#2
An Act of War by non-US citizens was being carried out against American citizens by Al Qaeda on 9/11, all of which were dead along with thousands more on the ground when that order was issued. The situation of foreign combatants actively carring out suicide attacks using human shields being addressed by they US military and the Commander in Chief is far, far different than the context of the subject matter addressed by Rand Paul, how the Chief Executive officer and the Justice department will deal with US Citizens domestically who have NOT been found guilty of a domestic crime by a court of law, who is being observed by a domestic drone.
#3
wr, would it matter whether the highjacker aiming the airliner at the Capitol was an American citizen or not - or if you even had a way to know? What about all the other American citizens on the plane? Much as I despise Holder, I can see circumstances where the President may have to kill Americans though he does not really have the authority to do so.
#4
that would be an imminent danger - something Sen. Paul conceded
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/07/2013 18:55 Comments ||
Top||
#5
What constitutes an "imminent danger" to one man might not be so judged by another. Who decides? Do the blue eyed people constitute an "imminent danger"? How about the brown eyed people? How about us hazel eyed bastard?
#6
There is always going to be a gray area. There will always be a required trust in the people we have put into high office.
If an American citizen had commandeered an airliner and was about to slam it into WTC as part of a large terrorist plot, and we had an Air Force fighter in the vicinity that could shoot it down just in the nick of time, as President I would have given the order (with the heaviest heart) to shoot it down.
I think most of us would do that.
So 'imminent danger' is always going to be a judgment call, and one has to trust the people making the judgment. That in the end was the unspoken agenda of Senator Paul, the crafty devil -- he was making clear that we could not trust Obama and therefore needed it in black and white. He succeeded.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/07/2013 20:40 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Yep. Paul was deft, cogent, brilliant. Cruz was good too. I'd gladly pay higher taxes to fund big fat pay raises if they'd shut down the Senate and spank Mr. "Constitutional Law Professor" like that, once a month.
#8
The way you end this debate is simple, you announce that drone strikes will be used on domestic terrorists, such as ELF and other enviro-terror groups, as well as other terrorists, like Tyrant Obama's buddies.
#10
The 9/11 highjackers were intent on murdering as many innocent people as possible and the president should be empowered to shoot down the airliner to prevent imminent act of mass murder.
There is a big difference between that and someone who simply disagrees with the administration and is simply going to a Tea party rally - or someone who is refusing to give up their arms.
State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said Thursday officials will first study the tweets, which include support for attacks against U.S. diplomatic installations and praise for a terrorist assault against Israeli citizens in Bulgaria.
Ibrahim is already in the U.S. She says her account was hacked, though the comments stretch back several months.
[Washington Post] A not very long opinion piece telling the Catholic Church how it should be doing things. Nathan Lean is the editor-in-chief of Aslan Media and the author of the three books, including the award-winning "The Islamophobia Industry: How the Right Manufactures Fear of Muslims." He resides in Washington, D.C. I think that means he's not a theologian. I'm guessing he's not a Catholic, either. And he's obviously not a Rantburg reader. He writes in HuffPo which rather tells you everything you need to know...
Posted by: Fred ||
03/07/2013 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11127 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
When given the choice to support an ideology that respects rational argument verses an ideology that doesn't, the rational person ought choose the former.
#5
Public bigotry against authentic Catholics is highly fashionable in the education industry and amongst the cultural elite. If you are not an anti-Catholic bigot you won't go far in those quarters, outside of a few (but not all) Catholic institutions.
Bigotry against Muslims anywhere lands you in jail.
Any questions?
Posted by: no mo uro ||
03/07/2013 5:55 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Here's BP's "What the Catholic Church can learn from the Muslim experience"
Basically Catholics need to do lots of violent things to make the public phobic of them.
They could also setup no-go areas for non-catholics.
They should stop working and just collect benefits.
Lying to non-catholics should no longer be a sin.
Blow up a few Mosques.
In majority Catholic countries execute those who convert.
#7
..and gain major control of one of the more important elements required by modern civilizations with sufficient ability to cause major economic and social unrest if cut off all while playing a guilt cards over diversity.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[Washington Post] 
