jerseyhoya wrote:

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.

The last time this came up I wrote up a list of 10 issues I really care about, and the reason I support the Republican Party is because I believe they're the significantly more likely to enact policy in power that I care about.

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, is lost on you because you don't actually care what anyone who disagrees with you writes before launching into your same trope about nefarious conservatives and the rich and Grover Norquist (whom I don't particularly like and the number one thing on my list up there is for tax reform that leads to an increase in government revenue, but knowing that would require actually paying attention to what I say about issues and not assuming I ascribe your weird, fixed notion of what all evil conservatives believe as you go into your form letter reply).

I find elections significantly more fascinating and entertaining than policy making. I post more about elections than policy making because I follow them more closely. I almost always support the Republican candidate. I am pretty amoral about campaign tactics. I don't know why people jump from those facts to thinking I don't care about policy. I wouldn't be invested in the outcome of elections if I didn't care about the policy implications. I've learned quite a bit about policy posting here from some liberals, especially dajafi, docsmooth and TV, and I think I post more about policy issues now than I did five years ago when I was still working in the campaign world. Wish I could put a few people on ignore in this thread only with whom I generally have less than productive interactions, but I won't because I don't want to be ignoring posts in all the other threads. Going forward I'll try and do a better job of not getting into these long, personal back and forths.

allentown wrote:1) A tax code with fewer deductions and lower rates that raises more revenue than the current tax code. Corporate tax rate cut and simplified as well to be more competitive with other countries/encourage multinational corps not to hide their money overseas. THIS WOULD PASS MUSTER WITH DEMS, IFFY WITH REPUBS
2) Serious effort at tackling the long term growth of entitlement spending TOUGH SELL WITH BOTH PARTIES. OBAMA HAS SAID HE WOULD ACCEPT THIS, BUT CONGRESSIONAL DEMS LIKELY TO ACCEPT. REPUBS HAVEN'T REALLY TACKLED THIS WITH SPECIFICS THAT ARE LIKELY TO WORK
3) Public sector unions to be greatly curtailed if not completely destroyed REPUBS CERTAINLY LIKELY TO DO THIS. I DON'T SEE THE BENEFIT OF DESTROYED, ALTHOUGH SOME CURTAILING WOULD BE A PLUS
4) Affirmative action to disappear forever, or at least become based on socioeconomic status and not race based REPUBS MORE LIKELY TO DO THIS AND IT WOULD BE A GOOD THING TO DO. I THINK DEMS WOULD ACCEPT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION BASED ON SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS
5) The federal government to allow oil and gas production in more places (Alaska, offshore, etc.) BOTH PARTIES HAVE DONE THIS. OIL COMPANIES HAVE AS MANY PLACES TO DIG AS THEY HAVE RIGS. FLORIDA AND SOUTHERN ATLANTIC BEING OFF LIMITS WAS ORIGINALLY A DEMAND OF REPUBLICAN STATE LEADERSHIP OF THOSE STATES. DEMS AREN'T GOING TO DRILL IN NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE SANCTUARIES, BUT DO WE REALLY NEED TO.
6) Gov't to maybe spend a bit less on defense, especially looking at problems in the procurement process as people like Sen. Coburn have been talking about, but not change things too much there DEMS WILL DO, REPUBLICANS WILL NOT. LAST CAMPAIGN, ROMNEY CAMPAIGNED ON SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN SPENDING AND THAT SEEMED REPUB MAINSTREAM
7) Gay marriage to be legal NOT WITH REPUBS. DEMS APPROVE
8) Vigorous pursuit of free trade deals - bilateral, regional MIXED BAG FOR BOTH PARTIES. REPUBS CONCOCT TRADE DEALS TO SKEWER LABOR AND SHIELD FARMERS AND EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIES DEMS MORE PROTECTIVE OF UNIONIZED INDUSTRIES, BOTH STUPID ON CHINA
9) Federally directed or encouraged K-12 education experiments like Race to the Top continued/emphasized DEMS YES, POST-BUSH REPUBS, NO
10) Comprehensive immigration reform, something like McCain/Ted Kennedy were proposing under GWB DEMS YES, POST-BUSH REPUBS, NO

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

Phan In Phlorida 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.

IIRC, Posse Comitatus prohibits all but the Coast Guard and National Guard from conducting military actions on US soil without an act of congress. It used to require governor consent for something like a natural disaster or state of emergency, but GWB overrode that requirement with the Defense Authorization Act. But I think you still need an act of congress to conduct actual military shootin' an' bombin' action within our borders (like if Canada invades).

No, Posse Comitatus prohibits the US military from being used to enforce state law. I did some reading on this last night. It's not a blanket prohibition on the use of federal forces. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act In fact, the military can be used by the President within US borders pursuant to the Insurrection Act. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act

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"

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:Pretty good read.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/02/06/6-concrete-policy-ideas-for-fixing-americas-drone-dilemma/?hpid=z2

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:The point is, unless there is broad general popular support for civil liberties, you aren't getting them, no matter what the constitution or case law say. For better or worse, in fact, civil liberties depend on public opinion.

Again, this is crazy talk. You can say that there is "broad general popular support" for the First Amendment, but the devil is in the details. There certainly is not "broad general popular support" for the type of hate speech espoused by Westboro Baptist--just look at the amicus briefs filed by 48 out of 50 states (plus DC) and forty U.S. senators in Snyder v Phelps if you need a recent and non-Warren Court example--yet the Court correctly and overwhelmingly upheld their right to engage in it.

By parallel, there is "broad general popular support" for Due Process, but that support greatly falls off once you talk about subjects like the War on Terror and "enemy combatants." That doesn't mean courts should (or would) abandon it. In fact, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld certainly leads one to conclude that courts would not abandon it, even in the context of the War on Terror.

Also, I haven't looked up any polls, but I'm confident in saying that there certainly isn't "broad general popular support" for a criminal defendant's right to a speedy trial in the Sixth Amendment (outside of the vague notion that if it's in the Bill of Rights it must be good), mostly because the overwhelming majority of Americans has no idea what that means or how it has been interpreted. Yet the test set forth in Barker v. Wingo still holds true (mor or less), and there are plenty of cases where an indictment has been dismissed due to Sixth Amendment violations. There's no groups outside protesting that a defendant's Sixth Amendment rights have been violated, and its highly unlikely that would there even be news coverage about it for obvious reasons (although one of the later trials of John Allen Muhammad is an obvious exception to that).

TenuredVulture wrote:...conservatism in its traditional sense can be traced to two distinct ideas--one is a Calvinist view of man's fallen nature. Laws and institutions are needed because we are bad...

An incoherence arises when this view embraces say market fundamentalism. Hayek was enough of a follower of Smith to see the shortcomings in this--he consistently argued that markets only functioned where certain conventions--call them business ethics--were followed. So, for instance, it's quite consistent with Hayek I think to believe that the problem with the financial wizards of today is that they lack those shared values--they don't adhere to those conventions. Consequently, they need to be regulated. But you could also argue that there needs to be regulation because of the inherent greed of fallen man...

allentown wrote:

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"

How is any war fought? You try to kill as many of the enemy soldiers as possible while losing as few of possible of your own. You also go after the enemy leaders, when you can. An individual soldier doesn't need to be actively plotting anything to be legitimately killed.

jerseyhoya wrote:

allentown wrote:1) A tax code with fewer deductions and lower rates that raises more revenue than the current tax code. Corporate tax rate cut and simplified as well to be more competitive with other countries/encourage multinational corps not to hide their money overseas. THIS WOULD PASS MUSTER WITH DEMS, IFFY WITH REPUBS
2) Serious effort at tackling the long term growth of entitlement spending TOUGH SELL WITH BOTH PARTIES. OBAMA HAS SAID HE WOULD ACCEPT THIS, BUT CONGRESSIONAL DEMS LIKELY TO ACCEPT. REPUBS HAVEN'T REALLY TACKLED THIS WITH SPECIFICS THAT ARE LIKELY TO WORK
3) Public sector unions to be greatly curtailed if not completely destroyed REPUBS CERTAINLY LIKELY TO DO THIS. I DON'T SEE THE BENEFIT OF DESTROYED, ALTHOUGH SOME CURTAILING WOULD BE A PLUS
4) Affirmative action to disappear forever, or at least become based on socioeconomic status and not race based REPUBS MORE LIKELY TO DO THIS AND IT WOULD BE A GOOD THING TO DO. I THINK DEMS WOULD ACCEPT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION BASED ON SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS
5) The federal government to allow oil and gas production in more places (Alaska, offshore, etc.) BOTH PARTIES HAVE DONE THIS. OIL COMPANIES HAVE AS MANY PLACES TO DIG AS THEY HAVE RIGS. FLORIDA AND SOUTHERN ATLANTIC BEING OFF LIMITS WAS ORIGINALLY A DEMAND OF REPUBLICAN STATE LEADERSHIP OF THOSE STATES. DEMS AREN'T GOING TO DRILL IN NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE SANCTUARIES, BUT DO WE REALLY NEED TO.
6) Gov't to maybe spend a bit less on defense, especially looking at problems in the procurement process as people like Sen. Coburn have been talking about, but not change things too much there DEMS WILL DO, REPUBLICANS WILL NOT. LAST CAMPAIGN, ROMNEY CAMPAIGNED ON SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN SPENDING AND THAT SEEMED REPUB MAINSTREAM
7) Gay marriage to be legal NOT WITH REPUBS. DEMS APPROVE
8) Vigorous pursuit of free trade deals - bilateral, regional MIXED BAG FOR BOTH PARTIES. REPUBS CONCOCT TRADE DEALS TO SKEWER LABOR AND SHIELD FARMERS AND EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIES DEMS MORE PROTECTIVE OF UNIONIZED INDUSTRIES, BOTH STUPID ON CHINA
9) Federally directed or encouraged K-12 education experiments like Race to the Top continued/emphasized DEMS YES, POST-BUSH REPUBS, NO
10) Comprehensive immigration reform, something like McCain/Ted Kennedy were proposing under GWB DEMS YES, POST-BUSH REPUBS, NO

Disagree with your interpretation of 1, 5, 6, 8 and 9. Specifics might not be there on 2, but I think if we had unified control right now something would pass. And we're coming around on 10.

allentown wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

allentown wrote:1) A tax code with fewer deductions and lower rates that raises more revenue than the current tax code. Corporate tax rate cut and simplified as well to be more competitive with other countries/encourage multinational corps not to hide their money overseas. THIS WOULD PASS MUSTER WITH DEMS, IFFY WITH REPUBS
2) Serious effort at tackling the long term growth of entitlement spending TOUGH SELL WITH BOTH PARTIES. OBAMA HAS SAID HE WOULD ACCEPT THIS, BUT CONGRESSIONAL DEMS LIKELY TO ACCEPT. REPUBS HAVEN'T REALLY TACKLED THIS WITH SPECIFICS THAT ARE LIKELY TO WORK
3) Public sector unions to be greatly curtailed if not completely destroyed REPUBS CERTAINLY LIKELY TO DO THIS. I DON'T SEE THE BENEFIT OF DESTROYED, ALTHOUGH SOME CURTAILING WOULD BE A PLUS
4) Affirmative action to disappear forever, or at least become based on socioeconomic status and not race based REPUBS MORE LIKELY TO DO THIS AND IT WOULD BE A GOOD THING TO DO. I THINK DEMS WOULD ACCEPT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION BASED ON SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS
5) The federal government to allow oil and gas production in more places (Alaska, offshore, etc.) BOTH PARTIES HAVE DONE THIS. OIL COMPANIES HAVE AS MANY PLACES TO DIG AS THEY HAVE RIGS. FLORIDA AND SOUTHERN ATLANTIC BEING OFF LIMITS WAS ORIGINALLY A DEMAND OF REPUBLICAN STATE LEADERSHIP OF THOSE STATES. DEMS AREN'T GOING TO DRILL IN NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE SANCTUARIES, BUT DO WE REALLY NEED TO.
6) Gov't to maybe spend a bit less on defense, especially looking at problems in the procurement process as people like Sen. Coburn have been talking about, but not change things too much there DEMS WILL DO, REPUBLICANS WILL NOT. LAST CAMPAIGN, ROMNEY CAMPAIGNED ON SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN SPENDING AND THAT SEEMED REPUB MAINSTREAM
7) Gay marriage to be legal NOT WITH REPUBS. DEMS APPROVE
8) Vigorous pursuit of free trade deals - bilateral, regional MIXED BAG FOR BOTH PARTIES. REPUBS CONCOCT TRADE DEALS TO SKEWER LABOR AND SHIELD FARMERS AND EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIES DEMS MORE PROTECTIVE OF UNIONIZED INDUSTRIES, BOTH STUPID ON CHINA
9) Federally directed or encouraged K-12 education experiments like Race to the Top continued/emphasized DEMS YES, POST-BUSH REPUBS, NO
10) Comprehensive immigration reform, something like McCain/Ted Kennedy were proposing under GWB DEMS YES, POST-BUSH REPUBS, NO

Disagree with your interpretation of 1, 5, 6, 8 and 9. Specifics might not be there on 2, but I think if we had unified control right now something would pass. And we're coming around on 10.

Really? You think the Republicans support comprehensive immigration reform? Individual Senators like Rubio support it and will help Dems get it through Senate, but it will be DOA in the House, unless it comes to a vote with about 80% of yes votes coming from Dems. It seems quite clear to me that the Republican party does not support comrehensive immigration reform like the McCain/Kennedy approach. An awful lot of Repubs ran against exactly that in 2012. Obama has clearly supported K-12 experiments and Race to the Top. Repubs seem neutral at best, leaning negative. On free trade agreements, the Repubs have consistently opposed free trade in agricultural products. And defense spending? That's a 'you can't be serious' item. You haven't been watching what Repubs have said in last election and since? They want to raise spending. #1 sounds exactly like what Obama said he would support. Repubs have said ABSOLUTELY no new revenue. I guess oil and gas drilling depends upon how much drilling you think is reasonable where. Wasn't it Jeb Bush who insisted no drilling off the FL coast and wasn't it his brother George who agreed to put the FL coast off-limits?

Werthless wrote:American Citizens Split On DOJ Memo Authorizing Government To Kill Them

Werthless wrote:American Citizens Split On DOJ Memo Authorizing Government To Kill Them

drsmooth wrote:

Werthless wrote:American Citizens Split On DOJ Memo Authorizing Government To Kill Them

good post

Thus the rising Republican star, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, seemed impatient with Mr Brennan for suggesting that terror suspects should or usefully could be brought to American soil for interrogation under American law. Mr Brennan found himself insisting that federal investigators could obtain intelligence from suspects even while granting them their rights, and explaining to an incredulous Mr Rubio that America could not order Tunisia to lock up a suspect linked to the Benghazi killings in Libya, when there was no evidence that Tunisian laws had been broken.

Yet at the same time Democrats pressed Mr Brennan hard on his boss’s lack of transparency over the legal basis for drone strikes, following the leaking, a few days’ earlier, of a memo setting out the legal basis for such extrajudicial killings—a leak that finally prompted Obama officials to send the documents to the committee.

Almost despite the best efforts of the senators, the hearing saw the beginning of a long-overdue argument about the impact on global opinion of hundreds of death-dealing American drones circling far-off skies, and the need for America to demonstrate a much clearer legal basis for those strikes. Before the hearings, a former commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, had told reporters that he was scared by the resentment provoked by drone strikes, and worried that the anger they stirred up was “much greater than the average American appreciates.”

Yet some senators seemed most concerned about the idea that American drones being used to kill American citizens, as in a 2011 strike in Yemen against a suspected terror leader, the American-born Anwar al-Awlaki. The senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Charles Grassley of Iowa, expressed indignation on the same day as the Brennan hearing that his committee would not be sent papers explaining the killing saying: “Taking the life of an American citizen is a tremendous power and one that should not go unchecked.”

In response to questions from Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, the top Republican on the intelligence committee, Mr Brennan disagreed with the suggestion that it was better to kill terrorists with a drone than for the CIA to detain them. “I never believe it’s better to kill a terrorist than to detain him,” Mr Brennan said.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, made it clear that she thinks the administration is a victim of its own secrecy.

Noting that she had sought permission to disclose government estimates of civilian casualties to bolster claims of the drones’ accuracy, Feinstein said she was told that “you can’t. It’s classified. For the public, [the drone campaign] doesn’t exist.”

“Well I think that rationale, Mr. Brennan, is long gone,” Feinstein said.

She also indicated, for the first time, that she plans to have the committee examine the creation of a special court to evaluate evidence against Americans who might be targeted, similar to the scrutiny applied to government monitoring of the communications of Americans suspected of having connections to terrorist groups.

Sen. Saxby Chambliss (Ga.), the ranking Republican on the panel, said the committee found at least 50 documents showing that Brennan had been copied on e-mails and other internal communications about the use of waterboarding and the results of harsh interrogations.“We’ve not seen anybody . . . come forward to say they heard any objections from you,” the senator said. He and others said the administration’s decision to end the CIA’s detention program led to a surge in drone strikes instead.

The committee’s report, which concluded that harsh interrogation methods were not effective, also contains records that show that the program was “managed incompetently” and was “corrupted by personnel with pecuniary conflicts of interest,” said Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.).