I don't seem to remember going back on my civil liberties bona fides.
Did his parents or children ever try to bring a wrongful death suit against the feds?
When Bush did illegal and unethical things as president, liberals and Democrats were caling for him to be arrested and tried for war crimes. Now that Obama is president, liberals and Democrats simply comply with their leader and have no objections. They basically support all the things that Obama does even though both they and Obama objected to the same things that Obama is now supporting and doing. It's really a in joke when you think about it.
Bull . All kinds of liberals about this constantly as can be seen here and elsewhere. If you want to start about party politics then that is something quite different but when it comes to closing ranks the Democrats do not hold a candle to the GOP.
Both parties are war parties.
Oh i don't see a major shift in American foreign policy over the last 50 years. We started going to war to open markets for our use back in the 19th century and have never looked back.
Lotta blood on their hands.
ours too, we keep electing em
http://www.salon.com/2012/03/06/atto...ges/singleton/But the most important point is that Holder is not confining this assassination power to cir stances where “capture is not feasible.” To the contrary, he specifically said that killing “would be lawful at least in the following cir stances”: meaning that the President’s asserted power is not confined to those conditions. As Charlie Savage wrote: “Significantly, Mr. Holder did not say that such a situation is the only kind in which it would be lawful to kill a citizen. Rather, he said it would be lawful ‘at least’ under those conditions.” We have no idea how far the Obama administration believes its assassination power extends because it refuses to release the legal memorandum justifying it; there is no legal framework governing it; and there is no transparency or accountability for the President’s execution orders.
meet the new boss, same as the old boss:
https://www.politico.com/blogs/under...lawsuit-645584"Due process is not merely an old and dusty procedural obligation required by Robert’s Rules. Instead, it is a living, breathing concept that protects U.S. persons from overreaching government action even, perhaps, on an occasion of war," wrote Collyer, an appointee of President George W. Bush. "As a U.S. citizen, he seeks to clarify his status and profession to Defendants and, thereby, assert his right to due process and a prior opportunity to be heard. His interest in avoiding the erroneous deprivation of his life is uniquely compelling."
Pshaw. I'm sure Darrin is fine with the policy because ... magic R. (sigh)
Magic D seemed to work about as well for the other side.
I agree with neither.
To be fair, board Republicans were mostly on board with Obama's targeted assassinations too.
WE ARE ALL WAR BABIES
I find the recent emergence of duckshole23 strangely uncomfortable.
Kinda like encountering Ebert from Dirty Rotten Scoundrels.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote