Harmony Central Forums
Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

Let's recap.....

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse









X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Let's recap.....

     

    a) Ayn-Rand Paul dreams up a hypothetical situation about drones killing US citizens, pesters Holder for an answer. 

    b) Holder answers in a way suitable for adult conversation, explains it's hypothetical, it's highly unlikely, it's "subject to all applicable laws and under the constitution". Letter

    c) Case closed, right? Wrong. Ayn-Rand Paul decides to filibuster a senate confirmation hearing to rant about the issue. 

    d) Republican echo chamber gets riled up about an "old school" filibuster, and speculates whether Paul will break the old record, perv-iously held by Strom Thurmond. Fingers are crossed.

    e) After ~13 hours, Paul ends filibuster because he has to make a wee-we.

    f)  Since Paul apparently could not understand the nuances of the first letter, Holder writes yet another, simpler letter to Paul, with a one word answer - No.

    g) Paul claims victory. 

    "Hooray!" Paul said on Fox News, where he learned of the letter and its contents. "For 13 hours yesterday, we asked him that question. So there is a result and a victory. Under duress, and under public humiliation, the White House will respond and do the right thing."

     

      No, not a SNL skit.  This ^^^ is the real life GOP contributions to the political dialogue in the country. 

     


  • #2
    I watched some of his filibuster rant last night. Holy Derp! What a lunatic!
    "Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."“Conservatives say if you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money.”― George Carlin"The founding fathers were well aware of rapid firing capabilities by the indians." - NormH

    Comment


    • Just Me
      Just Me commented
      Editing a comment

      LithiumZero wrote:
      I watched some of his filibuster rant last night. Holy Derp! What a lunatic!

      I was embarrassed for him - it was like he was doing it as a dare.


    • Belva
      Belva commented
      Editing a comment

      LithiumZero wrote:
      I watched some of his filibuster rant last night. Holy Derp! What a lunatic!

      By all means you're correct. But I won't base my opinion about the whole Restoopidlican party on one bonehead. There are a few worth their salt. My Rep, Cathy McMorris Rogers, is one who gets my respect and my vote.


  • #3

    Just Me wrote:

     

    a) Ayn-Rand Paul dreams up a hypothetical situation about drones killing US citizens, pesters Holder for an answer. 

    b) Holder answers in a way suitable for adult conversation, explains it's hypothetical, it's highly unlikely, it's "subject to all applicable laws and under the constitution". Letter

    c) Case closed, right? Wrong. Ayn-Rand Paul decides to filibuster a senate confirmation hearing to rant about the issue. 

    d) Republican echo chamber gets riled up about an "old school" filibuster, and speculates whether Paul will break the old record, perv-iously held by Strom Thurmond. Fingers are crossed.

    e) After ~13 hours, Paul ends filibuster because he has to make a wee-we.

    f)  Since Paul apparently could not understand the nuances of the first letter, Holder writes yet another, simpler letter to Paul, with a one word answer - No.

    g) Paul claims victory. 

    "Hooray!" Paul said on Fox News, where he learned of the letter and its contents. "For 13 hours yesterday, we asked him that question. So there is a result and a victory. Under duress, and under public humiliation, the White House will respond and do the right thing."

     

      No, not a SNL skit.  This ^^^ is the real life GOP contributions to the political dialogue in the country. 

     


    Death throes are often spastic.

    I'd get upIf I knew I fell.

    Comment


    • Davo17
      Davo17 commented
      Editing a comment

      .:Ed Phobes:. wrote:

      Just Me wrote:

       

      a) Ayn-Rand Paul dreams up a hypothetical situation about drones killing US citizens, pesters Holder for an answer. 

      b) Holder answers in a way suitable for adult conversation, explains it's hypothetical, it's highly unlikely, it's "subject to all applicable laws and under the constitution". Letter

      c) Case closed, right? Wrong. Ayn-Rand Paul decides to filibuster a senate confirmation hearing to rant about the issue. 

      d) Republican echo chamber gets riled up about an "old school" filibuster, and speculates whether Paul will break the old record, perv-iously held by Strom Thurmond. Fingers are crossed.

      e) After ~13 hours, Paul ends filibuster because he has to make a wee-we.

      f)  Since Paul apparently could not understand the nuances of the first letter, Holder writes yet another, simpler letter to Paul, with a one word answer - No.

      g) Paul claims victory. 

      "Hooray!" Paul said on Fox News, where he learned of the letter and its contents. "For 13 hours yesterday, we asked him that question. So there is a result and a victory. Under duress, and under public humiliation, the White House will respond and do the right thing."

       

        No, not a SNL skit.  This ^^^ is the real life GOP contributions to the political dialogue in the country. 

       


      Death throes are often spastic.


      And yet we have our "transparent" bamahouse sanitzing the number of drone strikes it carries out.

      Remember, waterboarding is torture folks.

      http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2013/03/air-force-drone-airstrike-summary-030813/


  • #4

    Paul will be treated like Hagel was in 2006, only they can't throw him under the bus so quickly. 

    He's delivering butthurt to fanbois right now, but he will deal it to the Pubes in due time.

     

     

     

     

    Killing Americans on U.S. Soil: Eric Holder's Evasive, Manipulative Letter


    The attorney general should be brought before Congress and interrogated about his notion of what the president could do in the aftermath of an attack.

     


    On December 7, 1941, Japanese war planes bombed the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Six decades later, Al Qaeda terrorists flew hijacked airplanes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Neither President Franklin Roosevelt nor President George W. Bush targeted and killed Americans on U.S. soil in the aftermath of those attacks. Doing so wouldn't have made any sense.

    How strange, then, that Attorney General Eric Holder invoked those very attacks in a letter confirming that President Obama believes there are circumstances in which he could order Americans targeted and killed on U.S. soil. "It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws ... for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States," he wrote. "For example, the President could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances of a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941 and on September 11, 2001."

    The very scenario to be guarded against is a president using the pretext of a terrorist attack to seize extraordinary powers. Isn't that among the most likely scenarios for the United States turning into an authoritarian security state? To be sure, if Americans are at the controls of fighter jets en route to Hawaii, of course Obama could order that they be fired upon. If Americans hijacked a plane, of course it would be permissible to kill them before they could crash it into a building. But those are not the sorts of targeted killings that Senator Rand Paul asked about in a letter to White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, prompting Holder's response.

    If you read to the end of Holder's letter, to the passage where he says, "Were such an emergency to arise, I would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the president on the scope of his authority," it becomes clear that, despite invoking Pearl Harbor and 9/11, even he isn't envisioning a response to an attack in process, which would have to happen immediately. So what does he envision? If he can see that a "for example" is necessary to explain, he ought to give us a clarifying example, rather than a nonsensical one that seems to name-check events for their emotional resonance more than for their aptness to the issue.

     

    Elsewhere in his letter, Holder writes that "the US government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so. As a policy matter moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat." Interesting they reject it "as a policy matter," but aren't willing to reject military force in the United States as a legal matter, even in instances where law enforcement would better incapacitate the threat. For the Obama Administration, conceding that the executive branch is legally forbidden to do certain things is verboten, despite the fact that an unchecked executive is much more dangerous than the possibility of a future president failing to do enough to fight back against an actual attack on our homeland*.

    Any thinking person can see that Holder's letter is non-responsive, evasive, and deliberately manipulative in its sly reassurances, right down to the rhetorically powerful but substantively nonsensical invocation of 9/11. (Being more subtle about it than Rudy Giuliani doesn't make it right.) To credulously accept this sort of response, on an issue as important as this one, is behavior unfit for any citizen of a free country, where safeguarding the rule of law is a civic responsibility.

    Rand Paul deserves tremendous credit for eliciting this response. In its wake, he needs help from his colleagues and his countrymen. The time to discuss the appropriate scope of the president's authority is now, not in the aftermath of a catastrophic attack on the nation, as Holder suggests. The fact that he disagrees speaks volumes about Team Obama's reckless shortsightedness.

    *Does anyone imagine, in the aftermath of a future Pearl Harbor or 9/11, that Congress would refuse to authorize whatever reasonable authority the executive branch required to kill or capture the perpetrators? It is difficult to imagine anyone even worrying over so implausible an outcome.

     

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/potus-killing-americans-on-us-soil-eric-holders-evasive-manipulative-letter/273749/

     

     

    Comment


    • Just Me
      Just Me commented
      Editing a comment

      Caulk Rocket wrote:

      Paul will be treated like Hagel was in 2006, only they can't throw him under the bus so quickly. 

      He's delivering butthurt to fanbois right now, but he will deal it to the Pubes in due time.

       

       

       

       

      Killing Americans on U.S. Soil: Eric Holder's Evasive, Manipulative Letter


      The attorney general should be brought before Congress and interrogated about his notion of what the president could do in the aftermath of an attack.

       


      On December 7, 1941, Japanese war planes bombed the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Six decades later, Al Qaeda terrorists flew hijacked airplanes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Neither President Franklin Roosevelt nor President George W. Bush targeted and killed Americans on U.S. soil in the aftermath of those attacks. Doing so wouldn't have made any sense.

      How strange, then, that Attorney General Eric Holder invoked those very attacks in a letter confirming that President Obama believes there are circumstances in which he could order Americans targeted and killed on U.S. soil. "It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws ... for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States," he wrote. "For example, the President could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances of a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941 and on September 11, 2001."

      The very scenario to be guarded against is a president using the pretext of a terrorist attack to seize extraordinary powers. Isn't that among the most likely scenarios for the United States turning into an authoritarian security state? To be sure, if Americans are at the controls of fighter jets en route to Hawaii, of course Obama could order that they be fired upon. If Americans hijacked a plane, of course it would be permissible to kill them before they could crash it into a building. But those are not the sorts of targeted killings that Senator Rand Paul asked about in a letter to White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, prompting Holder's response.

      If you read to the end of Holder's letter, to the passage where he says, "Were such an emergency to arise, I would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the president on the scope of his authority," it becomes clear that, despite invoking Pearl Harbor and 9/11, even he isn't envisioning a response to an attack in process, which would have to happen immediately. So what does he envision? If he can see that a "for example" is necessary to explain, he ought to give us a clarifying example, rather than a nonsensical one that seems to name-check events for their emotional resonance more than for their aptness to the issue.

       

      Elsewhere in his letter, Holder writes that "the US government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so. As a policy matter moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat." Interesting they reject it "as a policy matter," but aren't willing to reject military force in the United States as a legal matter, even in instances where law enforcement would better incapacitate the threat. For the Obama Administration, conceding that the executive branch is legally forbidden to do certain things is verboten, despite the fact that an unchecked executive is much more dangerous than the possibility of a future president failing to do enough to fight back against an actual attack on our homeland*.

      Any thinking person can see that Holder's letter is non-responsive, evasive, and deliberately manipulative in its sly reassurances, right down to the rhetorically powerful but substantively nonsensical invocation of 9/11. (Being more subtle about it than Rudy Giuliani doesn't make it right.) To credulously accept this sort of response, on an issue as important as this one, is behavior unfit for any citizen of a free country, where safeguarding the rule of law is a civic responsibility.

      Rand Paul deserves tremendous credit for eliciting this response. In its wake, he needs help from his colleagues and his countrymen. The time to discuss the appropriate scope of the president's authority is now, not in the aftermath of a catastrophic attack on the nation, as Holder suggests. The fact that he disagrees speaks volumes about Team Obama's reckless shortsightedness.

      *Does anyone imagine, in the aftermath of a future Pearl Harbor or 9/11, that Congress would refuse to authorize whatever reasonable authority the executive branch required to kill or capture the perpetrators? It is difficult to imagine anyone even worrying over so implausible an outcome.

       

      http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/potus-killing-americans-on-us-soil-eric-holders-evasive-manipulative-letter/273749/

       

       


      Hah, what a load of crap. That letter was crystal clear to anybody with a 6th grade reading comprehension level.  

       

      Rand appears to be functionally illiterate, and went to great lengths to prove it to the entire country.

       

       


  • #5

    Paul's speech drew on the work of bloggers from both the left and right who have criticized the president on civil liberties, such as Glenn Greenwald of The Guardian and Conor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic. Kevin Williamson of the National Review also earned a mention for a piece he wrote asking whether under Obama's standards the Nixon and Johnson administrations should have bombed college campuses.

     

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/rand-paul-filibuster_n_2819740.html

     

     

    Glenn Greenwald? Isn't he a teabagger?

     

    :mansurprised:

    Comment


    • #6

      On the topic of whether or not the US should be allowed to kill foreign nationals in their own countries on who knows what evidence of just because their behavior fits some 'signature', there's pretty much consensus among the mainstream politicians in the US. As a mental exercise, just imagine if  the Chinese government decided it was ok to use drones to take out whoever they wanted inside the US, anytime they felt like it.  

      Comment


      • larry50
        larry50 commented
        Editing a comment

        Zig al-din wrote:

        On the topic of whether or not the US should be allowed to kill foreign nationals in their own countries on who knows what evidence of just because their behavior fits some 'signature', there's pretty much consensus among the mainstream politicians in the US. As a mental exercise, just imagine if  the Chinese government decided it was ok to use drones to take out whoever they wanted inside the US, anytime they felt like it.  


        Well, I normally agree with you on most things, but this one I'll nitpick a bit. 

        First, it's pretty well established that there are rigorous written protocols in place regarding the nature and strength of evidence required to support a proposed drone strike.  I don't think those decisions are made on whim, and while it might be "who knows what" evidence, the written protocols exist are rumored to require a high degree of proof as to identity and location of the target etc.

        The Chinese analogy is a bit off.  If the United States and China were at war, neither side could argue about  hostile drone strikes (are there any other kind? ) in their mutual territories.  However, that is not the case.  Yemen supports our drone strikes, and the Pakistani complaints are for public consumption only.

        Being a bit lawyer-like tonight, sorry.

         


    • #7
      Pissing off both parties is a good sign.

      Thanks for the recap.

      Comment


      • #8
        Just: The difference is that since they're not an imminent threat, they shouldn't simply be killed.

        Its entirely possible that the government is wrong about who attacked the US government facility, or is simply lying.

        Comment


        • Just Me
          Just Me commented
          Editing a comment

          mauser wrote:
          Just: The difference is that since they're not an imminent threat, they shouldn't simply be killed.

          Its entirely possible that the government is wrong about who attacked the US government facility, or is simply lying.

          so, in your opinion, a treasonous militia group should be able to attack a government facility, including the killing of US citizens, but as long as they retreat back to their fort, they should just be left alone?

           

          You are quite the patriot there.


        • larry50
          larry50 commented
          Editing a comment

          mauser wrote:
          Just: The difference is that since they're not an imminent threat, they shouldn't simply be killed.

          Its entirely possible that the government is wrong about who attacked the US government facility, or is simply lying.

          And, if it's all caught on film or video and there is no doubt who the perpetrators were or are, what then?  Just leave them alone?


        • gtrjones
          gtrjones commented
          Editing a comment

          mauser wrote:
          Just: The difference is that since they're not an imminent threat, they shouldn't simply be killed.

          Its entirely possible that the government is wrong about who attacked the US government facility, or is simply lying.

          Saddam has WMDs!!!  They're an imminent threat!  Iraq has connections to Al Quaeda and 9/11!!

          Where were y'all then?

           


      • #9
        Just: I believe the key is whether they're an imminent threat.

        And a question you might want to ask yourself is whether or not the govt could be wrong. If you agree that's a possibility, then I'm not not sure how you justify the killing of individuals not an imminent threat without due process.

        Comment


        • Just Me
          Just Me commented
          Editing a comment

          mauser wrote:
          Just: I believe the key is whether they're an imminent threat.

          And a question you might want to ask yourself is whether or not the govt could be wrong. If you agree that's a possibility, then I'm not not sure how you justify the killing of individuals not an imminent threat without due process.

          Lol, yeah, most sane people would probably agree that an armed militia group, having already attacked the US, and has made clear it's intentions to attack US citizens, is by definition an imminent threat.

           

          I am all for due process and respect of the 4th amendment, but some of you bunker/conspiracy types have a perverted notion of the governments role to keep law abiding citizens safe on our own soil.


        • testuser
          testuser commented
          Editing a comment

          mauser wrote:
          Just: I believe the key is whether they're an imminent threat.

          And a question you might want to ask yourself is whether or not the govt could be wrong. If you agree that's a possibility, then I'm not not sure how you justify the killing of individuals not an imminent threat without due process.

          I'm reminded of the swat raids "on the wrong house"...


      • #10
        Larry: Feel free to apprehend them as you would anyone else suspected of committing a crime.

        Comment


        • testuser
          testuser commented
          Editing a comment

          mauser wrote:
          Larry: Feel free to apprehend them as you would anyone else suspected of committing a crime.

          There is a reason that is the answer. US soil is, well, US soil. We are apprehending them within our jurisdiction under our constitutional laws. Outside our borders is, legally, a completely different thing. It's bad enough that citizens can, while sitting down to dinner, find their homes being assaulted by swat teams  who have the wrong address. Imagine that, instead, it is a drone fired missile.

          Oops.


      • #11
        Idiots come in all stripes...
        My band "The Executives" website : TheExecutivesMusic.com

        Comment


        • testuser
          testuser commented
          Editing a comment

          Kid Klash wrote:
          Idiots come in all stripes...

          Ain't that the truth!


      • #12
        Just: Again....we don't know that they've actually done anything. We know the government thinks they have, but the government could be wrong.

        Comment


        • #13
          Just: Yes, law enforcement isn't perfect and it becomes even less so when the mindset is such that accusations and suspicion becomes facts and evidence, and the goal becomes killing the accused before guilt has been established.

          Comment


          • Just Me
            Just Me commented
            Editing a comment

            mauser wrote:
            Just: Yes, law enforcement isn't perfect and it becomes even less so when the mindset is such that accusations and suspicion becomes facts and evidence, and the goal becomes killing the accused before guilt has been established.

            no kidding, you think the government shouldnt just assasinate people willy-nily? 

            I agree, but thats not what this thread is about, is it?  It's about the use of a technology, not about the government skirting due process. 

             

             


        • #14
          Gtrjones: I was voting against Bush. Twice.

          Comment


          • #15
            Just: Yes....the issue is all about the government skirting due process.

            Comment


            • Just Me
              Just Me commented
              Editing a comment

              mauser wrote:
              Just: Yes....the issue is all about the government skirting due process.

              Thats not what lil Randy's filibuster was about, was it? It was about lil Randy not being able to comprehend 5th grade reading material.



          Working...
          X