you said rights don't take form until someones tries to take them away and you seek redress.... implying that if you do not seek redress, the right never takes form.
I added in that dead men tell no tales... meaning dead men can't seek redress. .. and if they don't seek redress, their rights never take form.
yes, yes he did.... I haven't stated otherwise... but you incorrectly stated that the plaintiff wasn't found to be lacking standing.
But the Judge went further, did he not ? Did he not state that the Judiciary lacked standing in the exercise by the Executive in performing the duties of CIC ?
but it's nice to see you almost come close to admitting that you were incorrect.
congress has kept itself well briefed?... that has yet to be shown.Regardless, and a point I think often missed here, is that Congress has kept itself well-briefed, and more importantly, has not been constrained in acting in a number of ways here. And it has chosen not to attempt to take from the President this authority. We have no evidence that the President has acted as a "loose cannon". Further, like it or not, we know that the military must at times react very quickly to targets-of-opportunity, and not as we see within the criminal justice system. I want commanders who do not dither at key moments.
and i don't think the President is acting as a loose cannon... I completely understand where he is coming from... i understand his responsibilities and where his head and heart is .... so don't take this as me trying to insult Obama personally or politically , i'm not.... i don't give a rat's ass who sits in the daddy chair and makes hit lists with Americans on it, i don't like it.
I do not believe the President should possess an unchecked power to kill Americans citizens based on undisclosed standards and undisclosed evidence.... that is an awesome power that no one branch should posses.
I find myself , begrudgingly no doubt, agreeing with the ACLU on this particular issue.
this issue has absolutely nothing to do with targets of opportunity.. it has everything to do with targeted killings
your speculation is valid.. but it's still speculation at the end of the day.... i'm not even sure why you brought up the founding fathers personal opinions on the matterWhich would bolster my point, if anything, that being the ability of the military to act more spontaneously than normal due-process would invite. However, in that incident, Adams acted as a lawyer, not as an elected official, much less a debate about Constitutional rights. I raise the Founders as it was liberals, or libertarians, earlier in the topic, who claimed the Founders would be appalled at the sanction of the dirtbag. I clearly beg to differ
it's gonna be a long hard day for you if that was your masterpiece.It was my masterpiece to gloat over. My endzone shuffle
first things first, you gotta score before you can dance.
Thank you, Quazi!
During the secure comm days, I crawled around in deep cover with soldiers and marines providing intel on a couple different continents. If they were smart enough to operate their own equipment I could have stayed at nice cushy bases with cable dammit! There is some truth to the old comic strip where the soldier is in the rain and says "this sucks", the special forces soldier says "God I love how this sucks", the marine says "God I wish this would suck more!" and the Airman says "What? Cable is out??? This Sucks!!!" Its all good. I work with soldiers daily now and iots always good for a luagh. The interservice rivalry is always good fun. Doesnt bother me in the least.