jerseyhoya wrote:We elected the guy president, and he's making decisions he thinks will keep Americans safe. The majority of Americans agree with his decisions in this matter, as do I. That's good enough for me.

td11 wrote:

pacino wrote:a terorrist whose son we also killed because maybe he should've had a better father. then, we decide that any 18yr old who hangs out on the Pakistani border or somewhere in yemen is potentially a terrorist.

if drones are legal, bring the evidence, bring it out into the open, show Congress, show the judiciary, show the American people. legality is not proven through speeches, and 'imminent threat' is one of hte vaguest terms imaginable. if it has to be secretive, fine..but based on what has been discovered, they are letting NO ONE on the intelligence committee know what it means, not even those with doublesecret probation-type clearance.

what is the process?

but of course the process has to be secret to a certain degree. how can they bring matters of extreme national security "into the open?" i don't think it is feasible or even responsible.

i do have trouble with the vagueness of "imminent" and "infeasible," but again, in the case of al-awlaki, he was involved in numerous terrorist activities. i don't know about his son, but a number of his relatives are involved in terrorism (his brother-in-law was a al-qaeda leader in yemen).

Roger Dorn wrote:"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:We elected the guy president, and he's making decisions he thinks will keep Americans safe. The majority of Americans agree with his decisions in this matter, as do I. That's good enough for me.

I'm not sure legit conservatives would find it good enough for them

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

td11 wrote:scott brown apparently joining fox news

I heard they dropped Palin, too.

And Dick Morris too.

Fox's ratings have fallen dramatically in the wake of last year's election. Press reports indicate the cable channel is re-evaluating its approach after President Obama's strong re-election victory, despite the fact a number of Fox hosts and analysts predicted otherwise.

jerseyhoya wrote:Plenty of conservatives would as evidenced by the lack of universal outcry from Congressional Republicans (who are seldom shy when opportunities arise to score points against the White House) on the issue

The tendency of people who generally oppose the goals/viewpoints/stances/etc. of conservatives of telling conservatives what they would believe if they were TRUE conservatives is a weird one.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Roger Dorn wrote:"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

"Those who think an essential Liberty is given up when we blow up people plotting to kill innocent Americans have too broad of a definition of essential Liberty"

Monkeyboy wrote:I think you mostly just care about winning. You're in it for the game more than the actual substance of the prize. But that's just an impression based on message board posts. I think it's quite hard to tell much based on posts. I think the core of the republican party in DC is now made up of people that would be very happy to turn the clock back to pre-Roosevelt. I think they would be happy to take the money from the middle class and make a huge class of poor. You know, like they do in the Mariana Islands. But I'm not sure what their intentions say about you, probably not much. Like I said,I think you're in it for the game,but that's just an impression.

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Roger Dorn wrote:"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

"Those who think an essential Liberty is given up when we blow up people plotting to kill innocent Americans have too broad of a definition of essential Liberty"

"those who think we should just blithely take the word of people holding elective positions of more power than we currently have that those killed or targeted-to-be-killed people were plotting anything have too impoverished an understanding of representative democracy to expect their assertions to be treated as relevant by their fellow adults"

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Plenty of conservatives would as evidenced by the lack of universal outcry from Congressional Republicans (who are seldom shy when opportunities arise to score points against the White House) on the issue

Ahh, see, here's your error; very few of those cretins are conservatives, except perhaps in their own imaginations. Paul Broun, for example, is not really of any political persuasion. He's mentally unbalanced. His utterances are not the utterances of a conservative.

The tendency of people who generally oppose the goals/viewpoints/stances/etc. of conservatives of telling conservatives what they would believe if they were TRUE conservatives is a weird one.

You've completed sufficient numbers of college-level courses to understand that an individual can make a lucid assessment of a belief system without actually believing it themselves. That you imagine* that weird, is weird.

*such an assertion does not evidence thinking; hence 'imagining'

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Plenty of conservatives would as evidenced by the lack of universal outcry from Congressional Republicans (who are seldom shy when opportunities arise to score points against the White House) on the issue

Ahh, see, here's your error; very few of those cretins are conservatives, except perhaps in their own imaginations. Paul Broun, for example, is not really of any political persuasion. He's mentally unbalanced. His utterances are not the utterances of a conservative.

The tendency of people who generally oppose the goals/viewpoints/stances/etc. of conservatives of telling conservatives what they would believe if they were TRUE conservatives is a weird one.

You've completed sufficient numbers of college-level courses to understand that an individual can make a lucid assessment of a belief system without actually believing it themselves. That you imagine* that weird, is weird.

*such an assertion does not evidence thinking; hence 'imagining'

In general I think it's best to use the word conservative when talking about modern elected officials who are widely viewed as being conservative or label themselves conservative in much the same way that it's more useful to use the term liberal in contemporary political discussions as a label applied to Barbara Boxer or Pat Leahy rather than John Stuart Mill.

It seems pretty useless to me to work from a single fixed definition of conservatism that presumably no longer applies to most American conservatives if the SUPER EXTREME RIGHT WING CONSERVATIVES in Congress aren't conservative.

jerseyhoya wrote:The absurdity of you making this argument when the discussion today has centered around me defending the policy of the President of the United States, who presumably is on the other team

Werthless wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:The absurdity of you making this argument when the discussion today has centered around me defending the policy of the President of the United States, who presumably is on the other team

It's like 10,000 drones when all you need is a cave.

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:Considering no one seems willing to actually read the memo before defending it (or arguing against my concerns), here's one of my favorite gems that made me so concerned. I had to re-type it so I apologize for any typos:

The fact that an operation may target a U.S. citizen does alter this conclusion. As explained above, the Supreme Court has held that the military may constitutionally use force against a U.S. citizen who is a part of enemy forces. Similarly, under the Constitution and the inherent right to national self-defense recognized in international law, the President may authorize a use of force against a U.S. citizen who is a member of al-Qa'ida or its associated forces and who poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States.

(citations omitted)

It further goes on to discuss how it wouldn't violate assassination ban and must be conducted in accordance with the laws or war.

Soooo... where is the limitation on borders? Simply the prohibition on the use of US military assets within the US, would be my guess. But there's already bans on targeted assassinations, and the WH carefully maneuvers around that problem, so why wouldn't we expect more of the same?

I think not using the American military against American citizens on American soil is a pretty bright line.

So is the ban on targeted assassinations, jh. (FTR, it says "No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination." No limiting language that narrows the ban to foreign leaders or political motives.) Bright lines are easily stepped around by disingenuous applications of fuzzy (and still developing) statutory authority and case law involving the "war" against an international criminal organization.

Seriously though, I'd love to agree with you. Make an actual legal argument about the application of this memo to domestic incidents that amounts to more than "nuh uh" and I'll stand corrected. I know you're not an attorney, but you are a poli sci guy, so you shouldn't be completely helpless here. Hell, I'm still not sure you've even read this thing yet.

Two FBI sources have told The Daily Caller that the bureau’s inquiry into Democratic New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez is now based in New Jersey, not Miami. One added that pressure is mounting from the highest levels of the Justice Department to pursue the investigation.

The change of focus away from the bureau’s Miami field office indicates that the government is focused primarily on Sen. Menendez — and not on his longtime donor Dr. Salomon Melgen, as political observers have speculated.

Menendez is embroiled in a scandal sparked by allegations that he slept with underage prostitutes in the Dominican Republic.