Holder: U.S. can lawfully target American citizens

[fj1200]

And I don't mind what your first paragraph addresses. They had years of intel on the guy. They should be addressing this with the national security committees. And maybe in cases like this they should be convening special committes and going before judges for determinations. I don't know. Hell, like FJ stated, I'm not against bringing it through congress and getting various laws passed to address these things. BUT...

Suppose laws are passed that make it acceptable to kill American citizens abroad, that are known terrorists, with irrefutable proof, and we know an attack is imminent. Even with all that said, people like Rev would whine because they STILL didn't get the same due process as others.

Sometimes you just have to let rev be rev and you always need someone to be an ardent backer of government restraint and liberty anyway.

IMO, bringing it through Congress should be what you are FOR not just that you're not AGAINST it. We have processes and hurdles, checks and balances, etc. for a reason, there is and should be high standards in place to act as a restraint.

[jimnyc]

Sometimes you just have to let rev be rev and you always need someone to be an ardent backer of government restraint and liberty anyway.

IMO, bringing it through Congress should be what you are FOR not just that you're not AGAINST it. We have processes and hurdles, checks and balances, etc. for a reason, there is and should be high standards in place to act as a restraint.

We are in the midst of war. I think right now the 1st priority is protecting American lives, but I think they should work on congress at the same time to close up the loose ends.

[revelarts]

We are in the midst of war. I think right now the 1st priority is protecting American lives, but I think they should work on congress at the same time to close up the loose ends.

War on fear, war on hype, war on lies, war on terror,... sigh...

never ending war justifies all.

A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny.
~Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

No protracted war can fail to endanger the freedom of a democratic country.
~Alexis de Tocqueville

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised "for the good of its victims" may be the most oppressive.
~C. S. Lewis


We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security.
~Dwight D. Eisenhower




How far can you go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without?
~Dwight D. Eisenhower

[jimnyc]

Rev, just because you think there is a threshold of a certain amount of deaths needed before Americans can even investigate people, doesn't mean others have to think alike. I'm not the one who said there should be an individual investigation for each and every suspect and have congressional hearings before we can even eavesdrop on that person.

Btw - how do you think Ron Paul's ass feels today from the major spanking he received? LOL

[DragonStryk72]

We are in the midst of war. I think right now the 1st priority is protecting American lives, but I think they should work on congress at the same time to close up the loose ends.

I really think that they need judicial review, as opposed to congressional, since it's a joint venture between Congress and the President, having the Judiciary do the oversight is proper as per our checks and balances as a nation.

[revelarts]

.... you always need someone to be an ardent backer of government restraint and liberty anyway...

I thought that was everyone's job, at least most republicans claim they are for those. right?
am i way out in the hinter lands here?
I guess everyone else are ardent, well at least nominal, backers of gov't power and gov't control then?
For Safety/Security reasons, becuase that's more important than Liberty.


And having congress pass a law that makes it ok for the president to execute citizens without trial doesn't really cut it either does it FJ.

Whats the real difference in the end?

[fj1200]

We are in the midst of war. I think right now the 1st priority is protecting American lives, but I think they should work on congress at the same time to close up the loose ends.

We could always be in the midst of "war" so I think it best that we follow the methods of passing law that we have available to us. We should not be using circumstances to justify actions that would be unthinkable without the circumstances.

I thought that was everyone's job, at least most republicans claim they are for those. right?
am i way out in the hinter lands here?
I guess everyone else are ardent, well at least nominal, backers of gov't power and gov't control then?
For Safety/Security reasons, becuase that's more important than Liberty.


And having congress pass a law that makes it ok for the president to execute citizens without trial doesn't really cut it either does it FJ.

Whats the real difference in the end?

I was using "ardent" in the specific circumstance that Jim pointed out. It was a... nicer... term than I could have used.

And you might want to actually consider my position before creating one for me.