posted March 13, 2013 09:05 PM            

Holder on the other hand takes a tone that assumes that a) rand knows what the constitution forbids, and b)admits that there might be circumstances, like 9/11, where hitting american citizens at home might be constitutionally interpreted as necessary.

Interestingly it also hints that us citizens might have taken part on 9/11.

posted March 14, 2013 06:26 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
Why do you take what i say as personally aimed at you? I was talking about what looks to me like more political kabuki theatre and assumes the public is dumb, which i do not...that's ami's specialty!

---

Well when you say that I have my nose stuck to the ceiling, what other way is there to take it, besides personally?

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
Holder on the other hand takes a tone that assumes that a) rand knows what the constitution forbids, and b)admits that there might be circumstances, like 9/11, where hitting american citizens at home might be constitutionally interpreted as necessary...as to your decreeing that my take is "dead wrong" well that is your opinion and i'm sure others share it, but i don't consider it a very mature comment.

---

To skirt around all the convoluted intricacies here: Holder basically said YES, we can hit Americans with drones on US soil. Rand wanted either a NO or elaboration on the process by which Americans will be hit. So there was no kabuki theater. If you keep thinking there was, I will remain baffled and bite my tongue.

posted March 14, 2013 07:13 PM            

.. age is just a number...and "dead wrong" is just your opinion, nothing "wrong" with having one, but maybe allow sometimes that others might see things differently whether you agree or not? OR understand the difference between my calling a comment immature vs calling you immature?

no need to bite your tongue, but maybe try not to bite my head off when i add my pov!

posted March 15, 2013 12:56 AM            

But the answer to whether the President has the authority to drone stroke civilians is no.

posted March 15, 2013 08:30 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
So my question to you is, if bush could've stopped 9/11 with drones, would that have been the right thing to do, even if the perps were citizens? Would you want him to have that authority?

Hypothetically speaking of course, since it didn't happen. But were it to happen now? Would you, as president, assume that authority?

---

What will it take for you to open up your eyes?

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted March 15, 2013 09:39 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
nose stuck to the ceiling has nothing to do with "stupid" as you well know. it does have to do with attitude.

---

When you asked, "Why do you take things that I say personally?" you didn't indicate that you were alluding to our exchange about people being stupid. Indeed, before you mentioned my nose on the ceiling, I hadn't said anything to YOU that, in my opinion, warranted that insult. After I reacted to your insult, you asked why I take things personally. Well geez, how else can an insult be taken?

But to move backwards in circles...as I always end up doing when conversing with you at length...for you to suggest that we who supported the filibuster were merely duped did carry the implication that we were being, if not outright stupid, then naive or swept up in the drama of the thing.

And you said that Holder's letter which you linked to indicated that the President could not use drones ("what holder says here is that the constitution prevents the sort of shenanigans paul was trying to get people fired up about...") but the letter actually said the constitution allows the sort of shenanigans Paul was trying to get people fired up about (though I marvel at your use of the euphemism "shenanigans" for "murder.")

Therefore, as I see it, you were wrong...not as a matter of opinion but as a matter of fact. You said the letter said no, but the letter said yes. How you see room for debate here is just mystifying to me.

posted March 15, 2013 09:52 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
So my question to you is, if bush could've stopped 9/11 with drones, would that have been the right thing to do, even if the perps were citizens? Would you want him to have that authority?

---

posted March 15, 2013 11:27 AM            

As to drones, i don't approve of them at all. HOWEVER, like holder, and others, i can see how they might be considered preferable to sending humans on what might amount to a suicide mission, ie, we are not jihadists but in protective mode.

On 9/11, apparently, troops were practicing what to do about a "hypothetical" attack just like what happened. You don't think they knew enough to stop the actual event? Or that drones, had they been stationed nearby (and there are plenty possible places right near NY), could have got there faster and destroyed those planes before the event?
I don't know...and since it seems the planes were just thw "cover story" it probsbly wouldn't have worked...except to make what really happened clearer.

Fact is drones are here. They circumvent the need to put our soldiers (citizens) in danger, so some call them humane and don't care about the inhuman aspect at all.

posted March 15, 2013 11:51 AM            

I think i hsve said i am not writing him off but i think rand grabbed an opp to make a name for himself, and the whole panic was more due to his poorly framed original question which elicited a HYPOTHETICAL answer.

posted March 15, 2013 12:13 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
"Read the letter, why don't you, before insinuating that others are keeping it stupid" please...camebefore my remsrk about your nose, so don't fall back on victim stance please.

---

I don't really care when you insult me, it's our relationship dynamic, and I expect as much. So I have no victim stance to play.

Did YOU take it personally that I said, "Read the letter why don't you" ? Because from what I gathered, you hadn't read the letter.

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
i was talking about rand being disingenuous and assuming that WE are stupid , so i found your "sensitivity" was apparently due to your taking personally something not about you at all, wasn't it.

---

This is too tangled up for me to untangle. I'll just say that Rand wasn't being disingenuous and Holder's letter is just as alarming as Rand said it was.

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
As to drones, i don't approve of them at all. HOWEVER, like holder, and others, i can see how they might be considered preferable to sending humans on what might amount to a suicide mission, ie, we are not jihadists but in protective mode.

---

When the answer is YES it's okay to use drones on people in the US, there at least ought to be a very detailed legal framework in which those assassinations can take place, in order to assure people that we are not all just fair game for the whims of the tyrants. This detailed explanation is what Rand was requesting or, preferably, a definite NO, which he obtained, much to the delight of many concerned persons such as myself.

I would not be comfortable with any legal framework for drone killings, because I'm positive that the drones would be over-used, misused, and the people would start living in fear.

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
You don't think they knew enough to stop the actual event? Or that drones, had they been stationed nearby (and there are plenty possible places right near NY), could have got there faster and destroyed those planes before the event?

---

I will pass on that question because I don't want to get into 9-11 on this thread; it's a very lengthy and complicated tangent.

posted March 15, 2013 12:22 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
Holder, answering a hypothetical question with a hypothetical response, speculated on the outside chance of a possible scenario where such MIGHT be an appropriate response. Which is how the whole misguided flap got so magnified that paul had to go grandstanding to sort it out.

---

Apparently, then, the big difference between you and me is, I take the murder of citizens very, very seriously and don't think the issue was "magnified" at all by Rand. The issue IS enormous, without any magnification needed.

Holder told Rand, "Maybe we can," which is extremely alarming to me. Rand represented my interests in getting to the bottom of that terrible ambiguity. Fancy that...for once MY concerns were represented in Congress!

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
the only person who has made a star turnout of standing up to the president over what amounts to a false-flag issue -when in fact it was bernie sanders who set the example, and others stand up even more quietly ... Rand is and will be referring to his "heroic" stand for some time to come i suspect

---

I don't care if Rand toots his own horn about it; I don't care if Bernie did it first; I don't care about anything except the fact that Rand got Holder to say NO.

I just wanted results, Rand got them, I say "Great!" and let's move on.

posted March 15, 2013 12:48 PM            

I think you will find that as commander in chief washington took soldiers to take down the perps of the whiskey rebellion, and lincoln fired on citizens too.

posted March 15, 2013 01:32 PM            

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And holder's NO came as answer to "a different question" ie his first question - if drone strikes against citizens at home WOULD EVER happen - is answered honestly ... It is hypothetically conceivable for instsnce that given a situation like 9/11 IF americans were involved, that "taking them out" would be done as the best option and to save thousands of lives.
But the answer to whether the President has the authority to drone stroke civilians is no.

In other words unless an sct of war like 9/11 is about to take place he has no such authority. Basically whst has changed? The way the question was framed

---

posted March 15, 2013 02:21 PM            

I used to trade insults with jwhop, and occasionally with ami, because both use personal insults instead of argument. Mostly i confine myself to critiquing what is said and not the speaker...

posted March 15, 2013 02:34 PM            

LMAO

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted March 15, 2013 03:01 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
Fine, you want everything in yes/no black/white... Pity the world won't comply. I guess it is better for thousands to die if foiling a plot means "murdering" a citizen.

---

Why do I even bother talking with you?

I don't want EVERYTHING in black and white.

I just don't want the President to assume the authority of assassinating Americans on US soil. If you can't see that that is the gateway to horrific abuses of power, nothing I can say will open your eyes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
I think you will find that as commander in chief washington took soldiers to take down the perps of the whiskey rebellion, and lincoln fired on citizens too.

---