Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
72. I already have, repeatedly.
Wed Feb 6, 2013, 02:24 PM
Feb 2013

Aren't you the guy who claims he didn't say a thing that's in the title of a post two slots up? Is this your whole debate strategy? Just ask for things to be repeated? I have to say, it seems a bit stupid in a written format, where you could just glance up.

Anyway, here's the difference:

One is the targeted killing of American citizens, not in a combat zone, not engaged in any hostile activity, purely on the order of the Executive Branch, with no review of any sort.

The other was a man wanted for direct involvement in a whole string of devastating terrorist attacks by multiple US and foreign agencies and for whom capture was extremely risky or outright unfeasible.

I'm pretty much where you're at as well Proud Liberal Dem Feb 2013 #1
Oh, I'm loving the rationalizations... Hissyspit Feb 2013 #2
No shit. Is this how GOPer loyalists did it? leftstreet Feb 2013 #3
Ask Brown University's Michael Tesler how it works: Hissyspit Feb 2013 #4
My main complaint about war is more economical than moral. nt EastKYLiberal Feb 2013 #8
Liberals supported laws (like the USA PATRIOT Act) that made it easier OnyxCollie Feb 2013 #14
Fuck the Patriot Act. think Feb 2013 #62
When the depth of knowledge of politics OnyxCollie Feb 2013 #7
It's Not About Which Team Is Good or Bad. It's About How Do You Protect Civilization From Random Yavin4 Feb 2013 #10
Perhaps you should ask why acts of terror are committed first OnyxCollie Feb 2013 #22
Okay. Why was Indonesia targeted for the 2002 bombing? Yavin4 Feb 2013 #32
Here's a guide. Do the hard work. OnyxCollie Feb 2013 #42
So, you cannot answer my question then Yavin4 Feb 2013 #46
I didn't say I could. OnyxCollie Feb 2013 #65
That was an attack against Australia. sadalien Feb 2013 #61
Yes, James Bond and all that "extra-legal" action (Cf.: "1972 Olympic Massacre, Revenge"). WinkyDink Feb 2013 #60
Two wrongs.... That's from my non-thesis. WinkyDink Feb 2013 #58
The really weird thing is that they're mostly the exact SAME rationalizations. /nt Marr Feb 2013 #9
What method would you use to prevent acts of terrorism against civilian populations? Yavin4 Feb 2013 #13
Constitutional ones. Hissyspit Feb 2013 #17
The only truly constitutional method would be to ask the terrorist group to surrender Yavin4 Feb 2013 #25
Elaborate. Because just typing "constitutional ones" is a complete admission you've got nothing. KittyWampus Feb 2013 #27
No, it isn't. Hissyspit Feb 2013 #28
A Nobel Peace Prize Winner could come up with something leftstreet Feb 2013 #34
A snarky answer designed to attack Obama Yavin4 Feb 2013 #40
No snark. The world expected something major from him leftstreet Feb 2013 #44
It's called police work, FGS. Do you suggest just killing people BEFORE A CRIME? WinkyDink Feb 2013 #64
We're not just fighting terrorists who want to attack us. randome Feb 2013 #5
If you think the U.S. invades "at the behest of" anyone, I've got the swampland. WinkyDink Feb 2013 #66
you've missed the point, utterly.... mike_c Feb 2013 #6
I think The Magistrate gives an effective counter to all of your arguments. stevenleser Feb 2013 #11
I respectfully disagree.... mike_c Feb 2013 #15
No, he doesn't. He leaves out the whole due-process Fifth Amendment problem. Hissyspit Feb 2013 #16
He covers that. The fifth amendment does not apply to enemy combatants. nt stevenleser Feb 2013 #19
Obama's position makes anyone an "enemy combatant"... mike_c Feb 2013 #26
Now you are arguing slippery slope, as if this or a future administration is going to use drones stevenleser Feb 2013 #43
Your suggestion that this memo focuses on "enemy combatants" is Marr Feb 2013 #29
^^this^^ leftstreet Feb 2013 #35
I never made that suggestion. nt stevenleser Feb 2013 #38
You did it in the post I responded to. /nt Marr Feb 2013 #52
Cite the text where I did. nt stevenleser Feb 2013 #54
If you want to troll, there are better places to do it. Marr Feb 2013 #63
Again, I never said that and that is why you cannot cite text. nt stevenleser Feb 2013 #73
Yes. Just make everyone an enemy combatant. Hissyspit Feb 2013 #30
Oh sure, 2-3 out of the billions of trips Americans have made abroad over the past 4 yrs stevenleser Feb 2013 #36
Yes, because Pres. Obama will be President forever. Hissyspit Feb 2013 #45
It's not a straw man, slippery slope is your argument here when facts suggest otherwise. stevenleser Feb 2013 #51
No, it's not slippery slope. It's legal precedent. Hissyspit Feb 2013 #57
A legal precedent that you assert sets up a slippery slope. nt stevenleser Feb 2013 #59
No, it's not a slippery slope Hissyspit Feb 2013 #69
In a life or death situation, don't the police have that power as well? randome Feb 2013 #12
they are held accountable for their actions.... mike_c Feb 2013 #21
I agree we could use some additional restraints on the entire idea. randome Feb 2013 #41
So you are arguing that death must appear imminent? Or just "rumored"? WinkyDink Feb 2013 #68
In another country thousands of miles away where we are operating with the government's invite... randome Feb 2013 #79
+a Brazilian. ;-) WinkyDink Feb 2013 #67
Would you be "ambivalent" if it were Bush? Marr Feb 2013 #18
Yes, we would. nt stevenleser Feb 2013 #20
This message was self-deleted by its author Marr Feb 2013 #23
Thank you for agreeing. nt stevenleser Feb 2013 #24
Actually, I would have been ambivalent about it. Yavin4 Feb 2013 #31
Really. Marr Feb 2013 #33
I supported Clinton's use of missle strikes to kill OBL, as did many Liberals Yavin4 Feb 2013 #37
That's a completley different thing. /nt Marr Feb 2013 #47
It's so different you cannot explain how. nt stevenleser Feb 2013 #55
Were there U.S. citizens targeted by Clinton? WinkyDink Feb 2013 #70
I already have, repeatedly. Marr Feb 2013 #72
Yep, the accusation is always made, but no specifics are ever offered. nt stevenleser Feb 2013 #48
I'm with you. I don't "like" drones, but I don't like the alternatives either ecstatic Feb 2013 #39
It is WRONG when a "nation of laws" a country that has a statue rustydog Feb 2013 #49
Excellent analysis as always, Magistrate. malthaussen Feb 2013 #50
I don't see difference between the stragtic bombing and the drone strike SpartanDem Feb 2013 #74
No. We were not at war with Nazis. malthaussen Feb 2013 #75
There are no easy answers, but something has to change SpartanDem Feb 2013 #53
How about just go with the Constitution instead of contorted A.G. justifications? WinkyDink Feb 2013 #56
Your first sentence negates everything else you say. Dreamer Tatum Feb 2013 #71
Which is why I used the word, "ambivalent". Yavin4 Feb 2013 #77
This message was self-deleted by its author Yavin4 Feb 2013 #76
Thank you Yavin4! donheld Feb 2013 #78
I believe the Democracy Now report found that there are no boundaries on the targeted killing, Fire Walk With Me Feb 2013 #80
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I Respect the Anti-Drone ...»Reply #72