Quotes of the day

posted at 10:31 pm on February 7, 2013 by Allahpundit

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters Thursday that the Obama administration will not be releasing any more information about the controversial use of drones to kill American citizens.

Carney’s remarks, via the White House’s transcript of the off-camera press gaggle:

“This is not an open-ended process. This is a specific and unique accommodation in this circumstance. The fact is, when it comes to public disclosure, we have been — not with the kind of attention that’s been given it this week — but we have been publicly discussing these matters at the highest levels of government for the very reason that I’ve given, which is the President understands that these are core issues about how we conduct ourselves in war, how the President of the United States — any President — balances his constitutional obligation to protect America and American citizens, and his obligation to do so in a manner that is lawful under the Constitution and reflects our values.”

***

President Obama’s white paper justification for carrying out drone strikes against U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism could “swallow the rule” guaranteeing the due process rights of Americans, Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, suggested today…

“You would think that consistent with the principles of due process, the government shouldn’t be able to kill one of its own citizens without some kind of showing that they present an imminent threat,” he continued. “But when you dig a little bit deeper into this white paper . . . they have sort of a loose [definition] of ‘imminent’.”…

The former appellate lawyer also criticized the White House for failing to identify a constitutional principle that would prevent the U.S. military from carrying out a drone strike on a suspected American terrorist in the United States.

***

It may be true that, even when it comes to the first two conditions, the “informed, high-level officials” in the Obama administration—including Brennan, who has been deeply involved in these decisions—have exercised good judgment. But we don’t know this; we have no way of knowing this. And by “we,” I mean not just those of who of us who don’t have the proper security clearances, but also those who do (outside, of course, the very small group that makes the decisions of life or death).

And that’s the point. The white paper acknowledges that there is no entity—in the executive, legislative, or judicial branch—that has the authority to oversee these sorts of decisions. But maybe there should be. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who co-chairs the Intelligence Committee, suggested at Thursday’s hearing that an analog to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court might be created to sign off on these orders, especially if American citizens are the targets. Not a bad idea.

But the logic of the three conditions—or at least the two conditions that aren’t at all restrictive—raises questions not just of legality but of policy. Gen. David Petraeus once said of the Iraq war, “Tell me how this ends.” The same question can be asked of this war. Are there no limits to targeted assassination? Are we going to be doing this as long as terrorist organizations exist? What is the effect? Does it really reduce terrorism and pummel the organization—or are the killed leaders simply replaced by underlings waiting in the wings?

***

Further, in addition to checks and balances, there has to be more transparency. The notion that the government can compile a list of citizens for killing, not tell anyone who’s on it or how they got there, is simply un–American. Surely, a modern version of a WANTED: DEAD OR ALIVE notice could be publicly circulated, with a listing of the particulars. Maybe the named individual would turn himself in rather than wait for the drones to find him. Or maybe he’d hire an attorney to present evidence he’s not actually an imminent threat to American citizens.

For centuries, civilized societies have understood that even wars must be fought according to rules, which have developed over time in response to changing realities. Rules are even more important in endless, murky wars such as the fight against Islamist terror groups. Currently, we’re letting whomever is in the Oval Office pick and choose from among the existing rules, applying and redefining them based on his own judgment and that of his advisors. We can do better.

***

During the hearing, Feinstein forcefully insisted that the CIA’s drone strikes kill only “single digits” of civilians annually, and even ran through a list of accusations against Anwar al-Awlaki, the U.S. citizen and al-Qaida propagandist the U.S. killed in Yemen in 2011, to underscore her belief in the legitimacy of the killing. She suggested that media reports and nongovernmental organization studies claiming larger percentages of civilian deaths from the highly classified program are ignorant. Feinstein emphasized that the CIA has hosted committee staff over 30 times to conduct oversight over the drone program…

Yet Feinstein and several other senators during the hearing said the CIA materially misrepresented to Congress key facts about the quality of information it received from its post-9/11 torture and detentions program. That revelation came from the committee’s recently completed 6,000-page report into those programs. But since the report is still classified, senators couldn’t say outright that the CIA lied to them. Brennan said that the misstatements made by CIA about torture called into question the basis for his public statements years ago that torture extracted valuable information for counterterrorist operations. “I have to determine what the truth is,” Brennan said.

But if the CIA misled Congress about torture, how can the committee be confident it’s not misleading Congress about civilian deaths from drones?

***

Can we learn at least a little from the past? And not the distant past, either. Enough of the detainees at Gitmo were wrongly held so that you’d figure Obama (didn’t he pledge to shut that prison down?) would want to make double-plus sure that he’s targeting the right bastards?…

By making clear that as a journalist he tries to see things first and foremost from the perspective of the powerful, Michael Tomasky helps to clarify why so many in the media are rushing to the president’s defense. They are entranced with power and the view from the top. “Presidents live with that responsibility [of protecting American lives] every day,” he writes. “If that responsibility were mine, I can’t honestly say what I’d do, and I don’t think anyone can.” Not all journalists are awed by power, of course, even on the right (National Review’s Jim Geraghty, for instance, asserts that this sort of thing of extra-judicial killing policy wouldn’t be cricket even under a GOP president).

This isn’t ultimately about ideological hypocrisy – of liberals changing their tune once their guy is in office – but something much more basic and much more disturbing. It reveals that for all their crowing about being watchdogs of all that is good and decent in society, when push comes to shove, too many journalists are ready and willing handmaidens to power – including the power to kill.

***

The white paper has ignited not quite a firestorm (again, this isn’t the Bush administration), but at least a smoldering ember of brow-furrowed consternation among the president’s supporters and journalistic sympathizers who find the document “chilling.”

They rarely say what their alternative would be. Does a U.S. citizen get an exemption from targeting if he joins Al Qaeda at a high level? Should his status be litigated before he can be targeted, and if so, by whom and for how long and on the basis of what evidence? Can he show up in the court room to confront his accusers, a basic element of the Anglo-American system? Should al-Awlaki have gotten a court-appointed lawyer (assuming Gloria Allred wasn’t available) and access to all the intelligence about him so he could properly contest it? Maybe over Skype from somewhere in the badlands of Yemen?…

It’s not for nothing that the author of the white paper sounds like he could have worked for Dick Cheney. The Obama administration’s approach reflects the logic of the laws of war, the structure of American government and the exigencies of the fight against Al Qaeda.

***

By including terrorists among those afforded constitutional protections, the president’s policy risks stretching those protections a mile wide and an inch deep—weakening them for all Americans.

Then there’s the question of whether Mr. Obama’s approach really uses “our values as a compass.” After he took office, the president made a great show of ending enhanced interrogation, which CIA directors say produced much of the intelligence used to locate al Qaeda leaders including Osama bin Laden. The Bush administration had subjected about 100 al Qaeda detainees to some tough methods, including three to waterboarding.

Rather than capture terrorists—which produces the most valuable intelligence on al Qaeda—Mr. Obama has relied almost exclusively on drone attacks, and he has thereby been able to dodge difficult questions over detention. But those deaths from the sky violate personal liberty far more than the waterboarding of three al Qaeda leaders ever did.

***

Our president has the authority to quell insurrections by force. American-born terrorists engage in insurrection. Case closed.

Consider the late Anwar al-Awlaki. Lefties argue he didn’t pose a sufficient threat to merit killing. Really? Here’s a traitor who joined our most virulent enemies and used his knowledge of our country to encourage, plan and facilitate attacks. His guilt was greater than that of some poor sap who strapped on a suicide bomb — just as crime bosses bear a heavier guilt than their trigger-men.

And if a foreign power can’t or won’t control its own territory, we have a legal right to intervene under the accepted conventions of warfare…

This is not a difficult issue: When Americans turn violently against the United States, they lose the benefits of citizenship

[T]he drone program’s the only Obama-era policy that works.

***

“I want everybody that said what they said about George W. Bush…I want those people to apologize to George W. Bush.”

***


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 4

Anti-Control!

KCB on February 7, 2013 at 10:31 PM

Bmore, Axe, Sparky

KCB on February 7, 2013 at 10:31 PM

Code Pinkos!

Scrumpy on February 7, 2013 at 10:31 PM

Hiya Scrumpy!

KCB on February 7, 2013 at 10:31 PM

Hiya Ken !! How’s you?

Scrumpy on February 7, 2013 at 10:32 PM

“DONT DRONE ME, BRO” held in the hands of somebody born before 1950. Sad, sad, sadity sadsad.

Jeddite on February 7, 2013 at 10:32 PM

Noting is more delicious than sticking this in the craw of liberals who spewed so MUCH hate for Boooosh over doing things so much smaller in nature.

PolAgnostic on February 7, 2013 at 10:33 PM

Scrumpy on February 7, 2013 at 10:32 PM

I feel like ten bucks. How are you and Tigger?

KCB on February 7, 2013 at 10:33 PM

No waterboarding“…but droneing is ok, with no process of any kind.

Schadenfreude on February 7, 2013 at 10:35 PM

Yo

Electrongod on February 7, 2013 at 10:36 PM

This: But those deaths from the sky violate personal liberty far more than the waterboarding of three al Qaeda leaders ever did.

But since a prog/lib is in power it’s NO BIG DEAL!

It is a BFD!

I am sickened by this, by everything…

Scrumpy on February 7, 2013 at 10:36 PM

May all the hypocrites spontaneously combust.

Schadenfreude on February 7, 2013 at 10:36 PM

KCB on February 7, 2013 at 10:33 PM

Only 10 bucks? Awwww you need a [hug] :-)

Tigger is fine and bossy!!

I am muddling along :-)

Scrumpy on February 7, 2013 at 10:37 PM

This is not a difficult issue: When Americans turn violently against the United States, they lose the benefits of citizenship…

Every Confederate soldier targeted by the Union was an American citizen.

War is hell, isn’t it?

unclesmrgol on February 7, 2013 at 10:38 PM

Good evening Gentlemen!! :-)

Scrumpy on February 7, 2013 at 10:38 PM

This is not a difficult issue: When Americans turn violently against the United States, they lose the benefits of citizenship…

Any more dry straw in these and I’d be afraid of burning up!

No one. Is suggesting. That. Isn’t. True.

Axe on February 7, 2013 at 10:38 PM

Poobah!

tommy71 on February 7, 2013 at 10:38 PM

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters Thursday that the Obama administration will not be releasing any more information about the controversial use of drones to kill American citizens.

We Americans that paid for this equipment.

Are kept in the dark…

Electrongod on February 7, 2013 at 10:38 PM

Schadenfreude on February 7, 2013 at 10:36 PM

Reading through a thread earlier when a exchange caught my ey. I will as a friend for what it is worth direct you to this. Just glad your eyes are good; )

Bmore on February 7, 2013 at 10:39 PM

Evening, fine folks.

Rusty Allen on February 7, 2013 at 10:40 PM

I’m loving the fact that the same group that dressed up as vaginas to celebrate the rat-eared wonder last August is now aghast that he’s picking Americans to kill with no other apparent standard than he feels like killing somebody. They called GWB and Dick Cheney “war criminals” for waterboarding known enemies. What does that make the rat-eared wonder and his penchant for killing Americans without the due process of law?

Happy Nomad on February 7, 2013 at 10:40 PM

Evenin Scrumpy, you look particularly secksy tonight. ;-)

tommy71 on February 7, 2013 at 10:41 PM

Axe on February 7, 2013 at 10:38 PM

I must confess when I first read the poem of Rusty’s last evening, I presumed he had copied it off the Blue Moon Beer he was enjoying. A very nice piece. I thought.

Bmore on February 7, 2013 at 10:42 PM

Where’s Jimmah Carter when you need him?

Cleombrotus on February 7, 2013 at 10:43 PM

Scrumpy on February 7, 2013 at 10:37 PM

Nice Hug!

KCB on February 7, 2013 at 10:43 PM

Evening, fine folks.

Rusty Allen on February 7, 2013 at 10:40 PM

Good evening..

Electrongod on February 7, 2013 at 10:43 PM

tommy71 on February 7, 2013 at 10:41 PM

You are particularly handsome!!

Scrumpy on February 7, 2013 at 10:43 PM

Next, the Gubmint will reveal that Jason Bourne is real. ;-)

tommy71 on February 7, 2013 at 10:43 PM

Rusty Allen on February 7, 2013 at 10:40 PM

Rusty, a hat tip to you Sir, on your skill with prose. See my above comment to Axe. Nicely done.

Bmore on February 7, 2013 at 10:43 PM

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters Thursday that the Obama administration will not be releasing any more information about the controversial use of drones to kill American citizens.

.. And the reporters will be just fine with that. Yet again demonstrating that we no longer have a free press, we have White House stenographers.

Press: “What about …?”
Obama: Shut up he said
Press: “Hey, where is the next golf day?”

AZfederalist on February 7, 2013 at 10:44 PM

Sorry Schadenfreude, ey=eye

Bmore on February 7, 2013 at 10:44 PM

Hey folks… Well the Flu has been doing it’s best to kill me since Monday (smart money is betting on the flue at this moment), today is the first time all week I have been out of bed.

SWalker on February 7, 2013 at 10:44 PM

KCB

Bmore on February 7, 2013 at 10:45 PM

Next, the Gubmint will reveal that Jason Bourne is real. ;-)

tommy71 on February 7, 2013 at 10:43 PM

You mean??….just damn.

KCB on February 7, 2013 at 10:45 PM

Hi B. How you feeling today? Better, I hope.

tommy71 on February 7, 2013 at 10:45 PM

SWalker on February 7, 2013 at 10:44 PM

I am so sorry you are suffering, be well soon, I shall pray for you for a speedy recovery!!

Scrumpy on February 7, 2013 at 10:46 PM

Bmore on February 7, 2013 at 10:43 PM

Thank you, and good evening.

Rusty Allen on February 7, 2013 at 10:46 PM

Bmore on February 7, 2013 at 10:45 PM

Good to see you B.

KCB on February 7, 2013 at 10:46 PM

Axe on February 7, 2013 at 10:38 PM

I must confess when I first read the poem of Rusty’s last evening, I presumed he had copied it off the Blue Moon Beer he was enjoying. A very nice piece. I thought.

Bmore on February 7, 2013 at 10:42 PM

Hey… I can write poetry…

There once was a bug called the Flu,
when it gets done killing me,
it coming for you… :P

SWalker on February 7, 2013 at 10:47 PM

@SW Sorry to hear that, dude. Sucks, huh? Get well soon, friend.

tommy71 on February 7, 2013 at 10:48 PM

Hey folks… Well the Flu has been doing it’s best to kill me since Monday (smart money is betting on the flue at this moment), today is the first time all week I have been out of bed.

SWalker on February 7, 2013 at 10:44 PM

Bummer. Hope you get to feeling better soon. Sounds like one of those cases where at first you are afraid you are going to die, then you are afraid you won’t.

Get well, you are needed.

AZfederalist on February 7, 2013 at 10:49 PM

I must confess when I first read the poem of Rusty’s last evening, I presumed he had copied it off the Blue Moon Beer he was enjoying. A very nice piece. I thought.

Bmore on February 7, 2013 at 10:42 PM

:)

Within the poem and the story is the ability to part flesh from bone, to articulate clearly a complex thought, to untangle knots and free people. There’s power in them there words. Men — males — must rediscover this. This generation needs Rustys — even if he’s really a chick :) — and the next generation will need to be taught by Rustys.

Vive les poètes!

Vive la république!

Axe on February 7, 2013 at 10:50 PM

Eat more chicken soup with noodles Bmore!! Be well soon eh :-)

Scrumpy on February 7, 2013 at 10:50 PM

SWalker on February 7, 2013 at 10:44 PM

I am so sorry you are suffering, be well soon, I shall pray for you for a speedy recovery!!

Scrumpy on February 7, 2013 at 10:46 PM

Thank you Scrumpy, right now I am just waiting for the meat thermometer thing to pop up and claim I am cooked all the way from the inside out…

SWalker on February 7, 2013 at 10:50 PM

SWalker on February 7, 2013 at 10:50 PM

Oh ouch! {Hugs}

Scrumpy on February 7, 2013 at 10:50 PM

SWalker on February 7, 2013 at 10:44 PM

Dude I heard horror stories about that flu sweeping the country. Sorry to hear that. On the mend soon I hope. I lucked up, just a common cold.

Bmore on February 7, 2013 at 10:51 PM

Bmore on February 7, 2013 at 10:39 PM

My eyes are very good, thank you!

Then and now said subject was/is leftard in pretend clothing. Should be on your long list of trolls. Don’t let it bother you. Not worth it.

Schadenfreude on February 7, 2013 at 10:51 PM

There are many talented people here. Poets and such. Speaking of poetry I got a new phone.

SparkPlug on February 7, 2013 at 10:51 PM

Not worth it.

Schadenfreude on February 7, 2013 at 10:51 PM

; ) No worries to me. Just wanting to insure you new my take.

Bmore on February 7, 2013 at 10:51 PM

It’s all fun and games until the drone is over your head…

d1carter on February 7, 2013 at 10:52 PM

See ya tomorrow..

Electrongod on February 7, 2013 at 10:52 PM

then you are afraid you won’t.

Get well, you are needed.

AZfederalist on February 7, 2013 at 10:49 PM

Yea, pretty much. Been running a 100 plus fever since Monday night, every time I get it to break, it comes back a few hours later. I’ve taken so much aspirin that my ears are ringing.

SWalker on February 7, 2013 at 10:52 PM

Nite, Eg.

tommy71 on February 7, 2013 at 10:54 PM

Axe on February 7, 2013 at 10:50 PM

Rusty is a chick? Crap! I mean cool! I mean……..zip.

Bmore on February 7, 2013 at 10:54 PM

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters Thursday that the Obama administration will not be releasing any more information about the controversial use of drones to kill American citizens.

.. And the reporters will be just fine with that. Yet again demonstrating that we no longer have a free press, we have White House stenographers……..

AZfederalist on February 7, 2013 at 10:44 PM

…and that’s no joke!

KOOLAID2 on February 7, 2013 at 10:54 PM

Our president has the authority to quell insurrections by force. American-born terrorists engage in insurrection. Case closed.

OMG. [profanity] Cereal box much?

Axe on February 7, 2013 at 10:54 PM

Vive la république!

Axe on February 7, 2013 at 10:50 PM

“La république/l’état c’est moi” BHO

Schadenfreude on February 7, 2013 at 10:56 PM

SWalker on February 7, 2013 at 10:52 PM

My dad swore by a hot whiskey toddy with ginger it, a lot of ginger, and lemon juice, sweated it out…

Scrumpy on February 7, 2013 at 10:56 PM

SWalker on February 7, 2013 at 10:52 PM

Hope your wellness increases. Drink plenty of fluids because drinking solids is almost impossible.

SparkPlug on February 7, 2013 at 10:56 PM

Thank you, and good evening.

Rusty Allen on February 7, 2013 at 10:46 PM

No, thank you! Say Rusty are you……..are you…….. are you by chance….female?

Bmore on February 7, 2013 at 10:56 PM

Shadenfreude-
Like your screen name.
Had I thought of it sooner I would have been nutzlosen Brot gobbler.

Next time?

countrybumpkin on February 7, 2013 at 10:56 PM

Huh? I think Rusty is a dude.

tommy71 on February 7, 2013 at 10:57 PM

Code Pinko will show up this one time, flash a few cards, and then get back to chasing Rumsfeldt with a pair of handcuffs.

Bishop on February 7, 2013 at 10:57 PM

Axe on February 7, 2013 at 10:50 PM

Rusty is a chick? Crap! I mean cool! I mean……..zip.

Bmore on February 7, 2013 at 10:54 PM

oh ohhhhhhhhhhh!

KOOLAID2 on February 7, 2013 at 10:57 PM

tommy71 on February 7, 2013 at 10:45 PM

Much better, full days work. Just stopped a bit ago. ; )

Bmore on February 7, 2013 at 10:59 PM

countrybumpkin on February 7, 2013 at 10:56 PM

Thanks – I like to live it, especially in these times. 2007 brought it…the age of Obama. Free fools deserve no less.

Your proposed nom – Nutzloses Brot Gobbler

Schadenfreude on February 7, 2013 at 10:59 PM

Huh? I think Rusty is a dude.

tommy71 on February 7, 2013 at 10:57 PM

Quit struggling, just get in Axe’s boat… ;p

SWalker on February 7, 2013 at 10:59 PM

I like countrybumpkin better. Love it when the leftards consider us rubes. Love hillbilly’s nom. He’s a very smart one.

Schadenfreude on February 7, 2013 at 11:00 PM

B, God bless. Good.

tommy71 on February 7, 2013 at 11:00 PM

Scrumpy on February 7, 2013 at 10:50 PM

I am better thanks to the soup. However I think I have had my fill of soup for a while. ; )

Bmore on February 7, 2013 at 11:01 PM

B, God bless. Good.

tommy71 on February 7, 2013 at 11:00 PM

tommy71, you’re a dude, right?

Bmore on February 7, 2013 at 11:01 PM

This is not a difficult issue: When Americans turn violently against the United States, they lose the benefits of citizenship…

No, they do NOT. The Supreme Court has already settled this issue.

There is actually a very easy solution to this problem and I have been arguing it since al-Awlaki’s death.

Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481), as amended, states that U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain SPECIFIED ACTS VOLUNTARILY AND WITH THE INTENTION to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Briefly stated, these acts include:

1. Obtaining naturalization in a FOREIGN STATE upon one’s own application after the age of 18 (Sec. 349 (a) (1) INA);

Inapplicable.

2. Taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a FOREIGN STATE or ITS POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS after the age of 18 (Sec. 349 (a) (2) INA);

Inapplicable.

3. Entering or serving in the armed forces of a FOREIGN STATE engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (3) INA);

Inapplicable.

4. Accepting employment with a FOREIGN GOVERNMENT after the age of 18 if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) an oath or declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position (Sec. 349 (a) (4) INA);

Inapplicable.

5. Formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer outside the United States (sec. 349 (a) (5) INA);

Inapplicable.

6. Formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (The Department of Homeland Security is responsible for implementing this section of the law) (Sec. 349 (a) (6) INA);

Inapplicable.

7. CONVICTION for an act of treason (Sec. 349 (a) (7) INA). You’ll recall that Article III, Section 3 requires either a confession in open court or the testimony in open court of two witnesses to the defendant’s treasonous actions before a citizen can be convicted of treason.

Inapplicable.

You’ll notice the use of FOREIGN GOVERNMENT and FOREIGN STATE. Obviously, al Qaeda is neither nor are most terrorist organisations.

It is the citizenship status that is the problem which needs to be corrected. Without a doubt, citizenship neither requires the military to question the citizenship status of combatants on a battlefield in the midst of a firefight nor does it require the Federal government to pull its punches because an American might become endangered if its acts against its declared enemy. Thus, the military did not need to first determine if there were Americans on a battlefield or hostile place (John Walker Lindh) nor did it have to forgo the bombing of Tokyo in WWII because Tokyo Rose might be living amongst the inhabitants nor did the Federal government have to grant Americans, who left to join the GERMAN army in WWII and were caught spying, a civilian trial rather than a courts martial.

The execution programme is quite different. It is the specific targeting of Americans that is problematic because they are entitled to a modicum of due process.

If Congress amended Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481) to say:

2. Taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or its political subdivisions or a TERRORIST ORGANISATION THAT IS CURRENTLY INVOLVED IN HOSTILITIES WITH THE UNITED STATES IN A CONGRESSIONAL-RECOGNISED CONFLICT AFTER A PROFFER IS MADE BEFORE AND IS THEN ACCEPTED BY A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION. after the age of 18 (Sec. 349 (a) (2) INA);

…then, there would be NO problem. It goes away completely.

The law needs to be brought into the 21st century before we just accept the notion that an American president – of ANY political persuasion – has the authority as Commander-in-Chief to deny his fellow citizens of their due process rights and then summarily execute them.

Resist We Much on February 7, 2013 at 11:02 PM

Because I can kill whomever I want whenever I want, I will, and none of you are man enough to stop me. Nah, nah, nah. Now bow before me or I will smite you too. Maybe if you bow to me and kiss my feet someday I will have a staff member cobble something together where I grant myself official authority to kill whomever I want whenever I want and put it out on the internet for you to fawn over. Or maybe I won’t. – Pharaoh Obama Zod

VorDaj on February 7, 2013 at 11:02 PM

Scrumpy on February 7, 2013 at 10:50 PM

I am better thanks to the soup. However I think I have had my fill of soup for a while. ; )

Bmore on February 7, 2013 at 11:01 PM

ROTFLMAO… Tell me about it. If I can even look at another can of soup without wanting to hurl for at least the next 6 month I will be shocked. And worst of all, everything tastes like cardboard, wet soggy slimy cardboard.

SWalker on February 7, 2013 at 11:03 PM

B, huh? Yes. :-)

tommy71 on February 7, 2013 at 11:04 PM

Comments of the day

I want a president with a beard.

CurtZHP on February 7, 2013 at 10:19 PM

Look at the current occupant of the White House he has one.

RickB on February 7, 2013 at 10:26 PM

Schadenfreude on February 7, 2013 at 11:04 PM

Rusty is a chick? Crap! I mean cool! I mean……..zip.

Bmore on February 7, 2013 at 10:54 PM

I try to imagine you are all chicks and dudes alternately. It keeps me from making an ass of myself. No comments please — a bigger ass, I mean. And if I am convinced someone is actually a chick, I try to imagine them as desperately unattractive. Same rationale.

Only exceptions are Jackie and Resist. They’re both hot. Sometimes you just have to risk it.

Quit struggling, just get in Axe’s boat… ;p

SWalker on February 7, 2013 at 10:59 PM

lol — I said even if. I didn’t mean to say for sure he was. O, tommy71 is definitely a chick, though.

Axe on February 7, 2013 at 11:04 PM

Yea, pretty much. Been running a 100 plus fever since Monday night, every time I get it to break, it comes back a few hours later. I’ve taken so much aspirin that my ears are ringing.

SWalker on February 7, 2013 at 10:52 PM

Coffee. Hot. Damn hot. And lots of it.

no really, as my granny always said “It ain’t funny being sick”, usually right before throwing the screen door open with her crutch and blasting the neighbor’s cat right in the butt with her ever present bb gun.

Wise woman she.

tom daschle concerned on February 7, 2013 at 11:04 PM

countrybumpkin on February 7, 2013 at 10:56 PM

Just curious, if of course you don’t mind my inquiry. Schadenfreude doesn’t like me to ask him questions. What part of the country bumpkin?

Bmore on February 7, 2013 at 11:04 PM

Wonderful Good evening to you RWM!!!

Scrumpy on February 7, 2013 at 11:04 PM

Resist We Much on February 7, 2013 at 11:02 PM

Thank you for putting that up again. I couldn’t do anything but choke and point, red-faced.

Some of this commentary is coming from the right — they just aren’t getting it. This isn’t some “hawk” test all conservatives must pass or something.

Axe on February 7, 2013 at 11:06 PM

Axe, you meanie, you. :-)

tommy71 on February 7, 2013 at 11:07 PM

Axe on February 7, 2013 at 11:04 PM

Axe, you think of me as a chick? Dude that is just weird shit right there. Stop that. Picture me as something else. Maybe, if not a dude, than maybe a deer (buck) or something. Its okay if you give me a big rack.

Bmore on February 7, 2013 at 11:07 PM

RWM, great collection on the 2nd link.

Watching the non news or pretzeled news on the cop killer is curious and peculiar, in the least.

Schadenfreude on February 7, 2013 at 11:07 PM

Scrumpy is =

desperately unattractive

;-)

Scrumpy on February 7, 2013 at 11:08 PM

Its okay if you give me a big rack.

Bmore on February 7, 2013 at 11:07 PM

Dolly Parton had a big Rack, just sayin… ;p

SWalker on February 7, 2013 at 11:09 PM

Poems?
I woke up with this one going through my head in the middle of a cold winter night.

Half in a dream and half awake
I move to find your warmth, the softness of your hair.
And then awake, I know that you’re not really there.
I turn and try to catch the dream,
To live in sleep the life I miss.
The welcome of your warm embrace.
The passion of your kiss.

If only I could do something useful while awake.

countrybumpkin on February 7, 2013 at 11:09 PM

Bmore on February 7, 2013 at 11:04 PM

They can drone us, with no due process. These are charlatanic thugs.

Schadenfreude on February 7, 2013 at 11:09 PM

B, huh? Yes. :-)

tommy71 on February 7, 2013 at 11:04 PM

Dude I am so relieved to hear that. I promise I will never think of you as a chick the way Axe does. Its a little creepy, right?

Bmore on February 7, 2013 at 11:10 PM

@Scrumpy No, you’re amazingly attractive and alluring. ;-)

tommy71 on February 7, 2013 at 11:11 PM

It reveals that for all their crowing about being watchdogs of all that is good and decent in society, when push comes to shove, too many journalists are ready and willing handmaidens to power – including the power to kill.

solid.

ted c on February 7, 2013 at 11:11 PM

The Cop Killer Lovers On The Left Send A Big, Wet, Sloppy Bar Rafaeli To Cop Killer

Resist We Much on February 7, 2013 at 11:04 PM

…some of these peoples “prayers” are with him!…Holy cow!

KOOLAID2 on February 7, 2013 at 11:12 PM

Bmore on February 7, 2013 at 11:04 PM

They can drone us, with no due process. These are charlatanic thugs.

Schadenfreude on February 7, 2013 at 11:09 PM

Oh relax dude, that’s what God’s do, they smite their enemies with fire out of Heaven.

SWalker on February 7, 2013 at 11:12 PM

@B tres creepy. Lol

tommy71 on February 7, 2013 at 11:13 PM

Its okay if you give me a big rack.

Bmore on February 7, 2013 at 11:07 PM

Dolly Parton had a big Rack, just sayin… ;p

SWalker on February 7, 2013 at 11:09 PM

I know. :) Thinking of him as a chick is creepy, but his substitute is “a buck with a big rack.” — LOL

Well, things got a lot more confusing.

Well, wait, as a buck with a big rack, is he hot?

*scratches head*

Spark understands crap like this. SPARK

Axe on February 7, 2013 at 11:13 PM

@Scrumpy No, you’re amazingly attractive and alluring. ;-)

tommy71 on February 7, 2013 at 11:11 PM

…some of you people that are hitting on my Scrumpy ….better keep your hands in front of you!

KOOLAID2 on February 7, 2013 at 11:14 PM

Dude I am so relieved to hear that. I promise I will never think of you as a chick the way Axe does. Its a little creepy, right?

Bmore on February 7, 2013 at 11:10 PM

All right. But you are going to feel weird when tommy71 is comfortable enough to come out. Total chick.

I told you early.

Axe on February 7, 2013 at 11:14 PM

Oh relax dude, that’s what Gods do, they smite their enemies with fire out of Heaven.

SWalker on February 7, 2013 at 11:12 PM

Then why don’t they consider this bunch their “enemies”?

Schadenfreude on February 7, 2013 at 11:17 PM

Wonderful Good evening to you RWM!!!

Scrumpy on February 7, 2013 at 11:04 PM

Thanks. Evening to U,2. :-)

Thank you for putting that up again. I couldn’t do anything but choke and point, red-faced.

Some of this commentary is coming from the right — they just aren’t getting it. This isn’t some “hawk” test all conservatives must pass or something.

Axe on February 7, 2013 at 11:06 PM

I agree and have a problem with those that would allow a president to do just about anything, as long as it involves national security and the military. Lincoln unconstitutionally tried 11,000 civilians before military tribunals. Many of the current crop of Republicans would say that Lincoln did the right thing. OF COURSE, HE DID NOT.

Resist We Much on February 7, 2013 at 11:17 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4