ask for this would be – “where in the Cons ution is congress given the authority to change the cons ution by resolution?”
It doesn’t. And that resolution, in and of itself, is a Cons utional violation."
Absent declared war between two countries, missile strikes by one country on another are at least a lawless violation of sovereignty and possibly a direct cause of war, if the aggrieved is powerful enough to respond in kind -- though usually, just guessing here, the states affected have essentially consented to foreign military attacks on mutual, ill defined enemies within their own borders beforehand, or they tolerate it afterwards.
The drone war has its risks, among them quality of being self supplying with regard to enemies.
Last edited by Winehole23; 02-22-2013 at 01:57 PM.
The authorization for the use of force in this case was against terra, not a country. It's not a reassuring precedent, but there it is. Pakistan's lack of overt protest reads as tacit approval to me.
"Some would claim, and news articles are already reporting on it, that the 1973 war powers resolution authorizes the President to start a war as long as it’s reported to Congress within 48 hours. Then, Congress would have 60 days to authorize the action, or extend it.
The only question you should have to ask for this would be – “where in the Cons ution is congress given the authority to change the cons ution by resolution?”
It doesn’t. And that resolution, in and of itself, is a Cons utional violation."
Great point CD.
AUMF created endless war and an unlimited battlefield. Essentially, it's an everlasting fig leaf for whatever we decide to do to anyone. It's ing bull .
Pakistan has complained loud and long. I believe their official position is still that the attacks are illegal, unauthorized and a gross violation of their sovereignty.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
