The Republican Thread

[The Sir]

yeah, f*** the constitution anyway, amirite?

 

Stop trying to murder the 2nd Amendment and then come talk to me about respecting the Constitution, okay?

 

There's some more tu quoque for you.

[Balta1701]

Stop trying to murder the 2nd Amendment and then come talk to me about respecting the Constitution, okay?

 

There's some more tu quoque for you.

Barack Hussein Obama has an F in every category the Brady Campaign evaluates politicians on.

[StrangeSox]

Stop trying to murder the 2nd Amendment and then come talk to me about respecting the Constitution, okay?

 

There's some more tu quoque for you.

that's pretty dumb since I support the 2nd and have for years in this forum. Stop making dumb assumptions about everyone.

[StrangeSox]

Barack Hussein Obama has an F in every category the Brady Campaign evaluates politicians on.

according to the NRA that's just proof that Obama's coming for your guns in 2013

[The Sir]

Barack Hussein Obama has an F in every category the Brady Campaign evaluates politicians on.

 

He gets Fs from Gun Owners of America and the NRA too. Looks like everybody hates him.

[The Sir]

that's pretty dumb since I support the 2nd and have for years in this forum. Stop making dumb assumptions about everyone.

 

OTOH I don't personally have any problems with personal firearms ownership or CC.* But I'd disagree with CC being a fundamental right, and I'm iffy on the 2nd really being an individual right as found in Heller and McDonald since they kinda just gloss over the awkward militia phrase.

 

Yeah but if nobody can legally buy a .45 or a 9mm, there's going to be a lot less .45's and 9mm's around for criminals to get.

 

Not in my book, you ain't.

[StrangeSox]

a post where I explicitly state my support for personal firearms ownership and CC but am unsure of the legal basis for Heller since I'm not a constitutional lawyer is your example?

[StrangeSox]

and that's still a dumb non-argument on why you're cool with denying due process rights to American citizens

[The Sir]

and that's still a dumb non-argument on why you're cool with denying due process rights to American citizens

 

He took up arms against the United States. You call him an American citizen, I call him a guy who earned the right to be vaporized by CIA drones.

[Balta1701]

He gets Fs from Gun Owners of America and the NRA too. Looks like everybody hates him.

Because the NRA cares more about the letter behind a persons name than they do about gun rights or safety.

[StrangeSox]

He took up arms against the United States. You call him an American citizen, I call him a guy who earned the right to be vaporized by CIA drones.

yeah but what I call him is reality, since he died an American citizen. McVeigh also took up arms against Americans, but that didn't give the government the ability to order his assassination without due process.

 

I'm shocked a criminal justice major would have such little disregard for the law and Constitution. It's a shame to see somehow throw aside American institutions and what this country stands for so callously when it suits them. Unlike you, I fully support the ideals this country was founded on. Typical and unsurprising, though.

[The Sir]

Because the NRA cares more about the letter behind a persons name than they do about gun rights or safety.

 

Or because Obama supports the UN Small Arms Treaty...

[The Sir]

yeah but what I call him is reality, since he died an American citizen. McVeigh also took up arms against Americans, but that didn't give the government the ability to order his assassination without due process.

 

I'm shocked a criminal justice major would have such little disregard for the law and Constitution. It's a shame to see somehow throw aside American institutions and what this country stands for so callously when it suits them. Unlike you, I fully support the ideals this country was founded on. Typical and unsurprising, though.

 

What, honestly, would you have preferred the government to do?

 

He took up arms against the US and hid in a foreign country. He didn't surrender or show any sign of doing so anytime soon. And all the while, more nutjobs were inspired by this evil man and more people continued to die. Forgive me for taking the practical route and being thankful that my government decided to kill him.

 

Timothy McVeigh was captured. Awlaki could have received the same treatment if he had been captured or he had surrendered, but he didn't. So we did what we had to do to save lives and get rid of a bad, bad guy. I have no problem with that. It would have been different if we had captured him and summarily executed him, but that didn't happen. We smoked a guy who continued to fight from hiding. Big deal.

[Texsox]

and that's still a dumb non-argument on why you're cool with denying due process rights to American citizens

 

The issue becomes updating our laws to reflect that not all of our enemies are in traditional armies with national ties. If this guy was flying a Japanese plane over Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941 we'd have had no problem with blasting him from the sky instead of detaining him for questioning and possible arrest. If this guy was on Pork Chop Hill talking away on his radio helping the North Koreans we'd have no problems with providing a bullet to the head instead of providing a phone call. If he was facing south in Kontum Province we wouldn't have any second thoughts about heroes like John Vann (Medal of Freedom as civilian in Vietnam) or the 44th Infantry Regiment dealing with this guy instead of a lawyer dealing with him.

 

Today we have a different battlefield. We may never have clear lines of command, no lines in the sand. What line would have been placed on the World Trade Center?

 

At some point we will redefine who is, and who is not, and American citizen. When we do, I am quite certain, he will be an example of someone who has given up that citizenship and taken up the role as enemy.

[The Sir]

The issue becomes updating our laws to reflect that not all of our enemies are in traditional armies with national ties. If this guy was flying a Japanese plane over Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941 we'd have had no problem with blasting him from the sky instead of detaining him for questioning and possible arrest. If this guy was on Pork Chop Hill talking away on his radio helping the North Koreans we'd have no problems with providing a bullet to the head instead of providing a phone call. If he was facing south in Kontum Province we wouldn't have any second thoughts about heroes like John Vann (Medal of Freedom as civilian in Vietnam) or the 44th Infantry Regiment dealing with this guy instead of a lawyer dealing with him.

 

Today we have a different battlefield. We may never have clear lines of command, no lines in the sand. What line would have been placed on the World Trade Center?

 

At some point we will redefine who is, and who is not, and American citizen. When we do, I am quite certain, he will be an example of someone who has given up that citizenship and taken up the role as enemy.

 

Very good point that I didn't think of, Tex. This is very much the product of fighting a fluid enemy that slips across borders and has no distinct base or uniform or whatever. Touche.

[Balta1701]

The issue becomes updating our laws to reflect that not all of our enemies are in traditional armies with national ties. If this guy was flying a Japanese plane over Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941 we'd have had no problem with blasting him from the sky instead of detaining him for questioning and possible arrest. If this guy was on Pork Chop Hill talking away on his radio helping the North Koreans we'd have no problems with providing a bullet to the head instead of providing a phone call. If he was facing south in Kontum Province we wouldn't have any second thoughts about heroes like John Vann (Medal of Freedom as civilian in Vietnam) or the 44th Infantry Regiment dealing with this guy instead of a lawyer dealing with him.

 

Today we have a different battlefield. We may never have clear lines of command, no lines in the sand. What line would have been placed on the World Trade Center?

 

At some point we will redefine who is, and who is not, and American citizen. When we do, I am quite certain, he will be an example of someone who has given up that citizenship and taken up the role as enemy.

Ok, so were going to get into hypotheticals here.

 

Hypothetical: American citizen joins the mob. Travels to Sicily to plan a crime or murder of a us citizen. Is this a military strike target? If you know where the meeting is, do you blow it up based on the accusation? It's the same level of "imminent threat" talked about here.

 

Or how about a US citizen that supported the Irish republican army in the 80's. Giving money to actively support terrorism against a us ally and verbally exhorting people to join in and support the revolution back home. Actively supporting and funding bombers against a us ally, based on this standard the president would be able to strip that person of citizenship and have them killed with no due process. Same level of decaying obedience to a violent foreign based group.

[EvilMonkey]

Ok, so were going to get into hypotheticals here.

 

Hypothetical: American citizen joins the mob. Travels to Sicily to plan a crime or murder of a us citizen. Is this a military strike target? If you know where the meeting is, do you blow it up based on the accusation? It's the same level of "imminent threat" talked about here.

 

Or how about a US citizen that supported the Irish republican army in the 80's. Giving money to actively support terrorism against a us ally and verbally exhorting people to join in and support the revolution back home. Actively supporting and funding bombers against a us ally, based on this standard the president would be able to strip that person of citizenship and have them killed with no due process. Same level of decaying obedience to a violent foreign based group.

Your second hypo doesn't work, otherwise we could exterminate all the Code Pink whackos who keep supporting every enemy the United States has. They actively support and fund terrorists all the time. As for the rest, the mob meeting isn't likely to be inside a hostile country surrounded by hundreds of fanatical followers. You would actually have cooperation from local law, and the likelyhood that they would blow themselves and you up in the process of attempting to capture them is remote.

[Balta1701]

Your second hypo doesn't work, otherwise we could exterminate all the Code Pink whackos who keep supporting every enemy the United States has. They actively support and fund terrorists all the time. As for the rest, the mob meeting isn't likely to be inside a hostile country surrounded by hundreds of fanatical followers. You would actually have cooperation from local law, and the likelyhood that they would blow themselves and you up in the process of attempting to capture them is remote.

I think you missed the point.

 

The fact that you can't just blow someone up because their politics are extreme is exactly what I'm saying. You don't want one branch having that power unchecked.

 

And in the mob case...they might not blow themselves up but they'd likely go down shooting. Sending in police would be much more risky than just blowing them up. But you send in police anyway.

[StrangeSox]

Code Pink actively funds and supports terrorists?

[EvilMonkey]

Code Pink actively funds and supports terrorists?

Code Pink is in tight with Hamas, was even guaranteed safety by Hamas when they tried to to their 'Gaza Freedom March'. Code Pink even proudly claims to have delivered tens of thousands of bucks in 'humanitarian aid' to Hamas-controlled Gaza. You really think any of that actually gets to the poor, starving people?

 

Oh, almost forgot. We could also eliminate CAIR under his hypos.

[Texsox]

Ok, so were going to get into hypotheticals here.

 

Hypothetical: American citizen joins the mob. Travels to Sicily to plan a crime or murder of a us citizen. Is this a military strike target? If you know where the meeting is, do you blow it up based on the accusation? It's the same level of "imminent threat" talked about here.

 

Or how about a US citizen that supported the Irish republican army in the 80's. Giving money to actively support terrorism against a us ally and verbally exhorting people to join in and support the revolution back home. Actively supporting and funding bombers against a us ally, based on this standard the president would be able to strip that person of citizenship and have them killed with no due process. Same level of decaying obedience to a violent foreign based group.

 

That's where I am glad we have well trained humans making those decisions. While no solution here is perfect, the best system I see is allowing the people in our government the authority to follow through on their responsibility. Of course you can pile up hypotheticals from here to China but my answer will all be the same, at some point we have to trust the people making those decisions. And that is how it has been from the beginning of time. It is all people making decisions, including what was written in the Constitution.

[Balta1701]

That's where I am glad we have well trained humans making those decisions. While no solution here is perfect, the best system I see is allowing the people in our government the authority to follow through on their responsibility. Of course you can pile up hypotheticals from here to China but my answer will all be the same, at some point we have to trust the people making those decisions. And that is how it has been from the beginning of time. It is all people making decisions, including what was written in the Constitution.

We do not allow people to decide to ignore the law. We have rule of law in this country. We send people to jail for violating laws that people think are stupid. We execute people who might be innocent because we're following the law. The law is the supreme authority in this country. If the law is out of date or inapplicable, you change the law, you do not ignore it. If Congress refuses to change the law because they decide that they can't afford to give the President a "Win", then the President cannot ignore the law, and the voters should judge whether Congress should be thrown out for failing to change the law. You cannot ignore the law just because you have a fancy title..

[Texsox]

You are talking about laws, our enemies, including the people targeted, are committing acts of war. There is breaking the law, and there is flying jets into buildings. It would be nice if we could arrest them, but that's not how wars are fought.

[Balta1701]

You are talking about laws, our enemies, including the people targeted, are committing acts of war. There is breaking the law, and there is flying jets into buildings. It would be nice if we could arrest them, but that's not how wars are fought.

Again, you're 100% ignoring the point.

 

Repeating the ways that the bad guys are bad does not change the fact that what happened in this case is not permitted by the law.

 

If the bad guys are as bad as you say they are, and its been known for months, years now that this particular person was a target, then why has Congress not adjusted the law to deal with this scenario? Your argument that these guys are so bad because they don't follow the law is a great reason for Congress to act and fix the law. It is not an argument for why the law should be ignored. There is absolutely nothing stopping Congress from acting if you're right.

 

The only logical conclusion that one can draw from Congress not acting is that Congress has higher priorities than dealing with people willing to commit acts of war against the U.S. Therefore, I must judge that Congress believes your points about how bad these guys are must be incorrect, because otherwise Congress would have acted.

[southsider2k5]

Again, you're 100% ignoring the point.

 

Repeating the ways that the bad guys are bad does not change the fact that what happened in this case is not permitted by the law.

 

If the bad guys are as bad as you say they are, and its been known for months, years now that this particular person was a target, then why has Congress not adjusted the law to deal with this scenario? Your argument that these guys are so bad because they don't follow the law is a great reason for Congress to act and fix the law. It is not an argument for why the law should be ignored. There is absolutely nothing stopping Congress from acting if you're right.

 

The only logical conclusion that one can draw from Congress not acting is that Congress has higher priorities than dealing with people willing to commit acts of war against the U.S. Therefore, I must judge that Congress believes your points about how bad these guys are must be incorrect, because otherwise Congress would have acted.

 

Not really true thought. The government has always picked and choosed when it came to which laws it obeyed.