235 replies to this topic

[AsteroidX]

Quote

A jury can decide if someone is innocnet or guilty. For American citizens, they are the only ones that can decide this. Not the government.

Wrong. The government decides this. As well it should.

Fix your quote. That is just a crazy statement at its face value Pallidin

[pallidin]

I did fix it, previous to your comment.

Re-read my edited post #60.

[F3SS]

Bama13, on 07 March 2013 - 08:28 PM, said:

A jury can decide if someone is innocnet or guilty. For American citizens, they are the only ones that can decide this. Not the government.

Yes, you know I know that. I'm simply talking about imminent threats that need dealt with immediately. Now, if the threat couldn't be eliminated and an attack was carried out and the criminal party survives they can't be killed. They are then to be captured and tried by a jury.

[Tiggs]

Clyde the Glyde, on 07 March 2013 - 03:58 PM, said:

That is what makes me so mad about our political system. The only reason that Democrats are not up in arms over drone strikes is because Rand is a Republican and their party  ( Obama & Holder ) are Democrats saying it's okay. Flip the rolls and they would be on the other side of the issue. ( IMO anyway )   Prime examples are The Patriot Act and Gitmo.

Last time I checked, the Patriot Act made it through the Senate with only a single dissenting vote.

[Tiggs]

-Mr_Fess-, on 07 March 2013 - 07:03 PM, said:

Yea well talk is cheap and it's not in writing. The filibuster was an effort to obtain this in writing.

Because the Congressional Record is apparently not good enough.

WoIverine, on 07 March 2013 - 07:18 PM, said:

Holder was held in contempt of Congress over fast and furious. But don't worry, clearly we should trust everything he says because he obviously cares about us so much.

If Congress doesn't trust Holder - then why's Rand Paul filibustering to get something from him in writing, exactly?

[AsteroidX]

Quote

If Congress doesn't trust Holder - then why's Rand Paul filibustering to get something from him in writing, exactly?

To get it on the record instead of letting them continue to weasel around the subject.

[Tiggs]

Bama13, on 07 March 2013 - 07:27 PM, said:

So you don't think this is a violation of Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3? It clearly says "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

Bill of Attainder: A "bill of attainder" is any act of a legislative body declaring a person or group of persons guilty of a crime and assessing a punishment without the benefit of trial.

Sure. That's exactly why during the civil war, not a single bullet was shot at an enemy soldier until they'd been tried by a jury of their peers.

Enemy Combatants. Different rules. True Story.

AsteroidX, on 07 March 2013 - 11:26 PM, said:

To get it on the record instead of letting them continue to weasel around the subject.

It was already on the Congressional Record.

[Tiggs]

Bama13, on 07 March 2013 - 07:59 PM, said:

I believe that first the FAA grounded all flights. Therefore any planes still flying were in violation of the grounding order, which is against the law. So they would actually be in violation of the law, not potentially in violation of the law. Big difference to me.

Well, you can check, but I think you'll find that conspiracy to commit an act of terrorism is also in direct violation of the law.

[AsteroidX]

Quote

It was already on the Congressional Record.

Link please.  Why did Holder break the filibuster by making the first official policy statement regarding the use of drones to kill Americans on US soil. If it was already there the filibuster would still be on.

[Tiggs]

AsteroidX, on 07 March 2013 - 11:29 PM, said:

Link please.  Why did Holder break the filibuster by making the first official policy statement regarding the use of drones to kill Americans on US soil. If it was already there the filibuster would still be on.

Here's the video from the Judiciary Committee hearing prior to the filibuster grandstanding.

Edited by Tiggs, 07 March 2013 - 11:41 PM.

[AsteroidX]

By the timestamps to the best I can discern these 2 events occured at the same time. Yesterday. Thank You Tiggs.

I still think Holders a weasel. He sure didnt want to say it was Unconstitutional to kill am American citizen on US soil with a drone attack. But when forced to he did finally admit to it. But testimony as we well know is only worth the mouth it comes out of and I expect this to be legislated with severe limitations.

[Tiggs]

AsteroidX, on 08 March 2013 - 12:01 AM, said:

By the timestamps to the best I can discern these 2 events occured at the same time. Yesterday. Thank You Tiggs.

The statement was made, as per the video, at 10:40 Eastern. Rand's filibuster kicked off at 11:47 Eastern.

Quote

I still think Holders a weasel. He sure didnt want to say it was Unconstitutional to kill am American citizen on US soil with a drone attack. But when forced to he did finally admit to it.

Is that what you saw?

What I saw was someone who believes that the word "Constitutional" is included and implied by the word "Appropriate".

Edited by Tiggs, 08 March 2013 - 12:25 AM.

[F3SS]

Yea well it looks like not everyone sees eye to eye in this world. When you write laws that affect the lives of 310 million people you'd better provide detailed answers when asked.

[AsteroidX]

Quote

What I saw was someone who believes that the word "Constitutional" is included and implied by the word "Appropriate".

I disagree. I see the word appropriate being used to circumvent the Constitutionality of it.

[Tiggs]

-Mr_Fess-, on 08 March 2013 - 12:37 AM, said:

Yea well it looks like not everyone sees eye to eye in this world. When you write laws that affect the lives of 310 million people you'd better provide detailed answers when asked.

Then people should probably stop insisting on one word answers.