General Discussion

Marr

(20,317 posts)

9. The really weird thing is that they're mostly the exact SAME rationalizations. /nt

Reply to Hissyspit (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:29 PM

Feb 2013

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

80 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I Respect the Anti-Drone Position, but I am Still Very Ambivalent [View all] Yavin4 Feb 2013 OP

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