US Politics: Papers of Nefarious Clinton Regime Released!

[DanteGabriel]

Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams co-authored an op-ed with Pat Toomey on this very vote.

What I find particularly interesting here is that Williams and Toomey seem less concerned with the racism that permeated the Philadelphia Police Department in 1982 and more concerned that Adegbile called out this racism so forcefully. So they're not denying that the racism existed.

(Before anyone gets excited, no, I am not calling abu-Jamal a hero or wrongly convicted, blah blah.)

I feel a little behind on this issue because I don't know much about the case, really. I am not going to trust Toomey and Williams' characterization of Adegbile's involvement or the NAACP's involvement. It just strikes me as evidence of a deeply flawed intellect that one cannot separate a person from the legal defense efforts they undertake. Then again, we're talking about Republican politicians, so "deeply flawed intellect" should probably just be assumed. It's just depressing to me that the police unions' troglodytic scare and smear tactics were so effective.

[Lord Mord]

RG,

I mean, to be fair, "due process" is subjective, and so it it's possible to make it mean almost anything. Ergo, consensus is required, and therefore if the general public agrees with Shryke's interpretation, then he's right. I just have to wonder at the disconnect where anyone would agree that a due process standard can be met by cabal.

[Ramsay Gimp]

RG,

I mean, to be fair, "due process" is subjective, and so it it's possible to make it mean almost anything. Ergo, consensus is required, and therefore if the general public agrees with Shryke's interpretation, then he's right. I just have to wonder at the disconnect where anyone would agree that a due process standard can be met by cabal.

But surely you agree that there is centuries of tradition, dating back even before the Revolution, that defines it a certain way? I'm pretty sure even King George didn't have the authority to just order troublesome subjects killed with no charge or trial.

Obama and his cabal, as you astutely put it, are pushing a radical, self-serving, and illogical new definition

[Maithanet]

Do you think if someone is making bombs in their house (nevermind the fact that only one branch of government is claiming that, and the evidence isn't given to a judge to review) that's enough to assassinate them, citizen or not? Does this include people on U.S. soil?

I don't think the government has the obligation to apprehend, no. Some people are beyond the reach of our military/political influence, and it would be foolish to endanger lives to change that.

I think that the current system of "review" for when/where a drone strike is allowed is a complete joke, and rife for abuse. Even if the information is classified, it needs to be reviewed before an actual judge (preferably more than one) and recorded for history. Then those proceedings should be later released when such information is less sensitive.

[Ramsay Gimp]

I don't think the government has the obligation to apprehend, no. Some people are beyond the reach of our military/political influence, and it would be foolish to endanger lives to change that.

I think that the current system of "review" for when/where a drone strike is allowed is a complete joke, and rife for abuse. Even if the information is classified, it needs to be reviewed before an actual judge (preferably more than one) and recorded for history. Then those proceedings should be later released when such information is less sensitive.

Endanger whose lives? Does the citizen being assassinated by his government not count as a life? Does "officer safety" or the safety of "our troops" outweigh the Bill of Rights now?

[Maithanet]

Endanger whose lives? Does the citizen being assassinated by his government not count as a life? Does "officer safety" or the safety of "our troops" outweigh the Bill of Rights now?

But the converse is equally untenable. If someone is actively engaging in terrorism and treason abroad, and the country they are in won't deport them, what are we going to do? Just ignore it until they come back, regardless of how many people they may kill in the meantime?

No matter what, the government is in a tough spot, and the constitution was absolutely not written with the war on terror in mind. So I think that a system with actual checks (not just rubber stamps) on executive power through the judicial branch to document and establish the guilt of the target and the necessity of drone strikes is the best possible course.

Personally, I find the argument of "OMG it's a US citizen!" a lot less compelling than "we're violating another nation's sovereignty in a way that we would not tolerate". But both things need to be weighed carefully by the judicial review when considering a drone strike.

[Commodore]

Georgia becomes the first state legislature to pass an application for an Article V Convention of States to propose constitutional amendments.

http://www.heraldonline.com/2014/03/06/5746431/georgia-first-state-in-history.html

ATLANTA — Today Georgia became the first state in history to call for a Convention of States that could propose Constitutional amendments to limit the size and jurisdiction of the federal government, and force Congress to be fiscally responsible...

...The Convention of States movement is spreading like wildfire and has resolutions pending in nine other states: Missouri, Alabama, Alaska, West Virginia, Florida, Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and South Carolina.

A Convention of States is called under Article V of the Constitution, which requires 34 states to call a convention before it can be convened. Thirty-eight states must ratify any amendment proposals coming out of such a convention.

[ants]

But surely you agree that there is centuries of tradition, dating back even before the Revolution, that defines it a certain way? I'm pretty sure even King George didn't have the authority to just order troublesome subjects killed with no charge or trial.

Obama and his cabal, as you astutely put it, are pushing a radical, self-serving, and illogical new definition

To be honest, I think the whole due process argument is besides the point. Doesn't apply, shouldn't apply to this situation.

When the constitution was written it was recognised that on the battlefield, you could kill US citizens. It was still quite normal practice for citizens of one nation to serve as officers in the military of another nation. Nobody tried to claim you needed due process in the middle of a battlefield or war. Of course, there were rules about uniforms and spying and the conduct of war, which did mitigate this to a degree.

My view is that there is a strong argument to take this element, and apply it to the war on terror. These are enemy combatants. If you tried to go in and take them out you would effectively (most likely) start a battle, and be on a battlefield. The rules about uniforms, set battles, are all out the window. And war is most certainly 3 dimensional now and includes air superiority. In those circumstances, these drone attacks become just a part of the war. And hence, due process isn't required. Will mistakes be made? Probably, but that happens in any war and if a US citizen was accidentally killed bombing Libya, then shit happens. If they screw up here, shit happens.

Personally, I'm more worried about you guys breaching other nations sovereignty at the drop of the hat than if you bother to kill the odd American who is working with Al-Quaida. Which is not to say more controls wouldn't be useful - I hope every time you guys decide to bomb someone there has been a lot of checking. But to stop at including Americans seems pretty silly.

[Shryke]

Ok, so explain the circumstances where it is constitutional for the Executive to unilaterally and intentionally kill an American citizen in their sleep, or praying in a mosque, or driving down the road, posing an immediate threat to nobody.

The circumstances could be "after they subject his case to due process". Or maybe "when he poses an imminent threat". Or "in a time of war".

[ThinkerX]

And when some other country decides they have the right to assassinate their own 'renegade' citizens dwelling within the US? And starts doing so, maybe taking out the occasional cop or civilian in the process?

This is the sort of thing the USSR used to pull back during the Cold War.

[Ramsay Gimp]

I do wonder how many of the posters here would be singing the same tune under President Bush, or President McCain, or President Romney....

If this shit isn't shot down, there will come a day when a President you hate has this power

[Ramsay Gimp]

To be honest, I think the whole due process argument is besides the point. Doesn't apply, shouldn't apply to this situation.

When the constitution was written it was recognised that on the battlefield, you could kill US citizens. It was still quite normal practice for citizens of one nation to serve as officers in the military of another nation. Nobody tried to claim you needed due process in the middle of a battlefield or war. Of course, there were rules about uniforms and spying and the conduct of war, which did mitigate this to a degree.

My view is that there is a strong argument to take this element, and apply it to the war on terror. These are enemy combatants. If you tried to go in and take them out you would effectively (most likely) start a battle, and be on a battlefield. The rules about uniforms, set battles, are all out the window. And war is most certainly 3 dimensional now and includes air superiority. In those circumstances, these drone attacks become just a part of the war. And hence, due process isn't required. Will mistakes be made? Probably, but that happens in any war and if a US citizen was accidentally killed bombing Libya, then shit happens. If they screw up here, shit happens.

Personally, I'm more worried about you guys breaching other nations sovereignty at the drop of the hat than if you bother to kill the odd American who is working with Al-Quaida. Which is not to say more controls wouldn't be useful - I hope every time you guys decide to bomb someone there has been a lot of checking. But to stop at including Americans seems pretty silly.

The problem with this is that in the WOT the entire globe is seen as a battlefield. There is no set geographical limit. Meaning the President can, on his own whimsy, kill a citizen anywhere in the world. Including on U.S. soil according to some. I'm also pretty sure that all of our other wars had clear end dates, which I don't see that happening with "terrorism"

That may not matter to you, since I take it you don't live here, but it matters to me and a lot of other people. I'm as antiwar as they come - I don't support our use of drones on foreigners either. There are separate legal problems there. But historically, American citizens and people on U.S. soil have been given certain legal protections.

Just parroting "war" and "terrorism" like your channeling Dick Cheney doesn't change that

[Ramsay Gimp]

The circumstances could be "after they subject his case to due process". Or maybe "when he poses an imminent threat". Or "in a time of war".

"Due process" meaning what? If it is all occurs within one branch of government, in secret, it is a farce. Even Stalin gave show trials at least

"Poses an imminent threat" according to whom? One man, again? And what does imminent mean? A week? A year?

[TheKitttenGuard]

I do wonder how many of the posters here would be singing the same tune under President Bush, or President McCain, or President Romney....

If this shit isn't shot down, there will come a day when a President you hate has this power

The same statement also applies vice-versa.

How many times under Bush did we hear "If you have nothing to hide you should not care if they are listening" or a variant from Republican and Conservative.

You have a valid statement. However these vice-versas have occured. So it is bullshit to bring this up without realizing what did occur and will occur once a ® comes in.

[Ramsay Gimp]

The same statement also applies vice-versa.

How many times under Bush did we hear "If you have nothing to hide you should not care if they are listening" or a variant from Republican and Conservative.

You have a valid statement. However these vice-versas have occured. So it is bullshit to bring this up without realizing what did occur and will occur once a ® comes in.

Of course, partisans on both sides are hypocrites. But there have been consistent people on both sides as well - Greenwald, a left-liberal, is even harder on Obama than he was on Bush. Ron Paul, a Republican, was never shy about attacking Bush for his abuse of the Constitution. Etc, etc

[lokisnow]

Interesting factoid I found out today. Only four vice presidents have been elected to the presidency after serving a term as VP, Adams, Jefferson, Van Buren and Bush. And Van Buren didn't serve as VP for the complete term of his predecessor, so really there are only three, and Jefferson over threw Adams, running against his president, so there have only been two VPs who loyally served their president who became president next, Adams and Bush, and they are both single term presidents.

Nixon could perhaps be a third, but it wasn't consecutive, so I don't count it.

Of course, many VPs have ascended to the presidency due to death of the presidency, and Ford ascended after Nixon abdicated, but I don't think that quite counts the same, bodes ill for Biden's chances. Having the same party win the presidency but not continuing the previous administration is much more common.

[TrackerNeil]

It's fairly popular even among republicans, but what the constituents want doesn't matter anymore to them.

Sorry, I meant to say it is POPULAR amongst Republicans. Ooops.

[Lord Mord]

RG,

But surely you agree that there is centuries of tradition, dating back even before the Revolution, that defines it a certain way? I'm pretty sure even King George didn't have the authority to just order troublesome subjects killed with no charge or trial.

Obama and his cabal, as you astutely put it, are pushing a radical, self-serving, and illogical new definition

In re: legal tradition, yes, I agree ... for all the good it does us.

[Shryke]

"Due process" meaning what? If it is all occurs within one branch of government, in secret, it is a farce. Even Stalin gave show trials at least

"Poses an imminent threat" according to whom? One man, again? And what does imminent mean? A week? A year?

Exactly my point. You have to decide what all this shit means.

And the constitution does not set that out for you.

[Shryke]

The problem with this is that in the WOT the entire globe is seen as a battlefield. There is no set geographical limit. Meaning the President can, on his own whimsy, kill a citizen anywhere in the world. Including on U.S. soil according to some. I'm also pretty sure that all of our other wars had clear end dates, which I don't see that happening with "terrorism"

That may not matter to you, since I take it you don't live here, but it matters to me and a lot of other people. I'm as antiwar as they come - I don't support our use of drones on foreigners either. There are separate legal problems there. But historically, American citizens and people on U.S. soil have been given certain legal protections.

Just parroting "war" and "terrorism" like your channeling Dick Cheney doesn't change that

As someone who isn't an american, it actually matters more to him in some ways since no one cares that much if you don't have an american passport.

Which was his point (or one of them). The whinging when suddenly it's americans in the crosshairs is rather pathetic.