|
mnottertail -> RE: TERROR - US Two U.S.-Born Terrorists Killed in CIA-Led Drone Strike (10/6/2011 11:38:41 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
quote:
ORIGINAL: mnottertail
yeah, again, this pristinely specious argument falls upon the feet of the angels dancing on a head of a pin at this point, I am struck that there were american citizens deprived of due process at Gitmo, and failing that, we always have extraordinary rendition (cuz we got friendz) to sashay around the pesky issues of the removal of let and hinderance in the constitution when not at war, or times of danger.
(I see you looking and hope I have corrected this so it makes sense before you comment in the negative on it, in any case, Firm) [:D]
No negative comments, Ron. Just gonna follow the logic where it goes.
First, which US citizens were deprived of due process in Gitmo? Truthfully, I don't remember any (not saying there wasn't, just don't remember, and you seem to have someone specifically in mind).
As far as extraordinary rendition ... well, I think you are being humorous. Because if you were "agin it" before, but are "fer it" now, I'm sure I don't have to point at the issue there. [:)]
I guess my question to you, really, is ... were you against all of this under Bush, but willing to accept it now under Obama? I know your a sharp cookie, so either your just enjoying the discussion, or ... what?
Firm
First, I meant by negative not that you would be bashing or insulting or anything, I mean I say yes, you say no type of thing.
Uh, I have never posted (and you are welcome to check) anything prior to this regarding extraordinary rendition, not when Bill or W or anyone did it. That was one opinion I held in abeyance (I know, whoda thunk?)
I am sort of uncomfortable (remember my posts on Lese Majeste and Noblesse Oblige insofar as American policy and actions) with it, but realize that presidents and congresses and even supreme courts skin cats time to time.
So the 'if' is not an issue.
Now, against what under bush and now for? Very different dealings here.
And by the way, while I was against the war in Iraq (and was not immediately but should have been against the war in Afghanistan) but made many posts where I said we should jump in with both fuckin feet, and full knowledge and grab the head dude where these guys are hiding by the neck and shove a 45 in his face, and say, deliver me (at the time I used bin Laden...) by 4 pm or you are fuckin dead and the next one gets a turn, and bomb them flat if they dont deliver bin Laden by 4pm and then tomorrow start diggin a hole in that country with bombs....
(that you will find repeatedly) I am for wiping terrorist organizations off the face of the earth, their mothers, daughters, sons, relatives and anyone who harbors them.
I am not for invading Iraq under false pretenses and other asswipe that runs along with that form of distraction and ineffectuality.
And yeah, I know I threw lest majeste and noblisse oblige and the US constitution under the bus, and only for that specific reason an no other.
Otherwise, life is play it straight, war is war, if you are doing it.
Ku, Fu, Chi, Sui, Ka. (maybe someone will understand those words in relation to a ruthless war and its conduct, I am done explaining it)
Iraq is not a war, it is piss-a-bed idiocy.
So, depending on how wide a swath you want to push 'it' under, my answer is generally no not ever for it, but if you let 'it' be very confined, on point, on target and actually sensible and viable, I answer 'yes'.
But there is no inconsistency, it is not a miscable thing here to me.
Very black and white and very closely confined.
|
|
|
|
