HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Anybody Watching Rachael ...

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:18 PM

Anybody Watching Rachael ??? - For Many Here... The Election Is Over... Beyoncee, Gunnuttery...

But Rachael... wth Michael Isikoff... is all about DRONES tonight.

Might wannna check it out.


7 replies, 811 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 7 replies Author Time Post
Reply Anybody Watching Rachael ??? - For Many Here... The Election Is Over... Beyoncee, Gunnuttery... (Original post)
WillyT Feb 2013 OP
dgibby Feb 2013 #1
graham4anything Feb 2013 #2
WillyT Feb 2013 #3
TheProgressive Feb 2013 #4
awake Feb 2013 #5
TheProgressive Feb 2013 #6
awake Feb 2013 #7

Response to WillyT (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:23 PM

1. I tuned in just as the interview was ending.

Caught a little about drone attacks maybe being legal in the US against the citizens. Also caught the part about Michael's report being posted at NBC.com. What did I miss?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:26 PM

2. I don't watch Rachel or Ed anymore. Just the Rev. Al Sharpton.

 

Not after the first debate, Rachel and Ed lost me forever and I no longer value Rachel or Ed's opinion.

imho.

besides, if a drone had gotten OBL the week before OBL planned and put the plan in place of 9-11, nothing bad that followed would have happened.

Richard Clarke, who was a hero to the left after 9-11 when he revealed the memos Bush ignored, said last month that Drones are the most humane method of warfare.
And that collateral damage is so many times less than man to man war.
(not to mention imho, the same people who die from collateral damage, would die in regular war anyhow without or with the USA's help.)



IMHO.(and I am not watching Rachel, I am watching Dallas 2012 on TNT, so I don't know specifics of the conversation).

But Rachel and Ed might as well have been on Fox the night of the first debate.
Therefore I value them as much as say Rush and Sean.
Because the night of the first debate, the four were on the same side.

IMHO (and i know I am not the only one).
Rachel and Ed should have thought about what they were doing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #2)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:27 PM

3. LOL !!! - You Funny !!!




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:34 PM

4. More to the point....

It is about how the President can assassinate Americans...

They say they have a legal right but won't tell anybody what that is.

Why do Americans put up with that?


Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheProgressive (Reply #4)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:43 PM

5. "except ....

....in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger"

That seem to be a rather large loophole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to awake (Reply #5)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:50 PM

6. That part is hard to read, however...

My interpretation is that part is...

"...except for the 'military' or 'national guard' when said military or national guard is engaged in War or pubic danger"
And the 'person' in this case is a member of the military or national guard, and it pertains to American military or national guard...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheProgressive (Reply #6)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:54 PM

7. Yes that is how I would read it but I can see how it could be used to defend the use of drones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread