quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy

Until it happens, the future is all about what ifs and hypotheticals.

Are you really telling me the precedents the President is setting don't bother you?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: RacerJim

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I think it is in line with the wishes of the congress as expressed in the authorization to invade iraq resolution.  War on terror.

By Law, which a lot of people are forgetting, must be declared.

And when, which a lot of people are forgetting, has Obama, aka Soetoro, aka Soebarkah cared about the Law?

He has acted in a lawful and constitutional manner since he has taken office, without exception.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Indeed Peon, Richard III made several advances in help for the poor, both legally and fiscally. Especially for Northern England where they struggled with the fact London was the centre of trade (Due to the docks)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy

Until it happens, the future is all about what ifs and hypotheticals.

Are you really telling me the precedents the President is setting don't bother you?

Nice to see you have skipped my point about the difficulty of actually arresting terrorists based in hostile lands.

How would you sort that out......send them an email asking them to come back Stateside ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Public Laws 107-40 and 107-243 were bestowed upon us by the teabagger congress, but now they are against it after they were for it.

Seems to me that it is the ineptitude of congress should be at issue here.

Cuz them teabaggers are fuckin USELESS and INEPT.

Them imbecilic teabaggers and their unintended consequences, hah?

quote:

“The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” the memo states.

Instead, it says, an “informed, high-level” official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American has been “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack and “there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.” The memo does not define “recently” or “activities.”

quote:

ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh

quote:

“The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” the memo states.

Instead, it says, an “informed, high-level” official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American has been “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack and “there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.” The memo does not define “recently” or “activities.”

have no problem wit da act in principle but da looseness of da language for a serious act is worrying.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

The which get used? It has some time ago been used.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Okay, this worries me due to the pesky due process thing that LEOs and the Justice Department have to follow, thank god.

I mean even traitors should have the right to a fair trial.

The next thing you know, some president will get the okay to use the drones on Americans inside the borders of the United States.

And people wonder why I want a fully operational anti aircraft tank. It dont matter which party is in power the government is out to get us.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Well the title of this thread is misleading, the DOJ didn't ok shit.  

He has whacked a couple american enemy combatants some years ago.  I don't know why it would go SCOTUS pretty fast, I don't see anybody crawling out of the woodwork to get a case done.