Possum Faced Filibuster

[bobabode]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rand-paul-conducts-filibuster-in-opposition-to-john-brennan-obamas-drone-policy/2013/03/06/1367b1b4-868c-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394_story.html?hpid=z2

“Are you going to drop . . . a Hellfire missile on Jane Fonda?” Rand Paul asked at one point.

I'll bet the rabid neo cons lapped that one up. Keep it up Rand, maybe you'll beat Strom Thurmonds record.:rolleyes:

"During his remarks, Cruz compared Paul to another famous — if fictional — senator.
“You’re standing here like a modern-day ‘Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,’ ” he said. “You must surely be making Jimmy Stewart smile.”

I'll bet Cruz has never seen the movie.:rolleyes:

Even the guy manning the TV camera was kicking back and reading a newspaper.:) Gawd, I love these idjits. They're making the Repubs just look stupid.

[merrylander]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rand-paul-conducts-filibuster-in-opposition-to-john-brennan-obamas-drone-policy/2013/03/06/1367b1b4-868c-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394_story.html?hpid=z2

“Are you going to drop . . . a Hellfire missile on Jane Fonda?” Rand Paul asked at one point.

I'll bet the rabid neo cons lapped that one up. Keep it up Rand, maybe you'll beat Strom Thurmonds record.:rolleyes:

"During his remarks, Cruz compared Paul to another famous — if fictional — senator.
“You’re standing here like a modern-day ‘Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,’ ” he said. “You must surely be making Jimmy Stewart smile.”

I'll bet Cruz has never seen the movie.:rolleyes:

Even the guy manning the TV camera was kicking back and reading a newspaper.:) Gawd, I love these idjits. They're making the Repubs just look stupid.

When one is stupid how else could they look?

[finnbow]

Any issue having Rand Paul and Ted Cruz on one side has me on the other.

[Dondilion]

Last two right wingers on the radio were angry at Paul and Cruz for drawing so much attention to a no win issue while allowing the president to slide through provisions dealing with Obamacare.

[finnbow]

Last two right wingers on the radio were angry at Paul and Cruz for drawing so much attention to a no win issue while allowing the president to slide through provisions dealing with Obamacare.

Both John McCain and the WSJ Editorial Board slammed that dumb goober from Kentucky. Sen. Paul is this year's version of Michele Bachmann. He's trying to build up his right wing lunatic cred for a Presidential run in 2016. He'll go down in flames and become an afterthought just like that Minnesota dingbat.

From the WSJ:

"Calm down, Senator. Mr. Holder is right, even if he doesn't explain the law very well. The U.S. government cannot randomly target American citizens on U.S. soil or anywhere else. What it can do under the laws of war is target an "enemy combatant" anywhere at anytime, including on U.S. soil. This includes a U.S. citizen who is also an enemy combatant."

McCain:

"I watched some of that, quote, debate, unquote, yesterday," McCain said. "I saw colleagues who know better come to the floor and voice some of this same concern, which is totally unfounded.

"I must say that the use of Jane Fonda's name does evoke certain memories with me, and I must say that she is not my favorite American. But I also believe that, as odious as it was, Ms. Fonda acted within her constitutional rights, and to somehow say that someone who disagrees with American policy -- and even may demonstrate against it -- is somehow a member of an organization which makes that individual an enemy combatant is simply false," McCain said, hitting his lectern for emphasis. "It is simply false."

McCain said it was "ridiculous" and "a stretch of the imagination" to "allege or infer that the President of the United States is going to kill somebody like Jane Fonda, or somebody who disagrees with the policies."

[merrylander]

Give them enough rope . . . .

[bobabode]

Give them enough rope . . . .

Rand Paul would tie it to his schvantz and lustily claim he's well hung?:rolleyes:

[piece-itpete]

Awesome.

Pete

[BlueStreak]

Why do people still not understand that someone who swears his allegiance to an organization, a sworn enemy of the United States, and openly declares his desire to help bring about the violent destruction of this country-----IS an "enemy combatant" and as such effectively forfeits his citizenship?

I'll ask it again;

Who really thinks the GOP won't carry on the same policy when it has the reins?

Your arguments are downright stupid and baseless. You're making asses of yourselves-----For your own good SHUT-UP.

Dave

[bobabode]

Brennan confirmed, Paul claims he won a victory on Glenn Beck's webby based show.:rolleyes:
McNasty wasn't too pleased with Randi's shenanigans...;)

[mpholland]

All I can say is republicans give us good conservatives a bad name and I wish they would stop. I would have to agree with Holder that there may at some point be an extreme situation where we might use a drone to take out an American citizen on American soil. Nobody can predict the future. I don't even consider drones military technology anymore. They are available to police and private citizens. WTF? Police take out US citizens on US soil all the time.

[BlueStreak]

All I can say is republicans give us good conservatives a bad name and I wish they would stop. I would have to agree with Holder that there may at some point be an extreme situation where we might use a drone to take out an American citizen on American soil. Nobody can predict the future. I don't even consider drones military technology anymore. They are available to police and private citizens. WTF? Police take out US citizens on US soil all the time.

And, have for a very long time. As a matter of fact, the States and Federal government has been killing American citizens from the very beginning. Hangings, firing squads, electrocution, lethal injection.....Traitors and spies as well as murderers........and some citizens who had done nothing more than get in the way or have the wrong skin color. Tuskegee experiments anyone? How about a helpin' of the "Trail of Tears" for shits-n-giggles? Oh, the list goes on and on and on.

Nope, the whole drone thing is just another example of assinine feined teabagger outrage.

Once again; When the shoe is on the other foot, do you really think it'll be any different?

I don't.

Dave

[BlueStreak]

Heck, with SYG, in some states even private individuals can kill their fellow citizens and all they have to prove is that they felt they were in danger..................

Dave

[d-ray657]

Don't forget that we now have private corporations in the business of depriving people of their liberty - the prison industry. Do you think the folks working there are denied the ability to use lethal force if they deem it necessary?

Regards,

D-Ray

[piece-itpete]

I agree that terrorists are bad regardless of citizenship, but turnabout is fair play.

Pete

[icenine]

Boy did you guys see Lindsay Graham and John McCain sticking up for the President and bashing Rand Paul? They do not want the GOP to legitimize the idiocy that Paul was spewing. I loved it when Graham said when George Bush was using drones did any Republican get up and say Bush was going to attack America....then he made the point that even those Democrats most opposed to Bush and the Iraq war never said that Bush would use them against Americans

[CarlV]

Yes, great stuff indeed. It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy seeing them bicker in public.
Even better if it gave Paul the idea he could run for President and win. :)


Carl

[Dondilion]

Boy did you guys see Lindsay Graham and John McCain sticking up for the President and bashing Rand Paul? They do not want the GOP to legitimize the idiocy that Paul was spewing. I loved it when Graham said when George Bush was using drones did any Republican get up and say Bush was going to attack America....then he made the point that even those Democrats most opposed to Bush and the Iraq war never said that Bush would use them against Americans

Probably Lindsay really wants the option to do nefarious stuff. :D

[icenine]

Yes, great stuff indeed. It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy seeing them bicker in public.
Even better if it gave Paul the idea he could run for President and win. :)


Carl

well as the song in The Incredible Mr. Limpet goes "be careful how you wish, for wishes can come true....";):)

If Mr Rand becomes President it will be all your fault Carl...lol

[finnbow]

Boy did you guys see Lindsay Graham and John McCain sticking up for the President and bashing Rand Paul? They do not want the GOP to legitimize the idiocy that Paul was spewing. I loved it when Graham said when George Bush was using drones did any Republican get up and say Bush was going to attack America....then he made the point that even those Democrats most opposed to Bush and the Iraq war never said that Bush would use them against Americans

McCain actually called Paul and Cruz "wacko birds." This is the first time in a while I've agreed with McCain.

In an interview with the Huffington Post, McCain referred to Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) and Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) as “wackos.”

“They were elected, nobody believes that there was a corrupt election, anything else,” McCain said. “But I also think that when, you know, it’s always the wacko birds on right and left that get the media megaphone.”

Asked to clarify, McCain said he was referencing ”Rand Paul, Cruz, Amash, whoever.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/03/08/mccain-calls-paul-cruz-amash-wacko-birds/

[Zeke]

McCain actually called Paul and Cruz "wacko birds." This is the first time in a while I've agreed with McCain.

I adored McCain of ten years ago...

Something happened, perhaps having to sell your soul to run for President?

[Dondilion]

Teabagger Mark Levin threatens to primary Lindsay. This teabagger is really angry.

[BlueStreak]

And Lord knows we can't have any unhappy teabaggers...........

I think I'll move to S.Carolina just to vote for Lindsey, then move back.

Dave

[merrylander]

There was a good cartoon of Paul on the WaPo OpEd page today.

[finnbow]

Teabagger Mark Levin threatens to primary Lindsay. This teabagger is really angry.

Mark Levin might be the single most disgusting excuse for a human being in modern day America. I think he even hates babies, kittens and puppies. He makes Limbaugh and Hannity seem sane, rational, perhaps even gentlemanly. :eek:

[bhunter]

Don't forget that we now have private corporations in the business of depriving people of their liberty - the prison industry. Do you think the folks working there are denied the ability to use lethal force if they deem it necessary?

Regards,

D-Ray

Yes, but those contractors are an extension of the state and those prisoners have, presumably, been given their due-process. Drones are an entirely different matter IMHO. IIRC, the democrats consistently attacked the previous administration for its breach of the sanctity of the indivdual. In that case, it wasn't even U.S. citizens, but foreign combatants being restrained. One would hope that the same people would maintain some consistency despite their ascribed politics.

[finnbow]

In that case, it wasn't even U.S. citizens, but foreign combatants being tortured.

Corrected. The rules of war allow you to kill enemy combatants on the field of battle, but it does not allow their torture after capture. It seems to me that this represents the administration's position.

[bhunter]

I adored McCain of ten years ago...

Something happened, perhaps having to sell your soul to run for President?

I also made that conclusion. The real irony is hearing the same people, who so vehemently questioned McCain's political acumen in choosing Palen, now respectfully cite his opinion on drones.

[JBS...]

:eek: Oh Chit, Just look what these rightwing, teabag sucking, nut cases are asking.

Geez what a bunch of loons… :rolleyes:

http://images.politico.com/global/2013/03/11/leedroneletter.html

[bhunter]

:eek: Oh Chit, Just look what these rightwing, teabag sucking, nut cases are asking.

Geez what a bunch of loons… :rolleyes:

http://images.politico.com/global/2013/03/11/leedroneletter.html

This might be the first time I agree with Barbara Lee and Mike Honda.

[icenine]

What happened Bhunter? I thought you had been renditioned to another country lol....

[bhunter]

What happened Bhunter? I thought you had been renditioned to another country lol....

No, just a nasty sinus infection and some computer work that took up my spare time.

[bobabode]

No, just a nasty sinus infection and some computer work that took up my spare time.

I hope you're feeling better, BH. Pete missed you...;):D

[BlueStreak]

:eek: Oh Chit, Just look what these rightwing, teabag sucking, nut cases are asking.

Geez what a bunch of loons… :rolleyes:

http://images.politico.com/global/2013/03/11/leedroneletter.html

This might be the first time I agree with Barbara Lee and Mike Honda.

What a ship of fools. I suppose the right now FAVORS bringing bin Ladens,---(what was it, his brother in law or nephew?),---another known terrorist to New York for trial after having BITCHED about such things for the last decade? Or, would they oppose it, because the administration favors it? I don't know, the party of flip-flopping schizophrenia is getting hard to follow with their "Oppose whatever Obama supports, even if we once supported it and probably would do exactly the same ourselves, if we had power." strategy.:rolleyes:

This whole drone thing is becoming just like the birther thing---Pointless and Ridiculous. Those dumbasses have already been given their answer. The President DOES have the authority, but his administration has said "No." there is no plan to use drones on U.S. soil. So bugger off.

Dave

[bhunter]

I hope you're feeling better, BH. Pete missed you...;):D

Yeah, I know. Its looks like a giant lefty love fest here complete with a sexy picture of Ashley.:D Where's Wasilla, Whell, et al? I almost got involved in the objectivist verus subjectivist amp debate over on Ak, but refrained from joining that pissing match. Hey, speaking of health, how's the shoulder?

[bobabode]

Yeah, I know. Its looks like a giant lefty love fest here complete with a sexy picture of Ashley.:D Where's Wasilla, Whell, et al? I almost got involved in the objectivist verus subjectivist amp debate over on Ak, but refrained from joining that pissing match. Hey, speaking of health, how's the shoulder?

I'm still pitching an underhanded screwball.:cool:

Waa-silla still drops by from time to time when that old cabin fever gets to be too much or he butt shoots a moose:rolleyes:. He's also restoring a pachinko machine.
Whell took his ball and ran home a while back, he's probably carryin' on a bromance with BigBill in Vegas...:D

[piece-itpete]

Yay! I'm close to getting lone gunman status. A few righties left though ;)

Pete

[bhunter]

What a ship of fools. I suppose the right now FAVORS bringing bin Ladens,---(what was it, his brother in law or nephew?),---another known terrorist to New York for trial after having BITCHED about such things for the last decade? Or, would they oppose it, because the administration favors it? I don't know, the party of flip-flopping schizophrenia is getting hard to follow with their "Oppose whatever Obama supports, even if we once supported it and probably would do exactly the same ourselves, if we had power." strategy.:rolleyes:

This whole drone thing is becoming just like the birther thing---Pointless and Ridiculous. Those dumbasses have already been given their answer. The President DOES have the authority, but his administration has said "No." there is no plan to use drones on U.S. soil. So bugger off.

Dave

Completely different. Do you think that the President having such authority is a good thing? I was never a supporter of the so-called Patriot Act precisely because it put too much discretionary power in the hands of the executive. In that, I was in agreement with the left that rightly assailed Bush for his assaults on individual freedom. Just because Obama is in office doesn't change a thing regardless of the administration's promise to only act appropriately wrt the use of drones. There needs to be well defined legal restraints on such actions by an executive and those restraints need to be open for inspection by both the Congress and the electorate.

[BlueStreak]

"Do you think that the President having such authority is a good thing?"

Yes, I do. Could prove valuable in quelling an insurrection some day.:D

Dave

[bobabode]

When those tea sipping pansies in their fake tri corner hats grow up and start drinkin' whiskey and taking to the hills (ala The Whiskey Tax Rebellion) drones will be a cost effective means of quelling their insurrection. Even a Republican can see that.:rolleyes:

[finnbow]

Completely different. Do you think that the President having such authority is a good thing? I was never a supporter of the so-called Patriot Act precisely because it put too much discretionary power in the hands of the executive. In that, I was in agreement with the left that rightly assailed Bush for his assaults on individual freedom. Just because Obama is in office doesn't change a thing regardless of the administration's promise to only act appropriately wrt the use of drones. There needs to be well defined legal restraints on such actions by an executive and those restraints need to be open for inspection by both the Congress and the electorate.

Congress is well within its rights to pass such legislation and override any veto to its passage, if necessary. Until then, Obama has the authority under the War Powers Act and the Congressional authorization for the "War on Terror" to use drones on enemy combatants on our soil if arresting them is impossible. BTW, that's why we killed the American, Anwar al-Awlaki, in Yemen. If we could have arrested him, it certainly would have been preferable to the administration. But it wasn't.

Consider for a moment - let's say Cuba chose to invade Key West and within the attack party there were a couple of American turncoats. Could our armed forces resist or would we have to acquiesce to their invasion under the risk that the Americans in their midst would be killed?

[icenine]

Completely different. Do you think that the President having such authority is a good thing? I was never a supporter of the so-called Patriot Act precisely because it put too much discretionary power in the hands of the executive. In that, I was in agreement with the left that rightly assailed Bush for his assaults on individual freedom. Just because Obama is in office doesn't change a thing regardless of the administration's promise to only act appropriately wrt the use of drones. There needs to be well defined legal restraints on such actions by an executive and those restraints need to be open for inspection by both the Congress and the electorate.

I do not know....Imperial Presidency or Tea Party Congress...pick your poison.

[bobabode]

I do not know....Imperial Presidency or Tea Party Congress...pick your poison.

Yeah, right. Like either of those scenarios is going to come to pass... All this hub-bub is bulltwinkie dreamt up by that idjit, possum breathed, punk Rand Paul with the support of one far left Rep in the House. It just more crazy town talk from the village idiots.;)

[icenine]

Yeah, right. Like either of those scenarios is going to come to pass... All this hub-bub is bulltwinkie dreamt up by that idjit, possum breathed, punk Rand Paul with the support of one far left Rep in the House. It just more crazy town talk from the village idiots.;)



My friend we have been living with the Imperial Presidency since like LBJ and Nixon...now this Tea Party Congress.....sometimes I yearn for a normal Congress...

[bobabode]

My friend we have been living with the Imperial Presidency since like LBJ and Nixon...now this Tea Party Congress.....sometimes I yearn for a normal Congress...

It may look like it's Imperial when we're at war but maybe I'm just taking you too literally. Everybody was flipping out when FDR was President and Lincoln before him. Much ado about nothing, IMHO. We still get to vote so I see nothing Imperial going on.
I agree about congress, it's a dysfunctional mess but I'll give you one guess who's being the shit heads in the capitol...

[icenine]

It may look like it's Imperial when we're at war but maybe I'm just taking you too literally. Everybody was flipping out when FDR was President and Lincoln before him. Much ado about nothing, IMHO. We still get to vote so I see nothing Imperial going on.
I agree about congress, it's a dysfunctional mess but I'll give you one guess who's being the shit heads in the capitol...



I am not calling Obie Imperial ...however the recent half-century of having wars in far off places without formal declarations of war (i.e. the use of resolutions like Tonkin) are a hallmark of the Imperial Presidency. In other words the power of the office vis-a-vis foreign intervention has grown. Bush and Obama are sort of operating in this paradigm of Presidential power.

[bobabode]

I am not calling Obie Imperial ...however the recent half-century of having wars in far off places without formal declarations of war (i.e. the use of resolutions like Tonkin) are a hallmark of the Imperial Presidency. In other words the power of the office vis-a-vis foreign intervention has grown. Bush and Obama are sort of operating in this paradigm of Presidential power.

Sorry but I don't agree with that characterization. The Gulf of Tonkin resolution was passed by Congress. Congress can shut down the any Imperial aspirations by shutting off funding for any excursions the executive branch embarks upon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Resolution

[finnbow]

It may look like it's Imperial when we're at war but maybe I'm just taking you too literally...

I am not calling Obie Imperial ...however the recent half-century of having wars in far off places without formal declarations of war (i.e. the use of resolutions like Tonkin) are a hallmark of the Imperial Presidency....

Do we really want Congress managing our wars (instead of the Executive Branch)?:eek:

BTW, Congress did authorize the "War on Terror." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Te rrorists)

[icenine]

Maybe I was not clear....
I just making a point about the best of two evils Congress or the Presidency


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Presidency

[wgrr]

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

This is the oath the President swears to when taking office. A lot of people mistakenly believe the President swears to protect this country from all enemies domestic or foreign. That is not the case at all. I believe that is part of the oath that Congress swears to.

Any law that gives the President the authority to be the judge, jury, and executioner is unconstitutional. We have three distinct branches of government the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. Judicial is the key here. Any US citizen breaking the law, anywhere, is entitled to a fair trial. That is their Constitutional right. Circumventing this process is a gross abuse of power.

I believe Obama violated his oath of office when he murdered an American citizen in Syria. If Republicans want to impeach Obama this is their chance. Instead they rail on about Bengahzi and the four dead foreign service workers while completely overlooking the 46 foreign service workers that died under Bush's watch.

America will rue the day we started using drones. It is just a matter of time before other countries and terrorist develop their own drones and use them against use. Mark my words.

[finnbow]

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

This is the oath the President swears to when taking office. A lot of people mistakenly believe the President swears to protect this country from all enemies domestic or foreign. That is not the case at all. I believe that is part of the oath that Congress swears to.

Any law that gives the President the authority to be the judge, jury, and executioner is unconstitutional. We have three distinct branches of government the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. Judicial is the key here. Any US citizen breaking the law, anywhere, is entitled to a fair trial. That is their Constitutional right. Circumventing this process is a gross abuse of power.

I believe Obama violated his oath of office when he murdered an American citizen in Syria....

So, would it have been unconstitutional for Roosevelt's army or navy to have killed a Japanese or German American who chose to fight for the country of their heritage? For that matter, was it unconstitutional for Lincoln to have used his Army to kill folks from Union states who chose to fight for the Confederacy?

[bobabode]

Maybe I was not clear....
I just making a point about the best of two evils Congress or the Presidency


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Presidency





"Those that believe the presidency is not imperial in nature argue that:

The Executive Office of the President makes up only a very small part of the federal bureaucracy and the President has very little influence as to the appointment of most members of the federal bureaucracy
The number of people within the EOP is tiny and there is no institutional continuity at all
The organization and functioning of most of the Federal government is determined by federal law and the President has little power to reorganize most of the federal government
It has also been argued[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Presidency#cite_note-2) that the concept of the imperial presidency neglects several important changes in the context of governance over the last three decades, all of which tend to restrict the actual power of the President. These include:

Growth in the size and complexity of the federal bureaucracy
A battery of post-Nixon controls on executive power, including transparency rules and "watchdog bureaucracies" such as the federal Inspectors General, a strengthened Government Accountability Office, and the Congressional Budget Office
The increased willingness of bureaucrats to protest or "blow the whistle" on policies with which they disagree, and stronger protection for such behavior
Changes in information and communication technologies that amplify the effect of official dissent, and increase the capacity of opponents to mobilize against executive action
Declining public trust in, and deference to, federal authority
Declining executive discretion over the use of federal funds, which are increasingly committed to mandatory programs
Declining capacity to regulate the private sector, as a consequence of the post-Reagan shift to neoliberal policies, economic globalization, and the growth of corporate lobbies" from the link above
These points^see bolded. The notion of a royalty holding the reins of power has been a bugaboo since the revolution and a common scare tactic used to bind the hands of the executive branch by the other two branches, the judicial and legislative. I've always liked the three legged stool analogy, remove one and it all falls down. IMO the President has less power than in the days of yore.
Now, if you want to buy in to the fantasy of an American royalty look no further than the so-called one percenters, there's the true and very real threat to democracy-IMO.
Kind of like the bad old days when the ultra rich families in Venice had far too much power in the concentration of wealth in too few hands.

PS I don't believe that any branch of government is inherently evil. There are evil people looking to amass power for themselves or their puppetmasters.

[piece-itpete]

The Pres might have much less power as a %, but the overall federal goverment has grown so much that in aggregate it's certainly much much more now.

Pete

[icenine]

I think if you actually wear the uniform of another nation and fight your own government during a time of war you are considered an enemy combatant and lose your Constituional rights that are afforded loyal citizens.

am I off base? are the lawyers around?

[bobabode]

The Pres might have much less power as a %, but the overall federal goverment has grown so much that in aggregate it's certainly much much more now.

Pete

So what? Are you talking about congress?

[piece-itpete]

Just an observation. I suspect the real power winners are the bureaucracy.

Pete

[finnbow]

I think if you actually wear the uniform of another nation and fight your own government during a time of war you are considered an enemy combatant and lose your Constituional rights that are afforded loyal citizens.

am I off base? are the lawyers around?

Actually, wearing a uniform affords you the protection of being taken as a prisoner of war if captured. If you're armed and fighting without a uniform, you are subject to losing the protection afforded by the Geneva convention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner_of_war#Qualifications

[bobabode]

Just an observation. I suspect the real power winners are the bureaucracy.

Pete

You want to do away with mid-level management?

[finnbow]

I think the "Imperial Presidency" is nothing other than a natural outgrowth of the profound dysfunction of the legislative branch. At any time, they can "take back" whatever power they wish to that isn't constitutionally the sole purview of the Executive. However, they write squirelly laws (and no laws at all) and then bitch when the Executive takes advantage of their incompetence. Phuck 'em.

[BlueStreak]

"Those that believe the presidency is not imperial in nature argue that:

The Executive Office of the President makes up only a very small part of the federal bureaucracy and the President has very little influence as to the appointment of most members of the federal bureaucracy
The number of people within the EOP is tiny and there is no institutional continuity at all
The organization and functioning of most of the Federal government is determined by federal law and the President has little power to reorganize most of the federal government
It has also been argued[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Presidency#cite_note-2) that the concept of the imperial presidency neglects several important changes in the context of governance over the last three decades, all of which tend to restrict the actual power of the President. These include:

Growth in the size and complexity of the federal bureaucracy
A battery of post-Nixon controls on executive power, including transparency rules and "watchdog bureaucracies" such as the federal Inspectors General, a strengthened Government Accountability Office, and the Congressional Budget Office
The increased willingness of bureaucrats to protest or "blow the whistle" on policies with which they disagree, and stronger protection for such behavior
Changes in information and communication technologies that amplify the effect of official dissent, and increase the capacity of opponents to mobilize against executive action
Declining public trust in, and deference to, federal authority
Declining executive discretion over the use of federal funds, which are increasingly committed to mandatory programs
Declining capacity to regulate the private sector, as a consequence of the post-Reagan shift to neoliberal policies, economic globalization, and the growth of corporate lobbies" from the link above
These points^see bolded. The notion of a royalty holding the reins of power has been a bugaboo since the revolution and a common scare tactic used to bind the hands of the executive branch by the other two branches, the judicial and legislative. I've always liked the three legged stool analogy, remove one and it all falls down. IMO the President has less power than in the days of yore.
Now, if you want to buy in to the fantasy of an American royalty look no further than the so-called one percenters, there's the true and very real threat to democracy-IMO.
Kind of like the bad old days when the ultra rich families in Venice had far too much power in the concentration of wealth in too few hands.

PS I don't believe that any branch of government is inherently evil. There are evil people looking to amass power for themselves or their puppetmasters.

Excellent post Robert!

(Thanks, Mr. Hand. And, ummmmmm.....Mr. Hand.......I'm sorry I called you a dick.)

Dave

[piece-itpete]

You want to do away with mid-level management?

I'm certainly not fond of tinpot dictators. Bloat even less.

Pete

[BlueStreak]

Just an observation. I suspect the real power winners are the bureaucracy.

Pete

No, the real power brokers are the folks with the where-with-all to buy influence. Fortunately, it appears they didn't have quite enough to buy the last presidential election. Just ask Karl. ;)

Dave

[piece-itpete]

http://demonocracy.info/infographics/usa/political_spending/images/demonocracy-2012_presidential_election-total_raised.jpg

;)

Pete

[JJIII]

http://demonocracy.info/infographics/usa/political_spending/images/demonocracy-2012_presidential_election-total_raised.jpg

;)

pete

bam!:)

[Wasillaguy]

Every pallet is built exactly the same, with the same shade of wood in the same places.
Must be some gov regulation I'm not aware of.

[Zeke]

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

This is the oath the President swears to when taking office. A lot of people mistakenly believe the President swears to protect this country from all enemies domestic or foreign. That is not the case at all. I believe that is part of the oath that Congress swears to.

Any law that gives the President the authority to be the judge, jury, and executioner is unconstitutional. We have three distinct branches of government the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. Judicial is the key here. Any US citizen breaking the law, anywhere, is entitled to a fair trial. That is their Constitutional right. Circumventing this process is a gross abuse of power.

I believe Obama violated his oath of office when he murdered an American citizen in Syria. If Republicans want to impeach Obama this is their chance. Instead they rail on about Bengahzi and the four dead foreign service workers while completely overlooking the 46 foreign service workers that died under Bush's watch.

America will rue the day we started using drones. It is just a matter of time before other countries and terrorist develop their own drones and use them against use. Mark my words.

Sigh...

I disdain it when folks start treating a document as religion.

Note: if protecting the country in an expedient manner comes into conflict with the Constitution, I'll go for saving people, not paper.

I mean, I get it. To a degree the Constitution is the United States. I'm fine with that but The People ARE the Constitution and a flawed document over two centuries old is not worthy of strict adherence.

As for a US citizen breaking the law, anywhere, deserving a fair trial? That is the biggest form of elitist bunk I've read in a while. You may as well have started with, "I am a Roman citizen..."

As for laws being unconstitutional? Only if the Supreme Court says so, which is the big fallacy not recognized by many who throw that term around.

Let's cut to the chase on your "murder." If Republicans thought there was anything there at least one Tea Party crackpot woud pursue it. Sum? There's not.

Other folks using drones? Only for about ten years...

[bobabode]

http://demonocracy.info/infographics/usa/political_spending/images/demonocracy-2012_presidential_election-total_raised.jpg

;)

Pete

Looks like a mandate to me.:D Those are campaign contributions, right?

[noonereal]

Sigh...

I disdain it when folks start treating a document as religion.

...

Plus one.

[merrylander]

I'll simply ask the question but doubt it will be answered "How do you afford due process to a suicide bomber?" Is it not better to take him/her out first?

[merrylander]

Plus one.

Make that two.

[piece-itpete]

Yes campaign contributions.

The Constitution is a contract or it isn't. It's either in force or it isn't.

If the last administration advanced this position on US citizens there'd be demonstrations everywhere, wailing and gnashing of teeth.....

Pete

[icenine]

I'll simply ask the question but doubt it will be answered "How do you afford due process to a suicide bomber?" Is it not better to take him/her out first?

+1......

no one was crying when Bush was using unmanned aircraft in Iraq...I certainly was not.

[wgrr]

So, would it have been unconstitutional for Roosevelt's army or navy to have killed a Japanese or German American who chose to fight for the country of their heritage? For that matter, was it unconstitutional for Lincoln to have used his Army to kill folks from Union states who chose to fight for the Confederacy?

Yes and no.

If a Japanese American citizen chose to fight in the Japanese army in WWII and got killed on the battlefield then so be it. There is no way to tell who is who in that situation. If a Japanese American chose to work against the US in WWII, anywhere in the world, if they are captured alive, and are known to be an American citizen, they should be tried for treason and punished if convicted.

There are always exceptions to the rules but, Obama crossed a fine line. Anwar al-Awlaki could have easily been tried in absentia, convicted, and a sentence of death handed out. Then as Commander in Chief he could have acted on that sentence and executed Anwar al-Awlaki. What he in fact did was played judge, jury, and executioner. That is not the Presidents job.

Just because it may have been done before does not make it right. We imprisoned thousands of Japanese Americans during WWII who committed no crimes. They lost everything. We are just now starting to talk about compensating their relatives for their family's loses, for being the victims, of a very unconstitutional action.

This country can be very stupid sometimes. But when we allow unconstitutional acts to go unchallenged then we, as individuals, are the stupid ones.

[wgrr]

http://demonocracy.info/infographics/usa/political_spending/images/demonocracy-2012_presidential_election-total_raised.jpg

;)

Pete

This does not include the "dark" money that billionaires and foreign countries poured into our electoral process since Citizens United. That makes any real life accounting impossible. We really don' event know what Karl Roves own GPS PAC actually contributed to Romney's campaign.

[piece-itpete]

Here's the link I should've posted, d'oh!

http://demonocracy.info/infographics/usa/political_spending/2012_elections.html

Here's the Super PAC info, same site:

http://demonocracy.info/infographics/usa/political_spending/images/demonocracy-2012_presidential_election-outside_and_superpac-spending_on_candidates.jpg

Picture heading:

"Super PACs:
Where the donations are spent
SuperPACs spend their money on advertising that attacks or defends a presidential candidate. They usually use the their raised money for negative ads, destroying the candidates that oppose their agenda.

Obama is getting 'attacked' the most by negative SuperPAC ads.
Mitt Romney got $14.6 million of positive ads from SuperPACs.
Super PACs spent $4.86 million on positive ads for Ron Paul, and only $134,000 on negative ads."

.-.-.-.-.-.

Still waaaaay lopsided to Obama even with that included.

Pete

[merrylander]

Do the math, in balance reduce the for amounts and Obama had $32 million against, Romney a mere $12 million and Paul had a negative number.

Example; subtract the for from the against.

[piece-itpete]

I'm sorry Rob, I meant in overall per-candidate expenditure.

Pete

[bhunter]

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

This is the oath the President swears to when taking office. A lot of people mistakenly believe the President swears to protect this country from all enemies domestic or foreign. That is not the case at all. I believe that is part of the oath that Congress swears to.

Any law that gives the President the authority to be the judge, jury, and executioner is unconstitutional. We have three distinct branches of government the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. Judicial is the key here. Any US citizen breaking the law, anywhere, is entitled to a fair trial. That is their Constitutional right. Circumventing this process is a gross abuse of power.

I believe Obama violated his oath of office when he murdered an American citizen in Syria. If Republicans want to impeach Obama this is their chance. Instead they rail on about Bengahzi and the four dead foreign service workers while completely overlooking the 46 foreign service workers that died under Bush's watch.

America will rue the day we started using drones. It is just a matter of time before other countries and terrorist develop their own drones and use them against use. Mark my words.

That is exactly my position wrt to drones. One hopes that a President acts properly and with due prudence, however, history is also replete with state executives that weren't so careful in their actions. The question is not if, but when drones will become common place and in the hands of both terrorists and state actors.

[icenine]

I wonder how many people are employed at General Atomic in Poway.....keeping San Diego upper middle class. I hate to say this Bhunter but when you drive down I-15 that nice highway you are on is being kept alive by what I am sure is San Diego's biggest industry...the MIC.


I am sure once drones become commonplace MAD (mutual assured destruction) will keep us safe just like it did with all the missiles we stocked up on during the 1950s.....
who was that guy again?
John Foster Dulles...

[BlueStreak]

Oh f**k all of that. If I'm the Prez and you behaved as Awlaki did.....I'm GOING to kill you, as in; You're already dead. you just don't know it yet. Even if a bunch of do-gooder pansies have their stupid f**king trial and find you innocent I will have you killed somehow. An auto accident, food poisoning, you'll choke on a pickle.....whatever. You're a f**king dead man and that's it.

No wonder this country can't win a war anymore! You guys who are so worried about the rights of assholes like Awlaki are the reason it takes us TEN YEARS to kinda-A-sorta defeat A BUNCH OF GOAT HERDERS.

You're pathetic, you make me sad. All of you.

Dave

[JBS...]

Oh f**k all of that. If I'm the Prez and you behaved as Awlaki did.....I'm GOING to kill you, as in; You're already dead. you just don't know it yet. Even if a bunch of do-gooder pansies have their stupid f**king trial and find you innocent I will have you killed somehow. An auto accident, food poisoning, you'll choke on a pickle.....whatever. You're a f**king dead man and that's it.

No wonder this country can't win a war anymore! You guys who are so worried about the rights of assholes like Awlaki are the reason it takes us TEN YEARS to kinda-A-sorta defeat A BUNCH OF GOAT HERDERS.

You're pathetic, you make me sad. All of you.

Dave

Let's get this stright...

kill American terrorists overseas, put foreign terrorists on trial in New York City...

And were pathetic ;)

[BlueStreak]

Let's get this stright...

kill American terrorists overseas, put foreign terrorists on trial in New York City...

And were pathetic ;)

Yes, you are. Do you really give a shit about Awlakis rights? I have a clue for you, Sunshine. He didn't give half a shit about yours.

Who ever said I favored putting them on trial here? If I had my way, they would die where they stand, wherever that is, including here and including American traitors and wingnut insurrectionists.;)

Regards,
Dave

[piece-itpete]

Dave, when will you learn to stop holding back and say what you really feel? :D

I've said it before (For petes sake! Will SOMEONE put a quarter on that tonearm?!), the real issue is coming, and soon, as drones get smaller and smaller. Smells like assasination.

Pete

[icenine]

I was thinking this morning we could use drones to monitor parollees, those under house arrest. They might prove more effective than ankle bracelets, and of course reducing the prison population is always good for cutting back that government spending we are all worried about

right Pete?

[JBS...]

I'll simply ask the question but doubt it will be answered "How do you afford due process to a suicide bomber?" Is it not better to take him/her out first?

"How do you afford due process to a suicide bomber?"

There is no need for due process if he is in the process of attempting to commit mass murder. Just like if he was a lone gun man shooting at people, you have every right to kill him. The question is how.

Is it not better to take him/her out first?

In order to “take him/her out first” you would need Intelligence and if you had this Intel there would be no need for a drone strike. The FBI could engage and arrest or take him out the old fashion way if he doesn’t give up.

Seeing how you like impossible scenario questions. Answer this.

You got late breaking Intel on your suicide bomber and he is approaching the super bowl …. The drone spots the suicide bomber in the parking lot in the mix of hundreds of tail gaiters. He is working his way to the entrance.

What do you do? Do you drop the bomb to prevent him from getting inside the stadium?

[JBS...]

I was thinking this morning we could use drones to monitor parollees, those under house arrest. They might prove more effective than ankle bracelets, and of course reducing the prison population is always good for cutting back that government spending we are all worried about

right Pete?

Microchips are cheaper.... we all should have them in embedded. :)

[piece-itpete]

I was thinking this morning we could use drones to monitor parollees, those under house arrest. They might prove more effective than ankle bracelets, and of course reducing the prison population is always good for cutting back that government spending we are all worried about

right Pete?

I suspect drones cost a LOT more than ankle bracelets ;)

Besides I think drone use domestically is about the closest thing since MainCore to Big Brother. The local police start using them I'm going to try to catch them on my property.

Pete

[icenine]

I suspect drones cost a LOT more than ankle bracelets ;)

Besides I think drone use domestically is about the closest thing since MainCore to Big Brother. The local police start using them I'm going to try to catch them on my property.

Pete

More expensive than ankle braclets but less costly than brick and mortar prisons.......

oh the drones can see you but you cannot see them...that is why they are so effective. Like I have said before, if you can hear the rocket you are still alive lol...that was one of our favorite sayings in Iraq.

[icenine]

Microchips are cheaper.... we all should have them in embedded. :)

If you think about it that would solve all those missing person mysteries.......

[piece-itpete]

Ah so Ice. I was thinking of the small ones, like radio controlled hobby planes? I don't think my local po-po department can afford a predator. I hope not!

Pete

[BlueStreak]

Dave, when will you learn to stop holding back and say what you really feel? :D

I've said it before (For petes sake! Will SOMEONE put a quarter on that tonearm?!), the real issue is coming, and soon, as drones get smaller and smaller. Smells like assasination.

Pete

Awesome! So, when an obsssessed teabagger finally flips his lid and tries to off the POTUS we could use a drone to kill him?:)

Dave

[piece-itpete]

Or disgruntled leftie, sure! :p

I think a marksmans' bullet might be cheaper and cleaner though.

Pete

[merrylander]

"How do you afford due process to a suicide bomber?"

There is no need for due process if he is in the process of attempting to commit mass murder. Just like if he was a lone gun man shooting at people, you have every right to kill him. The question is how.

Is it not better to take him/her out first?

In order to “take him/her out first” you would need Intelligence and if you had this Intel there would be no need for a drone strike. The FBI could engage and arrest or take him out the old fashion way if he doesn’t give up.

Seeing how you like impossible scenario questions. Answer this.

You got late breaking Intel on your suicide bomber and he is approaching the super bowl …. The drone spots the suicide bomber in the parking lot in the mix of hundreds of tail gaiters. He is working his way to the entrance.

What do you do? Do you drop the bomb to prevent him from getting inside the stadium?

In your scenario people are going to die regardless, keep the death toll as low as possible.

[BlueStreak]

"How do you afford due process to a suicide bomber?"

There is no need for due process if he is in the process of attempting to commit mass murder. Just like if he was a lone gun man shooting at people, you have every right to kill him. The question is how.

Is it not better to take him/her out first?

In order to “take him/her out first” you would need Intelligence and if you had this Intel there would be no need for a drone strike. The FBI could engage and arrest or take him out the old fashion way if he doesn’t give up.

Seeing how you like impossible scenario questions. Answer this.

You got late breaking Intel on your suicide bomber and he is approaching the super bowl …. The drone spots the suicide bomber in the parking lot in the mix of hundreds of tail gaiters. He is working his way to the entrance.

What do you do? Do you drop the bomb to prevent him from getting inside the stadium?

In your scenario people are going to die regardless, keep the death toll as low as possible.

Right. If you can hit him in the parking lot with less collateral damage, go for it. But, most likely I would only use the drone to acquire and track him, guiding agents in for an arrest or kill, if necessary. Using firepower from the drone only as a last resort. Better only a dozen or so in the parking lot become casualties than a thousand in the stands.

I would NOT wait to hold a hearing, present evidence and wait for a judge to issue a warrant. That's IDIOTIC.

Was an arrest likely with Awlaki? I don't know, but I seriously doubt it. And, in my opinion, he relinquished his citizenship when he expressed his utter hatred for this country, joined a terrorist organization openly bent on it's violent destruction, then left for a country known to harbor said terror organization. At that point the asshole is an "enemy combatant" and no longer an American citizen.

KILL HIM.

And, yes, I do trust the president, any president, to make a judgement call based on that much intelligence.

Dave

[piece-itpete]

Blender?

:D

Pete

[BlueStreak]

Blender?

:D

Pete

Bring it on.:)

(And toss a porkchop in just for spite.........)

Dave

[JJIII]

Bring it on.:)

(And toss a porkchop in just for spite.........)

Dave

That I can agree with!

[icenine]

I think drones are protected by the 2nd Amendment.

[Rajoo]

I think drones are protected by the 2nd Amendment.

Only if it is armed.

[icenine]

Only if it is armed.

that makes it simple then lol

[finnbow]

...And, yes, I do trust the president, any president, to make a judgement call based on that much intelligence.

Dave

And you can bet your ass that if Dubya has successfully taken out Awlaki in similar fashion that he would have preened and strutted around in full codpiece attire surrounded by a bunch of sycophants and a big banner while the GOP cheered him on.

[BlueStreak]

And you can bet your ass that if Dubya has successfully taken out Awlaki in similar fashion that he would have preened and strutted around in full codpiece attire surrounded by a bunch of sycophants and a big banner while the GOP cheered him on.

Like a horny peacock.

Dave

[merrylander]

Some dim witted professor has an OpEd piecein this morning's WaPo about how the president should advise Congress when he is about to take someone out. Excuse me but just how effing stuupid can they get. The target would disapper undergound, hell no he would probably die of old age while Congress was trying to reach a decision.