Perhaps you can refresh my memory.

Post #372,680 by mmoffitt 3/19/13 1:00:20 PM Reply	Perhaps you can refresh my memory. I don't think I can be confused as someone who has ever supported Dick Cheney or any of his policy positions. But IMO it is ridiculous to suggest that anyone's perspective must be summarily dismissed merely because the person drew a parallel between Cheney and Obama. I do not recall Dick Cheney (as evil a bastard as he is) ever formally declaring it right and proper that he, and he alone, possessed a Constitutional right to kill anyone he saw fit. If he did, I missed it. Can you point me to a place where that occurred? If not, then I put it to you that it is not "trolling" to suggest that Obama is as bad, if not worse than Dick Cheney. For, if Obama genuinely believes he has a right to kill you if he wants to, then the differences in other policies don't matter much, do they? I do not now, nor will I ever want a homicidal maniac making any decisions on my behalf, thankyouverymuch.
Post #372,682 by drook 3/19/13 1:10:16 PM Reply	Which is worse? To claim that the law allows something which you don't, in practice, intend to do? Or to do whatever is expedient and retroactively justify whichever of those actions people seem to be bothered by? Yes, I'm presenting a false dichotomy, but I believe my phrasing is more like reality than unlike. -- Drew
Post #372,683 by mmoffitt 3/19/13 1:30:20 PM Reply	Really? Doesn't "in practice, intend to do?" Hmmmm....... Of the scores of people dubbed terrorists who have been targeted by American military drone strikes, three men -- all killed in the fall of 2011 -- were U.S. citizens. http://usnews.nbcnew...-controversy?lite
Post #372,684 by drook 3/19/13 1:42:38 PM Reply	So Americans count for more? -- Drew
Post #372,689 by mmoffitt 3/19/13 3:56:39 PM Reply	Um, no. Not my point at all. You said "has no intention of killing Americans" despite the fact that he'd already done it.
Post #372,690 by drook 3/19/13 4:45:11 PM Reply	No I didn't I said, "something which you don't, in practice, intend to do". The filibuster was about killing Americans in America with drones. Where those killings happen is as much a part of that as who is being killed, isn't it? I don't want armed drones flying over where I live. That's (one of the many reasons) why the AUMF needs to be scaled back or rescinded. I think it's much more likely I'll accidentally be in a place designated a "zone of interest" than that I personally will be declared a "person of interest". -- Drew
Post #372,685 by Another Scott 3/19/13 1:50:54 PM Reply	We all make choices in what we take the time to read. I haven't read much of Greenwald in many years. I got turned off by his writing and argument style long ago. I'm not simply dismissing him because of that paragraph cited by driftglass. I'm using that as an example of why it's not worth my time to dissect his arguments and to illustrate why I don't read him. YMMV. But to get back closer to the topic brought up by lincoln, to start a argument by saying that the "law is crystal clear" and it was "conclusively decided" is ridiculous. Nothing in the law is absolute under every circumstance for all time. We know this. He should know this. Legalistic arguments like this are little better than religion. His argument style forces the reader to accept his premises and see no shades of gray. It's not persuasive to me *even if he may have the better side of the argument on the merits. Clearer? Does that make me an apologist for Obama? I don't think so, but YMMV there too. To beat a dead horse some more, I'll say again: The way to end these questions about the terrible drones and whether Obama can kill Americans is to understand that that authority is based on the AUMF. End the AUMF or rein it in, and the issue goes away. No President is ever going to say that the US military cannot ever* be used to kill Americans without a trial. And if s/he does say that, s/he's lying. If you don't accept that, you don't know the history of the Whiskey Rebellion, the US Civil War, Little Rock, and on and on. http://www.nytimes.c...day/big/0925.html FWIW. I think I'm about done on this topic. Cheers, Scott.

Welcome to IWETHEY!