Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans

[Citizen]

That is a cop out and giving away powers to someone else is not the same as declaring it yourself. Constitutionally congress has to declare war, they would need an amendment to give that power away.

Agreed. It was a dodge. That way they couldn't be held responsible if the public didn't like it.

But, who is surprised? Congress decided to delegate vast amounts of law-making to regulatory agencies. Delegating war power is right in line with that. Natural progression. Too easy to predict. Not unlike letting lobbyists and special interests write the laws they do pretend* to vote on. If congress isn't even writing the bills, it comes as no surprise they don't even read them. Natural progression, you see. It was entirely predictable that one day a Speaker of the House would say, "We've got to pass this [Obamacare] bill so we can find out what's in it."


*I say pretend because you can't really vote on a bill you haven't read. In my opinion, every un-read vote cast is null and void. I got five dollars that says almost every bill passed since about 1972 is probably illegitimate just on this point alone. Plain and simple, most of the federal laws have no legitimacy.

 

[eye95]

That is a cop out and giving away powers to someone else is not the same as declaring it yourself. Constitutionally congress has to declare war, they would need an amendment to give that power away.

Let's focus on my main point though, you can't declare war on a concept like "terrorism", this is nothing but a way of continually advancing state powers, meddling in foreign affairs, and be able to rationalize unconstitutional behavior.

Again, authorizing the use of force is not giving away power. It is exercising the power to decide to go to war. As with a declaration of war, an authorization to use force gives the green light to the executive to wage war. That is how the Framers intended it. I do prefer the clarity of using the words "declare war," however, they are not necessary for Congress to exercise its authority to decide that our nation is at war.

Again, I prefer clarity, but the authorizations for the use of force following 9/11 did not cite nebulous "terror" as the target. They were directed against the governments of two very specific nations and against terrorist groups, such as al Qaeda. "The War on Terror" is a short title for a series of actions taken post-9/11. It does not accurately represent any of the actions Congress took. Short titles are publicity efforts and should only be thought of as such.

We seem to be discussing in circles, so I will choose to stop. Repeat yourself again, if you choose; I won't respond.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[marshaul]

Good point. The declaration of war is part of due process.

Glad to see you sanity has returned

Exactly. Actually, it's the only due process.

That is a sorry excuse saying we will have to wait and see what SCOTUS rules, it is in plain English what congress and the president is authorized to do period. For a person who always makes people cite what the THE LAW says and a person I respect for that is ok with the government bending constitutional requirements and peoples rights is sad.

eye95 has made it abundantly clear that, for him, the SCOTUS is the sole arbiter of truth and fact (not to mention law).

 

[marshaul]

Again, you are mixing military action and law enforcement action. There is no justification for using military action against rapists like there is on a group with whom we are at war.

You're the one who started the conflation by insisting the government has the ex post facto power to arbitrarily decide anything is a "military matter", without any sort of prior action declaring it such. This means that the government is free to cherry pick "law enforcement" or "military" (as though law enforcement isn't one big affront to posse comitatus) responses as they see fit.

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

It makes me sad that collapse is the only way to reel in the federal Leviathan. One reason is that neocons can't/won't recognize the link between standing armies (in the U.S case, the largest one in the history of the world) and domestic tyranny. They believe building drones and missiles for Lockheed Martin is production valued by the market and not filthy lucre for the corporate state. Oh well, just pull that Republican lever and shut up!!!

+∞

STOP putting words in my mouth. That particular kind of dishonesty is probably the most despicable.

STOP constantly contradicting yourself and engaging in non sequiturious and otherwise fallacious logic. Every other argument you make takes the form of you thinking you can have your cake and eat it too.

You'll notice nobody else, even those of us with strong and controversial opinions, seems to have a problem with others literally constantly "putting words in our mouths", yet for you its an ongoing struggle.

Maybe the problem is with you? Hmm?

 

[Citizen]

SNIP Again, authorizing the use of force is not giving away power. It is exercising the power to decide to go to war. As with a declaration of war, an authorization to use force gives the green light to the executive to wage war. That is how the Framers intended it.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And war is peace. Poverty is contentment. Slavery is freedom. And, the reason congress used different words was to mean the same thing.

Authorization for the executive to use his own discretion of going to war is not the same as directing the executive to prosecute a war. You're basically saying congress gave the pres authority to make war unconstitutionally--the pres has constitutional discretion only make war to repel invasion or imminent attack. You're saying in effect that congress expanded that constitutional discretion.

And, no matter how much you repeat it, giving the president discretionary authority is not the same as directing him to prosecute a war.

 

[eye95]

Folks, if you want to know what I think on a subject, please read my posts. There are a lot of folks here dishonestly mischaracterizing what I write. It is up to you; but I suggest that you assign value to their ideas according the character they reveal when presenting the ideas of others.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[Citizen]

Folks, if you want to know what I think on a subject, please read my posts. There are a lot of folks here dishonestly mischaracterizing what I write. It is up to you; but I suggest that you assign value to their ideas according the character they reveal when presenting the ideas of others.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Well, thank you. I just did. You equated authorizing discretion with a directive to wage. Where did I mischaracterize something?

 

[eye95]

It continues. I won't participate.

Moving on.

There are too many good conversations out there to wrestle with pigs.

 

[marshaul]

It continues. I won't participate.

Moving on.

There are too many good conversations out there to wrestle with pigs.

I've actually given eye lots of crap for this before, but I will say one thing for the man:

At least he knows when it's time to stop digging that hole.

 

[Citizen]

It continues. I won't participate.

Moving on.

There are too many good conversations out there to wrestle with pigs.

No offense, but unless you can explain the error in my logic, you're leaving because your position is indefensible. That is to say, your failure to refute my logic is noted. All the noise about better discussions elsewhere doesn't change the fact you can't refute my logic or defend your position equating discretion with directive.

 

[eye95]

Moved on.

I would simply again ask folks to read my own posts to learn what I am saying. If someone wants to participate in an honest discussion of what I am saying, I will talk with them. I won't wrestle pigs.

 

[Citizen]

Moved on.

I would simply again ask folks to read my own posts to learn what I am saying. If someone wants to participate in an honest discussion of what I am saying, I will talk with them. I won't wrestle pigs.

Personal insult noted and reported. I'll tolerate the colorful reference to pigs, but not the accusation of dishonesty when it comes from someone who himself cannot justify his own position.

 

[eye95]

Feel free. The reference is a quotation that says, "Don't wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty, but the pig likes it." Continuing a conversation in which someone misstates your position repeatedly, creating a strawman that is easily dismantled only results in a back-and-forth that disgraces both posters. I won't do it; such is known as "wrestling with pigs."

If you choose to see my chastising you for that deceptive behavior as a personal attack, so be it. If the admins and mods look at your behavior and still choose to see my remarking on it as a personal attack, so be it. I will live. However, even then, it is still going to be read and noted by dozens or hundreds of folks before it is deleted.

So, I ain't gonna fret.

 

[Citizen]

Feel free. The reference is a quotation that says, "Don't wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty, but the pig likes it." Continuing a conversation in which someone misstates your position repeatedly, creating a strawman that is easily dismantled only results in a back-and-forth that disgraces both posters. I won't do it; such is known as "wrestling with pigs."

If you choose to see my chastising you for that deceptive behavior as a personal attack, so be it. If the admins and mods look at your behavior and still choose to see my remarking on it as a personal attack, so be it. I will live. However, even then, it is still going to be read and noted by dozens or hundreds of folks before it is deleted.

So, I ain't gonna fret.

You still haven't refuted the logic of my last on-point post. You know, the one where I highlighted your failure to differentiate between authorizing discretion and directing.

 

[eye95]

Nope. Not gonna bite. Those are your constructs, not mine. The deceptions continue. I won't participate. Report me again if you must.

 

[Citizen]

Nope. Not gonna bite. Those are your constructs, not mine. The deceptions continue. I won't participate. Report me again if you must.

Ummm. They're actually your constructs. All I did was point your failure to differentiate.

You still haven't refuted me.

How is authorizing discretion the same as directing it to occur?

 

[eye95]

Folks, read my posts. Look for the words that this poster is trying to ascribe to me.

Anyway, I am done even pointing out this dishonesty. Keep going. I won't even challenge you anymore. My posts are there for everyone to see.

 

[Citizen]

Folks, read my posts. Look for the words that this poster is trying to ascribe to me.

Anyway, I am done even pointing out this dishonesty. Keep going. I won't even challenge you anymore. My posts are there for everyone to see.

Too bad for you because those posts show you doing exactly what I say: failing to distinguish between authorizing discretion and issuing a directive.

The two are not equivalent. Telling the president he can use military force if he wants to is not the same as declaring a state of war, a case in which the president has no choice but to prosecute a war.

 

[marshaul]

I've actually given eye lots of crap for this before, but I will say one thing for the man:

At least he knows when it's time to stop digging that hole.

Guess I spoke too soon.

I forgot that "Moving on." rarely means what it says.

Whaddya think, eye: have you got another couple shovelfuls in you?

 

[OC for ME]

Uncle Sam dropping a Hellfire missile on a US citizen on US soil does equate to the US military dropping a Hellfire missile on a US citizen on US soil. DHS has drones and those drones are capable of carrying and launching Hellfire missiles. DoJ likely can direct DHS to drop a Hellfire on a "enemy combatant" that is on US soil. What I do not know is if it is active duty US military personnel "contracted out" to operate the drone and thus conduct the strike. I suspect that DHS and DoJ have former drone pilots on the payroll.

The issue is the government targeting US citizens on US soil based only on a directive from the chief executive sans any due process via a judge. Get the mooj's name(s) and try them in abstention. Make it very public. The mooj had the opportunity to have his day in court. Win a conviction and then drop a Hellfire missile on them. At that point it does not matter who pulls the trigger......so to speak.