it's not as if the federal govt is allowing some drone free-for-all in our skies.
“There are serious policy questions on the horizon about privacy and surveillance, by both government agencies and commercial entities,” said [Steven Aftergood], who heads the Project on Government Secrecy at the [Federation of American Scientists].
The [Electronic Frontier Foundation] also is “concerned about the implications for surveillance by government agencies,” said attorney[Jennifer Lynch].
The provision in the legislation is the fruit of “a huge push by lawmakers and the defense sector to expand the use of drones” in American airspace, she added.
According to some estimates, the commercial drone market in the United States could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars once the [FAA]clears their use.
The agency projects that 30,000 drones could be in the nation’s skies by 2020.
[http://livingunderdrones.org/wp-con
tent/uploads/2012/09/Stanford_NYU_L
IVING_UNDER_DRONES.pdf]
[http://livingunderdrones.org/wp-con
tent/uploads/2012/09/Stanford_NYU_L
IVING_UNDER_DRONES.pdf]
False. That wasn't contrary to my statement as I agree. They found a loophole. So now where "congress shall make no law" they've made a law. But was this law vetoed by the president? Of course not, as Bush and Obama wanted the law too.It should probably be noted that I didn't say that congress didn't pass the patriot act. You almost seemed to act if I said congress had no part in it. Remember, absence of evidence doesn't equal evidence of absence.I was simply pointing out that, contrary to your statement that Bush and Obama figured out a loophole to undermine the Constitution, 1) the constitutional process for legislation was followed in the passage of those bills, 2) they acted with powers explicitly given in said bill, and 3) constitutional proceedures - such as legislation to revoke those powers, or SCOTUS ruling the law unconstitutional - are still available to remedy the situation.
That doesn't explain this comment, thoughLol yes it does. The person who wrote it just told you that's what it meant.
The comments from the Senator are from prior to the passage of the Obama-signed act, and hence could not be regarding the way operated post-passage.Right, by about a week. According to the Senator, he was concerned about its secretive re-interpretation by the Obama administration.
The Obama signed act contained no material changes, and the only suggested changes (that were not implemented) were to make it less secretive, not more.Remember I'm not talking about the act itself, but the secret way the Obama admin is re-interpreting it. You might as well have accused me of saying the act was secret and can't be read... It isn't secret, it's the secretive re-interpretations of the act that Wyden and I are talking about here.
Well it would be helpful to you. As I'm the one who used the word loophole, not you. Therefore, all that matters is the definition I used.To the person who wrote it and knows its meaning, they mean the same exact thing. The patriot act and NDAA are both a part of this loophole, which was brought about by the war they want to fight. As is the "secret memo" and "kill list" which we don't get to see.Let's just move past this, because it's going to come down to us going back and forth about the definition of the term "loophole," which I think we can agree is entirely unhelpful.
Though I am very curious to know what you mean by the phrase "war they want to fight."Regarding Obama and Bush: Wars are not fought by those who don't have any intention of fighting them.
Frankly, I disagree that it is as simple as you are making it out - as we constantly see breaks along party lines, in some of the oddest of ways.That's why the words "usually" and "likely" were used. Hence:
Isn't there [something seriously wrong with it] though? You know, like something which even the president himself said was unconstitutional? The constitution he swore to protect and abide by, rather than trample on and ignore?So let me get this straight, you believe there is nothing seriously wrong with signing legislation into law that violates our civil rights and Constitution? That's called acquiescence bud.
I explained this already. 1) Military funding comes first. 2) The power granted is unconstitutional, and the use is unconstitutional, but any president opposed to such a power can simply not employ it, and 3) they do not have to fear other president's using it, as the bill must be reauthorized every year.
But most of all - they are not going to veto the bill that is required to fund the military, because of how politics operate in the US.Haha and I thought Obama said he was going to bring change to Washington... It seems that he didn't even try. Trying would be vetoing these bills so congress makes new ones. Trying would be vetoing these bills so congress is forced to separate military funding from civil rights violations. That's how changing Washington works...
It would be used as playing politics with our national security, whether or not that is accurate, because it would essentially require the military to go unfunded. Which I assume you can admit is more than just a minor problem.I don't see it as a problem at all. It's a solution. Vetoing legislation like the NDAA has the potential of solving 2 problems:
And there are plenty of informed people who know enough about Paul to never want him as president...Well yeah, they often belong to huge corporations getting big favors from government (like 0% taxes). Wall street wasn't exactly clamoring to have Paul elected; he couldn't be bought. Neither were the banks. Nor were authoritarians who want control over others instead of our individual, Constitutional rights Paul would defend.
He didn't vote against the 2012 NDAA either. If he was so opposed, why not even bother to show up to express his distaste, and officially register it with his vote?He actually did, as can be seen here:
BTW - not sure if you read Obama's signing statement on that bill (HR 4310), but it basically bashes Congress for including those parts, especially where it bans any of the funds be used for transporting Guantanamo detainees to the US for a trial.Yes I did. I also read where he said he wouldn't sign the NDAA, then turned around and did. On New Years Eve. When everyone was out partying, not paying attention. But that's Obama's modus operandi regarding our civil liberties remember? Promise one thing, then do the exact opposite.
I answered your question about what I meant by supermajority. Then expanded upon it. And I definitely didn't say the banks want the Patriot Act or NDAA. Keep the straw men in your pocket. Save them for someone else.If Bush and Obama tried to veto the patriot act and NDAA, they would force congress to get a supermajority. This means that both houses would have to pass the measure by 2/3rds majority to overrule the presidential veto. Sometimes even a supermajority can be blocked by a president if he plays his cards right.Jumping around a bit, aren't we, lol. There isn't a single solitary reason that banks would support the PATRIOT Act, though I can see some reasons for their support of the NDAA.
But of course this didn't happen. Otherwise a veto would have been used. In fact, the veto is rarely used any more at all. But in corporatism that's what happens when:
"Banks...frankly own the place."
- Senator Dick Durban
Anyhow, the reason vetoes were not used has been explained time and again - the president liked enough of the bill that he deemed the benefits greater than the problems. I disagree with him, as do you, but all the same, there isn't some nefarious bank-led scheme to keep the PATRIOT Act in place.
Yes, the media sucks.Yeah as former MSNBC host Cenk Uygur says, the media is a part of, and defends, the 1%.
Keep the straw men in your pocket. I didn't say their history goes back just over a decade. I said just over a decade ago it was often considered a conspiracy theory to believe that the world's political and business leaders met in secret every year. That's probably because it was nearly exclusively reported on by the "conspiracy theorists", while the mainstream media kept it virtually silent.Another example is the Bilderberg Group. You almost never hear about this. Even when it's held in the US. The only time I've seen CNN, MSNBC, or FOX talk about the Bilderberg Group was when CNN was trying to make fun of conspiracy theorists for believing conspiracies about the group.Huh? Their history is rather well documented - and far predates the year 2000. At least in that they exist, where they meet, etc.
In fact, just over a decade ago it was considered a conspiracy theory to believe in the Bilderberg Group in the first place. But it's now been confirmed. They had a much harder time concealing it in the internet age.
I've already read that quote. It has absolutely nothing to do with what I said (which I bolded and underlined above). Care to address that instead?You would think that a yearly conglomeration of the world's biggest leaders in the political, financial, business, military and media realms would draw quite a bit of attention from these news outlets. But what do we get instead? Virtual silence.To quote the current Bilderberg Chairman: "When people say this is a secret government of the world I say that if we were a secret government of the world we should be bloody ashamed of ourselves."
Perhaps that's because members of the media have been seen entering the secretive Bilderberg Group meetings too?
IMO, the Bilderberg group is blown waaaaaaay out of proportion as it is.I don't think anyone can accurately judge what is blown out of proportion regarding this group of world leaders. After all, their meetings are extremely secretive.
I also hardly view the absence of transparency to mean that something nefarious must be going on.Same here. But we just don't know. After all, they're secret.
Keep the straw men in your pocket.Under the US constitution he doesn't. The framers knew such power was typically only reserved only for tyrants.^^^^^ YOU, defending the OP's statement (or rather, quoted statement) that ANYONE can be liquidated, through your defense of rubu1120's statement.
But Bush and Obama found a loophole. War. If you're at war, you can suspend the constitution. Enter the "never ending war on terrorism". With this "never ending war", they can suspend the constitution forever and with it, our rights. Hence the Patriot Act, NDAA, etc etc etc.
Under normal circumstances, such legislation would never be allowed to see the light of day. Under a never ending war? They render the US constitution irrelevant. Forever.
Anyhow, my point from the get-go was that Obama certainly does not have the power to just liquidate anyone in the world because he feels like it, just by deeming them a terrorist.I know, but you're wrong according to George Washington University Law School Law Professor Johnathan Turley:
"President Obama has just stated a policy that he can have any American citizen killed without any charge, without any review, except his own. If he’s satisfied that you are a terrorist, he says that he can kill you anywhere in the world including in the United States.
Two of his aides just … reaffirmed they believe that American citizens can be killed on the order of the President anywhere including the United States."
Again, I didn't say that. But George Washington University Law School Law Professor Johnathan Turley did:But that's assuming that we even know all the nuances, which we don't. Because they're secret, remember?Ah, so you don't know, but you know enough to say that Obama can liquidate anyone he deems a terrorist...
"President Obama has just stated a policy that he can have any American citizen killed without any charge, without any review, except his own. If he’s satisfied that you are a terrorist, he says that he can kill you anywhere in the world including in the United States.
Two of his aides just … reaffirmed they believe that American citizens can be killed on the order of the President anywhere including the United States."
That's good to hear. But I would think that should mean that I can be condescending without you caring. So, that begs the question: Why was it such a problem for you when you interpreted what I said as condescending?When I say "see" in these instances I mean "that's because". Not trying to make you angry.You don't have the power to make me angry, lol.
Well all rights are important, but the right to a fair trial is fundamental to any free country. Typically it's only tyrannical states which don't allow you to defend yourself in a court of law.Right, which are among the most important rights possible. The right to defend yourself in a court of law will turn out to be quite important if you are accidentally mistaken for a terrorist.Let's not bother getting into the entirely arbitrary discussion of what rights are "most important," specifically more important than other rights.
Didn't say you did. As was pointed out before, the likelihood of revocation is slim. Unless of course people actually do something about it. Which they typically don't. They'd rather defend the actions of their precious democratic/republican president.Well of course. But let's also remember that once laws go on the books, it's very difficult to get them off the books unless they sunset. Even then it's difficult to remove them, as we've seen with the Patriot actI never said it was easy, only that the possibility of their revocation nullified the concept of permanency, as it applies to legislation.
Fascinating this tidbit, that the younger al-Awlaki was killed while in the presence of a known al-Qaeda leader, seems to go constantly unmentioned, when his death is used as an example of a power-crazed president.Maybe you haven't noticed, but the press secretary is the official spokesperson of the Obama administration, lol.
But no, we should just take some stupid quip from the press secretary as the real reason...
At what point does an American citizen, who has joined a group that has declared war on the US,At what point can what is said on these boards be used as evidence to prove that you are terrorist, or want the US federal govt to be ousted.
At what point can what is said on these boards be used as evidence to prove that you are terrorist, or want the US federal govt to be ousted.
but hey, this is panic and fear we are talking about. americans have a solid pattern with messing their panties and wishing for that false sense of security.
You really think that's what's driving me? Really....?
but hey, this is panic and fear we are talking about. americans have a solid pattern with messing their panties and wishing for that false sense of security.
You really think that's what's driving me? Really....?
