Quotes of the day

posted at 10:01 pm on February 5, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” — even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.

The 16-page memo, a copy of which was obtained by NBC News, provides new details about the legal reasoning behind one of the Obama administration’s most secretive and controversial polices: its dramatically increased use of drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects abroad, including those aimed at American citizens, such as the  September 2011 strike in Yemen that killed alleged al-Qaida operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Both were U.S. citizens who had never been indicted by the U.S. government nor charged with any crimes.

The secrecy surrounding such strikes is fast emerging as a central issue in this week’s hearing of White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, a key architect of the drone campaign, to be CIA director.  Brennan was the first administration official to publicly acknowledge drone strikes in a speech last year, calling them “consistent with the inherent right of self-defense.” In a separate talk at the Northwestern University Law School in March, Attorney General Eric Holder specifically endorsed the constitutionality of targeted killings of Americans, saying they could be justified if government officials determine the target poses  “an imminent threat of violent attack.”

***

White House press secretary Jay Carney said that the Obama administration’s drone program was “legal,” “ethical” and “wise” during the daily press briefing today.

“The U.S. government takes great care in deciding to pursue an al-Qaida terrorist, to ensure precision, and to avoid loss of innocent life,” Carney said.

***

Anyway, here is what the lawyers to the president’s lawyer say about the legality of killing Americans who are constituted as al Qaeda or al Qaeda-linked threats. (The memo makes it clear that its language does not apply to other instances where American citizens might be killed by their government.)

1. “An informed, high-level official” must determine that the person represents “an imminent threat” of “violent attack against the United States.”

2. Capturing the dude is “infeasible,” and the government will continue to assess whether capturing him is feasible.

3. The killing, or “lethal operation,” must be conducted according to the laws of war. …

So here’s what that means: Even if the person is not actively planning terrorist attacks against the U.S., because of the nature of terrorist attacks in general, merely his membership in an organization that is planning those attacks meets the requisite definition of imminence.

***

What threshold of evidence, if any, must a high-ranking official meet to determine that someone is Al Qaeda? The burden is apparently less onerous than two witnesses testifying in open court, which the Constitution requires for a treason conviction. But the memo specifies neither an evidential threshold nor a protocol for meeting it. That is troubling.

But the part of the memo worth dwelling on most, at least until legal experts offer deeper analysis than I confidently can, is the portion that deals with “an imminent threat of violent attack.”

On reading the document, that clause is sort of reassuring. After all, there aren’t that many circumstances when an attack is imminent. It would seem to severely constrain extrajudicial assassinations.

As it turns out, however, the memo reassures the reader with the rhetorically powerful word “imminent,” only to define imminence down in a way that makes it largely meaningless — so much so that it’s actually reminiscent of George W. Bush’s misuse of imminent to characterize the threat posed by Iraq. It’s difficult to adequately emphasize how absurd this part of the document becomes. What does it mean, for you personally, when you hear that someone poses “an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States”? Do you have an answer in your head?

***

What about their Fourth and Fifth Amendment Rights? Since the U.S. citizen in question is considered to have joined a force that is actively seeking to kill Americans, the Justice Department argues that it can kill that person and forgo his or her constitutional rights. Even though the government weighs the individual’s rights against the broader rights of a government to protect its citizens from attack, the paper concludes that “the realities of war” allows the government to use “necessary and appropriate” force to protect its citizens—even from one of their own.

Why can Obama order these attacks? As the commander in chief, U.S. officials argue that the president has the constitutional right to protect the country against an “imminent threat” from militant groups. Additionally, Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force bill after the 9/11 attacks, and gave the president authority to use force against al-Qaida and other militant groups that target Americans. The white paper does not define “imminent,” however. …

Is there room for judicial review of these attacks? Not really. The Justice Department says “there exists no appropriate judicial forum to evaluate these constitutional considerations” with regard to intimate foreign policy matters. If the courts were to get involved with these matters, it could hinder the president’s ability to carry out military operations, the paper argues.

***

“If you assess the threat of international terrorism to be the equivalent of war, then you’re in the ‘law of war’ paradigm. This is not like robbing the local 7-Eleven, where you resort to the law enforcement paradigm,” said Bolton, who added that Article II of the Constitution gives this power to the president in a time of war.

***

What else is in the news today regarding the most transparent administration in history? A report documenting that 54 countries around the globe have played along with the CIA when it comes to torturing suspects in such a way that the U.S. can pretend it doesn’t do that sort of thing anymore.

There is a darkly comic aspect to this, I suppose: Here’s a president who once taught classes in constitutional law and swore up and down that America doesn’t torture, that he was against “dumb wars” waged by his predecessors, that he was more transparent than a glass of triple-filtered water, and who won a goddamned Nobel Peace Prize! And he turns out to be not just a little iffy when it comes to being constrained in his willingness to break all sorts of rules but downright godawful.

And his main mouthpiece is a former MSM drone whose babyface is quickly turning into a map of wrinkles brought on by working for an administration which has manifestly failed to live up to even the mediocre standards of the previous occupant of the White House.

***

On the advice of the Horde, I took up George Orwell’s “Politics and the English Language.” This passage seems especially appropriate today:

“In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of the political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. …”

I highly advise you to read the memo. The powers it claims are broad and, as Isikoff pointed out on Rachel Maddow’s show, actually contradict some of the administration’s public statements and enter into Orwell’s world of false language rendered to conceal an arguments “too brutal for most people to take.”

***

“That is nowhere justifiable under the Constitution, nowhere justifiable under federal law,” Judge Andrew Napolitano argued on FOX News today. “In fact, federal law and the Constitution are to the opposite. Unless you are actually pulling a trigger or are in moments of pulling that trigger or dropping a bomb, the government has an obligation to do its best to arrest you and charge you with a crime and prosecute you before it can indiscriminately kill you.”

“This power used today against an unpopular target might be used in the future by another president against a person the president doesn’t like but as to whom there’s no moral justification for pursuing whatsoever,” Napolitano also said.

“This frivolous use of language by this administration and then claiming they have the right to use force to stop dead in their tracks the people who fit into these categories violates the principles of the Declaration of Independence and violates the supremacy of the Constitution which they’ve taken an oath to uphold,” he said.

***


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 6

tommy71

KCB on February 5, 2013 at 10:02 PM

Electrongod!

KCB on February 5, 2013 at 10:02 PM

Axe

KCB on February 5, 2013 at 10:02 PM

Sparky

KCB on February 5, 2013 at 10:03 PM

Bmore

KCB on February 5, 2013 at 10:03 PM

KCB!

Electrongod on February 5, 2013 at 10:03 PM

nice pic.

who runs this country?

whitey right?

renalin on February 5, 2013 at 10:04 PM

Please tell me someone threw a shoe at that ass hat Holder.

Bmore on February 5, 2013 at 10:05 PM

Due Process must be voluntary.

Electrongod on February 5, 2013 at 10:05 PM

The most extremist power any political leader can assert is the power to target his own citizens for execution without any charges or due process, far from any battlefield. The Obama administration has not only asserted exactly that power in theory, but has exercised it in practice. In September 2011, it killed US citizen Anwar Awlaki in a drone strike in Yemen, along with US citizen Samir Khan, and then, in circumstances that are still unexplained, two weeks later killed Awlaki’s 16-year-old American son Abdulrahman with a separate drone strike in Yemen.

…snip..

If you believe the president has the power to order US citizens executed far from any battlefield with no charges or trial, then it’s truly hard to conceive of any asserted power you would find objectionable.

- Glenn Greenwald, one of the few on the Left who will speak the truth no matter who is POTUS and also is unflinching in his criticism of ObamaFirsters.

Resist We Much on February 5, 2013 at 10:06 PM

I really wish Bush and Cheney had done this. Just so I could hear the squealing of those little leftist puke cowards. Again.

Bmore on February 5, 2013 at 10:07 PM

You have the right to remain silent forever.

Bishop on February 5, 2013 at 10:07 PM

Coming to an America near you..

Electrongod on February 5, 2013 at 10:07 PM

Bmore on February 5, 2013 at 10:05 PM

I would love to punch him right in his arrogant mouth.

KCB on February 5, 2013 at 10:08 PM

Due Process must be voluntary.

Electrongod on February 5, 2013 at 10:05 PM

Or as Stephen Colbert described due process and Obama’s kill list:

“Trial by jury, trial by fire, rock, paper scissors, who cares? Due process just means that there is a process that you do. The current process is apparently, first the president meets with his advisers and decides who he can kill. Then he kills them.”

And, the ObamaFirster CHEERED after hearing the “news report” presented by Mr Colbert.

Resist We Much on February 5, 2013 at 10:08 PM

“This frivolous use of language by this administration and then claiming they have the right to use force to stop dead in their tracks the people who fit into these categories violates the principles of the Declaration of Independence and violates the supremacy of the Constitution which they’ve taken an oath to uphold,” he said.

Sorry, Judge, but when exactly has this administration done anything that might constitute, even in the slightest, a respect for or adherence to the Constitution which, as you note, they’ve taken an oath to uphold?

Lawless bastards do lawless things. They are what they are.

TXUS on February 5, 2013 at 10:08 PM

Wrong thread…oh, well…

Schadenfreude on February 5, 2013 at 10:10 PM

Could this rule of law be expanded to include americans IN America?

Scrumpy on February 5, 2013 at 10:11 PM

1. “An informed, high-level official” must determine that the person represents “an imminent threat” of “violent attack against the United States.”

Yeah, he’s sitting there, in that big fancy ass office, what the heII are you waiting for. / Take note of the sarc tag.

Bmore on February 5, 2013 at 10:11 PM

Wrong thread…oh, well…

Schadenfreude on February 5, 2013 at 10:10 PM

Sorry, meant to post this on the hitchhiker thread :(((

Schadenfreude on February 5, 2013 at 10:11 PM

I could hear Ken scream out my name. Lol

tommy71 on February 5, 2013 at 10:11 PM

If only we had these American killing drones in Benghazi..

Oh well..
Just sloppy..

I guess..

Electrongod on February 5, 2013 at 10:12 PM

Schadenfreude on February 5, 2013 at 10:10 PM

There is never a wrong thread for you my friend. ; )

Bmore on February 5, 2013 at 10:12 PM

Say what you want …. I think when the detailed text is exposed …..
This dog don’t hunt !

Lucano on February 5, 2013 at 10:12 PM

Schadenfreude on February 5, 2013 at 10:11 PM

Well, you’re here now, pull up a chair and make yourself comfortable.

Bmore on February 5, 2013 at 10:13 PM

Well they haven’t followed the law or constitution up to this point – why should they start now.

Pretty soon we are going to be China/Russia.

gophergirl on February 5, 2013 at 10:13 PM

Heh, Bmore, thank you.

———–
Because they are them.

Schadenfreude on February 5, 2013 at 10:14 PM

Hi Schad.

KCB on February 5, 2013 at 10:14 PM

So Jon Effin Cary is OK to work for the WH Gengizz Kaan now ?

burrata on February 5, 2013 at 10:14 PM

Could this rule of law be expanded to include americans IN America?

Scrumpy on February 5, 2013 at 10:11 PM

Apparently the Judge thinks so. Hello Scrump!

KCB on February 5, 2013 at 10:16 PM

In the near future..
Iran will be making their own drones…copied from ours..

Then starts the era of the Cloned Drone Wars…

Electrongod on February 5, 2013 at 10:17 PM

Our girl Sarah was right again. Krugman validates her. He admitted that as the population gets older, they’ll need more ‘revenue’ and will need to tax the middle class for health care. And finally, the only way to hold it together is death panels. Yeah, he really stated those 2 words. Damn, Sarah was right all along. Thats what it’ll come down to. And Krugman confirms it. The progs must be ranting and raving.

tommy71 on February 5, 2013 at 10:18 PM

She always says it best, the great lady from Britain.

“These strikes are legal, they are ethical and they are wise.”

- Jay Carney, 5 February 2013

Killing American citizens is OK, but waterboarding known terrorists, who coughed up information, was against our “values,” according to this administration.

HEIGHT OF HYPOCRISY!

Resist We Much on February 5, 2013 at 4:47 PM

Major point of internalization – it’s all according to plan, to Obama’s plan.

Recall that the left were for the rights of the rag-muffins, without uniform, after 9.11.01

Now they are for killing any US American. Your neighbor can declare you a terrorits and “bam”, Obama can have you killed, no explanations, no congress, no representation, no due process, no oversight, no transparency.

The left are never for liberalism or progress, Never.

ACLU and all leftards, may you all spontaneously combust, for hypocrisy alone.

Schadenfreude on February 5, 2013 at 10:18 PM

KCB on February 5, 2013 at 10:16 PM

Yeah I read it but it does seem to be somewhat indeterminate?

Scrumpy on February 5, 2013 at 10:19 PM

I used the bluegill function on my iPhone 5 to send this post while standing in line.

Rusty Allen on February 5, 2013 at 10:21 PM

Hi Ken!

——–
This is like the Hitlarian Ueberwachungsgesellschaft when very bad things were done “in the name of national security”. It is how it begins. You know how it ends.

Recall also that Obama declared terrorism over…and for the longest time the term had disappeared from his speeches.

Schadenfreude on February 5, 2013 at 10:22 PM

whitey right?

renalin on February 5, 2013 at 10:04 PM

Whitey left. :)

Axe on February 5, 2013 at 10:22 PM

Apparently Rove was on Hannity tonight. No wonder Palin didn’t return to the network.

Midwestprincesse on February 5, 2013 at 10:22 PM

I saw someone say earlier, Libs go apoplectic when talking about Water Boarding Terrorists, but they have no problem Killing Americans, without Due Process of Law! So Kill’em, so long as you don’t make’m uncomfortable!

http://www.paratisiusa.blogspot.com

God Bless America!

paratisi on February 5, 2013 at 10:23 PM

To be honest, I don’t feel any pangs of remorse for Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan (supposed American citizens) getting what they no-doubt deserved. When SWAT responds to a hostage situation and kills the perpetrator, they didn’t have to go to court to protect the perp’s rights. Same thing here. These asswipes were in another country, conspiring against the U.S. to kill our citizens. They are a fair target.

But to be fair, if any administration were to abuse this power, it’s the current one. “Yes, Oprah, we determined that the GOP presidential candidate was a senior al-Qaida operative, so we had to kill him. And no, you cannot see the evidence; it would violate the Patriot Act.”

RoadRunner on February 5, 2013 at 10:24 PM

Between drones and death panels, its now easy to prune the population, and get rid of the ‘undesirables’.

tommy71 on February 5, 2013 at 10:24 PM

If only we had these American killing drones in Benghazi..

Oh well..
Just sloppy..

I guess..

Electrongod on February 5, 2013 at 10:12 PM

Dontchaknow that its not 911 eve though they managed to get an UNARMED drone over Benghazi in no time and the time for the response team at Sigonella to arrive would have been around the same as the Chicago PD’s time responding to a burglary or car theft (although the latter may be MUCH lonter).

:-)

Resist We Much on February 5, 2013 at 10:25 PM

Scrumpy on February 5, 2013 at 10:19 PM

Indeterminate is a problem. Is this power just “deemed” or what?

KCB on February 5, 2013 at 10:25 PM

Gun Control??

BS..

Power Control by Pols like Obama must be reined in..

“If we can just save our Country….
Then we must try”

Electrongod on February 5, 2013 at 10:25 PM

Killing American citizens is OK, but waterboarding known terrorists, who coughed up information, was against our “values,” according to this administration.

HEIGHT OF HYPOCRISY!

Resist We Much on February 5, 2013 at 4:47 PM

Schadenfreude on February 5, 2013 at 10:18 PM

…you don’t miss nothing!

KOOLAID2 on February 5, 2013 at 10:25 PM

… to be expanded to conservatives, Tea Party members, Obamacare objectors, and everyone else Obama deems ‘an imminent threat’.

Midas on February 5, 2013 at 10:25 PM

Haven’t noted the usual gnatbrains from the left, nor the ‘erudite’ Dave Rywall and Tom_Schipley defend all this.

Schadenfreude on February 5, 2013 at 10:25 PM

Tug of war next the list of banned school activities.

RickB on February 5, 2013 at 10:22 PM

rbj
February 5, 2013 @ 2:11 PM

Next, a student will be expelled for bringing in a picture of a rope.

http://libertyunyielding.com/2013/02/05/students-lose-fingers-in-game-of-tug-of-war-at-school-administrators-lose-heads/

Axe on February 5, 2013 at 10:26 PM

Please Lord say it ain’t so?!

Excuse me whilst I weep…

*swoosh*

Scrumpy on February 5, 2013 at 10:26 PM

Rolllllling rock.

Rusty Allen on February 5, 2013 at 10:27 PM

AP’s cats sick..?

d1carter on February 5, 2013 at 10:28 PM

Zippity do da zippity day…

My oh my what a wonderful thread.

Looks like my sidekick, Deputy Scrumps, did a fine job. No fires.

B9

SparkPlug on February 5, 2013 at 10:28 PM

Rusty Allen on February 5, 2013 at 10:27 PM

Uh oh….

KCB on February 5, 2013 at 10:28 PM

tommy71 ….it’s drones, death panels and abortions….:(

CoffeeLover on February 5, 2013 at 10:28 PM

Comment from the first article Schadenfreude linked.

Now Obama can kill without evidence in a court of law. This is unconstitutional to say the least. He needs no proof of terrorism. He can kill because he feels like it. This is the same man who thinks that waterboarding is torture.

Bmore on February 5, 2013 at 10:30 PM

Imagine, just imagine if Nixon would have done this, or Reagan.

Schadenfreude on February 5, 2013 at 10:30 PM

Haven’t noted the usual gnatbrains from the left, nor the ‘erudite’ Dave Rywall and Tom_Schipley defend all this.

Schadenfreude on February 5, 2013 at 10:25 PM

…you can’t tax their limits!…when their hands are busy…their lips are not!…’stuff‘ can’t come out of both!…at the same time!

KOOLAID2 on February 5, 2013 at 10:30 PM

According to information from a source know on the internet as “White House Insider”, Obama spends much of his days watching a big screen TV, dressed in sweats and smoking. According to this source, Obama has the greatest enthusiasm for drone killing and watches the recordings of them over and over “like porn”.

RasThavas on February 5, 2013 at 10:31 PM

@CL true dat

tommy71 on February 5, 2013 at 10:31 PM

Schadenfreude on February 5, 2013 at 10:25 PM

There has been quite a bit as of late those cowardly leftist pukes are willing to come here and defend. They won an election but they are beaten. As they say. Let the beatings continue until morale improves. To heII with the lot of them!

Bmore on February 5, 2013 at 10:32 PM

1. “An informed, high-level official” must determine that the person represents “an imminent threat” of “violent attack against the United States.”

Hahaha, An “informed” “high-level” political operative working for the Ministry of Truth will determine this? hahaha.

SparkPlug on February 5, 2013 at 10:32 PM

are=aren’t

Bmore on February 5, 2013 at 10:32 PM

A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” —

I thought that al-Qaida was decimated?

Mimzey on February 5, 2013 at 10:32 PM

No waterboarding…but vaporizing…now that’s something Progs can get behind.

d1carter on February 5, 2013 at 10:33 PM

Imagine, just imagine if Nixon would have done this, or Reagan.

Schadenfreude on February 5, 2013 at 10:30 PM

If the President does it then it’s not illegal. – Barack Milhous Obama

VorDaj on February 5, 2013 at 10:33 PM

Imagine, just imagine if Nixon would have done this, or Reagan.

Schadenfreude on February 5, 2013 at 10:30 PM

Well that’s different. Obama cares, he really cares and is concerned, really concerned. /

SparkPlug on February 5, 2013 at 10:34 PM

1. “An informed, high-level official” must determine that the person represents “an imminent threat” of “violent attack against the United States.”

Napolitano or anyone could deem a tea-party member, a veteran, you, or anyone to be a “terrorist”.

Just ask any moronic congresscritter and they’ll do some deeming.

The US doens’t have a shred of moral authority left.

The Left killed it all off.

Schadenfreude on February 5, 2013 at 10:34 PM

KCB on February 5, 2013 at 10:28 PM

Nah, not tonight, I’m responsible.

Rusty Allen on February 5, 2013 at 10:34 PM

I thought that al-Qaida was decimated?

Mimzey on February 5, 2013 at 10:32 PM

decimated…..on the run………and/or running rampant in Mali and Yemen, etc.

CoffeeLover on February 5, 2013 at 10:35 PM

YOU LIBTARD RAT BASTURDS ARE CHIMPOCRITES.

SparkPlug on February 5, 2013 at 10:35 PM

Hopey Kill List Runneth Amuckage!!

canopfor on February 5, 2013 at 10:36 PM

I’m starting to believe that my right to bear arms might include, in addition to my “assault weapons”, a few SAMs. If a tyrant has the ability to kill me from the sky, well, I should be able to return fire.

TXUS on February 5, 2013 at 10:36 PM

“Osama is dead, GM is alive”

Schadenfreude on February 5, 2013 at 10:36 PM

Imagine, just imagine if Nixon would have done this, or Reagan.

Schadenfreude on February 5, 2013 at 10:30 PM

Someone was making the argument — yonder — that it’s legal if the President does it. Thought of Nixon immediately, but passed. :)

Axe on February 5, 2013 at 10:37 PM

And………how will the gentler, kindler Issa deal with this one!!!

Trey Gowdy has a burr in his saddle over this one. Maybe he can rustle up some noise in the House.

CoffeeLover on February 5, 2013 at 10:37 PM

Bunch of little leftist shits. Not a Man amongst them.

Bmore on February 5, 2013 at 10:37 PM

YOU LIBTARD RAT BASTURDS ARE CHIMPOCRITES.
SparkPlug on February 5, 2013 at 10:35 PM

Seconded…

Scrumpy on February 5, 2013 at 10:38 PM

TXUS on February 5, 2013 at 10:36 PM

Roy Sr. can have a look at those drones, if they show.

Bmore on February 5, 2013 at 10:38 PM

No waterboarding…but vaporizing…now that’s something Progs can get behind.

d1carter on February 5, 2013 at 10:33 PM

Heh!

JPeterman on February 5, 2013 at 10:40 PM

YOU LIBTARD RAT BASTURDS ARE CHIMPOCRITES.

SparkPlug on February 5, 2013 at 10:35 PM

And occasionally Chump-o-crites? :)

Eh?

Axe on February 5, 2013 at 10:40 PM

Ed Shultz, you presume to have once had the moral high ground. History finds your ilk wanting.

Bmore on February 5, 2013 at 10:41 PM

“The government gets is powers from the consent of the governed. Do you know anybody who consented to the government doing this?,” Judge Napolitano

Schadenfreude on February 5, 2013 at 10:42 PM

Orwellian

Schadenfreude on February 5, 2013 at 10:43 PM

There is such an investment in our “Capitol City” by both parties that they are now both working to protect the funding. Yes, all politics are local and the DC metro area is local to itself, except it’s constituents can tax the rest of the country.

Now, not only do we need term limits for our politicians, but we now need a rotating Capitol City so it is harder for the political class to put all their efforts into one location.

J_Crater on February 5, 2013 at 10:44 PM

3. The killing, or “lethal operation,” must be conducted according to the laws of war.

Try getting Laws of Peace right first. That’s my vote.

Axe on February 5, 2013 at 10:44 PM

Schadenfreude on February 5, 2013 at 10:42 PM

Um yes, the ones we put in office, sad to say, by election…

Our voices otherwise mean NOTHING!!!!

Scrumpy on February 5, 2013 at 10:45 PM

YOU LIBTARD RAT BASTURDS ARE CHIMPOCRITES.
SparkPlug on February 5, 2013 at 10:35 PM

So is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad…
“Chimps…In…Spaaaaace.”

Electrongod on February 5, 2013 at 10:45 PM

Schadenfreude on February 5, 2013 at 10:43 PM

David Corn deserves this.

Bmore on February 5, 2013 at 10:45 PM

Nest up for debate. Habeas corpus. Is it needed? Outdated?

Bmore on February 5, 2013 at 10:48 PM

What’s up in the glade?

Rusty Allen on February 5, 2013 at 10:49 PM

Somebody, anybody, throw a freaking shoe at this Holder idiot!

Bmore on February 5, 2013 at 10:49 PM

i don’t think this is going to end well. Some dystopian sounding future with automated, unmanned drones flying the skies vaporizing clusters of people here and there

and i’m sure that barry will raise a stick that Booooosh was much worse, war crimes, and so this is small potatoes compared to the Evil One. But we really have to be talking about the time element of war.

the patriot act had a sunset clause for a reason. Rs really need to begin now to talk about sunsetting a bunch of 9/11 stuff. will they be ridiculed and heckled…will david gregory pound the table at the hypocrisy? sure. but they need to do it.

r keller on February 5, 2013 at 10:51 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 6