America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 38,739 comments
  • 1,660,592 views
I agree and disagree, waiting for all hell to brake loose and then draft anyone able I don't automatically like. I would prefer a mandatory 2 year service for all able 18 year old males, follow that up with the option for convicted criminals that meet a set of criteria to serve the military rather then the penal system.

Of course one could always flee to Canada as long as we don't let them back in after the fact :lol:

It's lame to me that people reap the rewards of citizenship without contribution.
What rewards of citizenship has the military contributed to in the last 50 years via foot soldiers? The best that could be pointed to is technological advances that could have been completed in a private lab.

Sure, we could argue that they are stopping terrorists planning to attack us, but those are primarily the results of intelligence gathering and either special forces or an aerial-fired missile.

Seeing how the government defends revelations made through leaks, we are led to believe that spying and bombing are the key factors in protecting us today. If that is the case, then requiring service in some form is a waste and puts guys who don't want to be there in the line of fire. I'd rather not have too see scared teenage privates being tried for dereliction of duty because they don't want to fight guys who will never be a direct threat to American soil.

You would also have to predetermine who can contribute without fighting, such as students, professionals, skilled labor, etc. And that becomes hard because some college graduates go nowhere. Some dropouts become Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, or Larry Ellison.
 
And this is why I can't wait until the nursing home generation are out of the voting picture. They choose based on the most trivial things. Nobody gives a flying crap about "draft dodging" except for old people who think if you weren't in the military then you're not a real American. Younger generations probably see it as a good thing - why on earth would anybody have wanted to be involved in the bogus Vietnam war? I'd have dodged it too.

The devaluing the wisdom of older generations is a big part of what got us into the socialist mess we're all falling into now.
 
...with a gun.

Yes, you're getting the idea. Although Swiss and Athenian democracies were established prior to the development of effective artillery, they were both established and maintained by indigenous military orders. Neither were established by intervention from abroad.

BTW, it is occasionally useful to distinguish participatory or direct democracy from a democratic republic, or representative democracy.
 
The devaluing the wisdom of older generations is a big part of what got us into the socialist mess we're all falling into now.
Wisdom? What wisdom? They're the ones who have been voting for 60 years and never considered what the future would be like. Now that they've spent their lives failing to make sound political decisions, they're stuck in nursing homes expecting my generation to wipe their asses. Modern medicine has allowed them to live off society's dime well past their prime. They don't apologize for their lack of foresight, either.

The baby boomer generation, my parents, are the exact same way. They managed to live paycheck to paycheck for 40+ years assuming they'd be able to slide on social security benefits, didn't save a dime, and now they're all pissy that these young "liberals" are trying to take away their benefits. If they weren't such entitled gold diggers and actually thought ahead it wouldn't have been an issue.

Older generations have had their chance to show their "wisdom" and all they've done is voted for the whitest teeth while our society spirals out of control. And they say I wouldn't be able to live without their guidance - there are bigger fish to fry in the world than deciding what dirty clothes pile the black-and-white striped t-shirt goes in.
 
Wisdom? What wisdom? They're the ones who have been voting for 60 years and never considered what the future would be like.
They don't consider what the present is like in many cases. I've often run into people from generations before me and while discussing politics get their opinion on many topics. Then when I ask if they are voting for the guy they agree with I often get a response that roughly goes, "I'll never vote for a [party name] because of [war or issue from half a century ago]." They literally plan to vote for a guy they disagree with, may even know they disagree with them, all because his party apparently played a role in an issue they've carried a torch for decades after it has been decided. That takes one-issue voting to an extreme.

But when it comes to one-issue votes, all generations are equally guilty. I've been having to promote third-party candidates for ten years now and to this day I get a "who dat?" style response at the mention of a party or candidate, often by the same people I discussed it with before. The slightly worse alternative are the misinformed who think they know and claim things like Libertarians are anarchists and Greens want us to be exactly like the Soviet Union.

The only thing worse is the people who claim both parties suck, so I suggest they look at third parties. They decide it is too much work and admit they will straight line vote the party they see as the lesser of the evils.

Voters in this country don't actively participate in the democracy and it makes me wonder where all the protestors come from. I do understand why man-on-the-street interviews end up being so funny. Talking politics with most people is like an episode of Drunk History. The broad details are correct, but the details become an incomprehensible babble.
 
Wisdom? What wisdom? They're the ones who have been voting for 60 years and never considered what the future would be like. Now that they've spent their lives failing to make sound political decisions, they're stuck in nursing homes expecting my generation to wipe their asses. Modern medicine has allowed them to live off society's dime well past their prime. They don't apologize for their lack of foresight, either.

The baby boomer generation, my parents, are the exact same way. They managed to live paycheck to paycheck for 40+ years assuming they'd be able to slide on social security benefits, didn't save a dime, and now they're all pissy that these young "liberals" are trying to take away their benefits. If they weren't such entitled gold diggers and actually thought ahead it wouldn't have been an issue.

Older generations have had their chance to show their "wisdom" and all they've done is voted for the whitest teeth while our society spirals out of control. And they say I wouldn't be able to live without their guidance - there are bigger fish to fry in the world than deciding what dirty clothes pile the black-and-white striped t-shirt goes in.

You sound awfully bitter, lots of extremely broad generalizations in there. Obviously your experience with seniors or others older than me is different from mine.
 
What rewards of citizenship has the military contributed to in the last 50 years via foot soldiers? The best that could be pointed to is technological advances that could have been completed in a private lab.


It's easy to sit behind a computer screen and say we need no military, but the reality begs to differ. I understand your point and I'll close this post with a quote I've quoted a thousand times it seems ;)

@Danoff, I'm gonna stick to my guns on the soccer mom, after all she is the same one saying there is no way in bloody hell that we should drill in Alaska, etc.

Not only is a military a necessity(as sad as that may be) I had another point, let me say this much at least... I know a few fins much younger then myself who I believe to be very well rounded, disciplined, thought out successful men and I will attribute a portion of that to their service.

Both of you know where I stand much more then you are letting on I feel, that's fine as I champion your causes. Mean while...

Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none; the support of the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against antirepublican tendencies; the preservation of the General Government in its whole constitutional vigor, as the sheet anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad; a jealous care of the right of election by the people -- a mild and safe corrective of abuses which are lopped by the sword of revolution where peaceable remedies are unprovided; absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism; a well-disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war till regulars may relieve them; the supremacy of the civil over the military authority; economy in the public expense, that labor may be lightly burthened; the honest payment of our debts and sacred preservation of the public faith; encouragement of agriculture, and of commerce as its handmaid; the diffusion of information and arraignment of all abuses at the bar of the public reason; freedom of religion; freedom of the press, and freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus, and trial by juries impartially selected. These principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. The wisdom of our sages and blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment.

There, I even added a bit more to it this time lol. I will always follow and side with the ideas of two men, you both know who they are 👍
 
@Danoff, I'm gonna stick to my guns on the soccer mom, after all she is the same one saying there is no way in bloody hell that we should drill in Alaska, etc.

I'm just picking on you because I don't find the bumper sticker inherently hypocritical - just ignorant.
 
Dotini
The old fashioned way - do it yourself!

Home Depot's self-checkout stations: DIY, capitalism, surveillance, economy of a smaller workforce, the smell of lumber and chemicals, and a stash of Mexican Coke (no, the soft drink). Gawd Bless 'Merica...oops, forgot the democracy (leave it in your cart).
 
Interesting and insightful post
There are some adults worth listening to out there. Sadly, there aren't any throughout my daily routine.

You sound awfully bitter, lots of extremely broad generalizations in there. Obviously your experience with seniors or others older than me is different from mine.
I live in the Midwest where if you aren't bitter you're not from the Midwest. This is the land where everybody works for GM - or used to, before they shut down the truck and bus plant. If you don't work a union job here then you're probably in the local community college trying like hell to go somewhere else.

Sweeping generalization? Yes. Based on reality? Yup. This ain't Canada. This is the land of the free and the home of the unemployed. It's why I'm trying to transfer to OSU because Columbus is completely different than Dayton or Cincinnati and doesn't suck.
 
Wisdom? What wisdom? They're the ones who have been voting for 60 years and never considered what the future would be like. Now that they've spent their lives failing to make sound political decisions, they're stuck in nursing homes expecting my generation to wipe their asses. Modern medicine has allowed them to live off society's dime well past their prime. They don't apologize for their lack of foresight, either.

The baby boomer generation, my parents, are the exact same way. They managed to live paycheck to paycheck for 40+ years assuming they'd be able to slide on social security benefits, didn't save a dime, and now they're all pissy that these young "liberals" are trying to take away their benefits. If they weren't such entitled gold diggers and actually thought ahead it wouldn't have been an issue.

Older generations have had their chance to show their "wisdom" and all they've done is voted for the whitest teeth while our society spirals out of control. And they say I wouldn't be able to live without their guidance - there are bigger fish to fry in the world than deciding what dirty clothes pile the black-and-white striped t-shirt goes in.
This would hold some sort of ground if the new generation wasn't full of dumb ass adults who marry & stupidly have kids too young without looking ahead (look at the divorce rates), spend money like it's god damn candy without looking ahead (many of these kiddos figure what the word debt means too late), & voice all their political opinions on Twitter & Facebook to reveal they don't know a single thing. Look at those morons who took to Twitter to curse at Margaret Thatcher when not only were none of them alive during her affairs, but used her death to act like a bunch of criminals. And let's not get started on those dumb ass conspiracists who saw Loose Change & now know every single detail of 9/11. :rolleyes:
Edit* Just a reference to the sheer amount of stupid Twitter reveals to the world.
1069368_511587678920402_642447518_n.jpg


You talk about the old needing to die & "get out of the picture" because of where they placed their voting values and never thought ahead, yet the new generation isn't any better; Twitter is full of evidence these kiddies are just voting for whoever says something that sticks & don't look any further into the issue. It's hi-lar-ious hearing these college kids suddenly having second thoughts about Obama's plans when they were laid out in the beginning.

Just based on what I observe of the new generation through the web, at least the old geezers don't have their morals & common sense stuck up their ass. You talk as if they feel entitled (gold diggers), yet this generation is every bit because now-a-days, mommy & daddy tell Little Billy nobody can be mean to him & he's special.

I'll take the views of the old geezers over this upcoming wave of "gimme gimme" kids who won't get a swift kick in the ass of reality until they're 25 & out of college. These old folks are probably pissed at these young liberals wanting their benefits because "hard" & "work" are 2 words that don't exist anymore with young adults; mom & dad will take care of me. I'm also not surprised at all when you divide the upcoming generation of voters between who worked for their goals & those who relied on their parents' income, on where their values side. And these are the ones you want to start taking the reigns.
 
Last edited:
It's easy to sit behind a computer screen and say we need no military, but the reality begs to differ. I understand your point and I'll close this post with a quote I've quoted a thousand times it seems ;)

@Danoff, I'm gonna stick to my guns on the soccer mom, after all she is the same one saying there is no way in bloody hell that we should drill in Alaska, etc.

Not only is a military a necessity(as sad as that may be) I had another point, let me say this much at least... I know a few fins much younger then myself who I believe to be very well rounded, disciplined, thought out successful men and I will attribute a portion of that to their service.

Both of you know where I stand much more then you are letting on I feel, that's fine as I champion your causes. Mean while...
Don't take my statements as not appreciating those who volunteer or saying we don't need military. We do.

See, there have been no true threats to this country from foreign nations since WWII. All fighting since has mostly been political and philosophical. Going after the perpetrators of 9/11 was good, but no terrorist threatened our way of life, and if the deck of 52 has any left unfound then perhaps it is time to use more precise intelligence methods. Brave men and women sign up to defend something they believe in, or seek some structure in a life that doesn't make sense, and they wind up risking their lives fighting on the other side of the world against guys that could never get a large group of men on our soil and/or defending people who might be the next "threat." No, our leaders have squandered our military.

That said, that standing military is a big reason why we have no actual nation attempting to invade us. They are good and necessary, but they are used and abused.

But when you also consider that our military will censor any and all media they can access they only know the stories the leaders want them to know. You do not want a captive audience of that nature to have any more privilege than your average citizen.
 
Reminds me of the discussions we had in this thread before the elections, iirc I said Ron wants to build a mote lol.

I most likely also said something to the effect that I was torn on the subject but am not willing to remove all troops from all areas of the globe.

One thing I can agree with you and Danoff and the libertarian crowd, abuse of power and corruption are bad things. I long for the days of a statesmen at least :lol:
 
Why would anybody want democracy installed anywhere anyway?

Also, we don't have to invade Canada. After Quebec secedes, the mineral-rich plains provinces will be more than happy to become new States. They wouldn't have much else going for them.

Why wait for Quebec? Saskatchewan will probably join if you promise that their precious Roughriders can play in the NFL.

:lol:
 
http://video.foxnews.com/v/2560422134001/president-obama-and-the-race-problem-/

I don't often watch tv but happened by this last night and found it quite on the money...from Bill O'Reilly...gotta love the passion...even fake tv passion..

Why wait for Quebec? Saskatchewan will probably join if you promise that their precious Roughriders can play in the NFL.
:lol:

If all your old people are as dumb and dependent on the government teat as Keef says they are, I don't think Saskatchewan is going to be interested in joining the U.S. of A. Think of Saskatchewan as Texas of the north...:sly:
 
Prepare for a post with multiple stories of America gone amuck.


First, a purely domestic issue. A woman is washing dishes when she looks out the window to see a man pointing a gun at her. She screams for her boyfriend and goes for her legally owned gun. Seconds later, police are banging on her door and entering without presenting requested identification, warning her to lower her gun or they will shoot her. They were looking for a man found elsewhere in the city, and the US Marshall that was threatening to shoot her for practicing her rights doesn't understand why she went to the press with her story.
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20130718/COLUMNIST/130719612/2256?p=all&tc=pgall

After leaving her operating room scrub nurse duties at Sarasota's Doctors Hospital on Wednesday, Louise Goldsberry went to her Hidden Lake Village apartment.

Her boyfriend came over, and after dinner — about 8 p.m. — Goldsberry went to her kitchen sink to wash some dishes.

That's when her boyfriend, Craig Dorris — a manager for a security alarm company — heard her scream and saw her drop to the floor.

Goldsberry, 59, said she had looked up from the sink to see a man “wearing a hunting vest.”

He was aiming a gun at her face, with a red light pinpointing her.

“I screamed and screamed,” she said.

But she also scrambled across the floor to her bedroom and grabbed her gun, a five-shot .38-caliber revolver. Goldsberry has a concealed weapons permit and says the gun has made her feel safer living alone. But she felt anything but safe when she heard a man yelling to open the door.

He was claiming to be a police officer, but the man she had seen looked to her more like an armed thug. Her boyfriend, Dorris, was calmer, and yelled back that he wanted to see some ID.

But the man just demanded they open the door. The actual words, the couple say, were, “We're the f------ police; open the f------ door.”

Dorris said he moved away from the door, afraid bullets were about to rip through.

Goldsberry was terrified but thinking it just might really be the police. Except, she says she wondered, would police talk that way? She had never been arrested or even come close. She couldn't imagine why police would be there or want to come in. But even if they did, why would they act like that at her apartment? It didn't seem right.

Then, to the couple's horror — and as Goldsberry huddled in the hallway with gun in hand — the front door they had thought was locked pushed open. A man edged around the corner and pointed a gun and a fiercely bright light at them, and yelled even more.

“Drop the f------ gun or I'll f------ shoot you,” he shouted, then said it again and again, Goldsberry and Dorris say.

Goldsberry was screaming, but Dorris was the calmer one. He could see the armed man was holding a tactical shield for protection. Some zealous gun thug could have one, but, though it was hard to see much, Dorris decided this guy looked well enough equipped to be a cop on a serious felony raid.

Dorris remained frozen and kept his hands in sight. He saw more people outside, and decided it probably was a police action. But he started fearing that in this case that was not much better than a home invasion. With his freaked out girlfriend and the macho commando-style intruder aiming at each other and shouting, someone could be dead at any second.

Dorris told the man at the door he would come outside and talk to them. When he got permission and walked out slowly, hands up, he was amazed at what he saw as he was quickly grabbed and handcuffed.

The cop at the door, and some others, had words on their clothes identifying them as federal marshals, but there were numerous Sarasota Police officers, too, and others he couldn't identify, though his security company job involves work with police.

More than two dozen officers, maybe more than 30, were bustling around, many in tactical jackets.

It was like nothing he had ever seen.

“It was a Rambo movie,” Dorris said.

Soon Dorris yelled to his girlfriend that it was OK to drop the gun and come out, but Goldsberry was too afraid.

She had been yelling, “I'm an American citizen” and saying they had no right to do this. Their standoff continued several more minutes.

Then she set the gun down and walked out, shaking and crying, and also was quickly handcuffed.

They remained cuffed for close to half an hour as the apartment was searched for a wanted man who wasn't there, never had been, and who was totally unknown to them.

They were shown his picture.

Then they were released, the police left, and that was that.

The officer's story

Matt Wiggins was the man at the door.

He's with the U.S. Marshal's fugitive division.

I asked him what happened. He said they had a tip that a child-rape suspect was at the complex.

That suspect, Kyle Riley, was arrested several hours later in another part of Sarasota.

The tip was never about Goldsberry's apartment, specifically, Wiggins acknowledged. It was about the complex.

But when the people in Goldsberry's apartment didn't open up, that told Wiggins he had probably found the right door. No one at other units had reacted that way, he said.

Maybe none of them had a gun pointed at them through the kitchen window, I suggested. But Wiggins didn't think that was much excuse for the woman's behavior. He said he acted with restraint and didn't like having that gun aimed at him.

“I went above and beyond,” Wiggins said. “I have to go home at night.”

Goldsberry was at home, I said. She had a gun pointed at her, too, and she wasn't wearing body armor and behind a shield. She had no reason to expect police or think police would ever aim into her kitchen and cuss at her through her door to get in. It seemed crazy. She was panicked.

“We were clearly the police,” Wiggins insisted. “She can't say she didn't know.”

She does say so, actually.

“I couldn't see them. They had a big light in my eyes,” Goldsberry said the next day. And that man she saw aiming a gun through her window had nothing visible that said “cop,” in her mind.

“I was thinking, is this some kind of nutjob?”

No, just a well-trained officer who knows how to go after a man assumed to be a dangerous felon, but isn't so good at understanding a frightened woman confronted with an aggressive armed stranger coming after her in her own home.

“I feel bad for her,” Wiggins conceded, finally. “But at the same time, I had to reasonably believe the bad guy was in her house based on what they were doing.”

Goldsberry wasn't arrested or shot despite pointing a gun at a cop, so Wiggins said, “She sure shouldn't be going to the press.”

Another situation that could have resulted in an innocent being shot because LEOs have no idea how to approach someone who appears to be doing nothing violent. She didn't even have a gun until she felt her life was threatened.

Dear officers, I know there are bad people who would not hesitate to kill me or you. But yelling at me and waving a gun in my face, or worse, when you have zero reason to believe that I am the bad guy, is not the proper way to handle it.

This woman had a gun, but they were looking for a man. Did they think the hostage was waving the gun around while the suspect hid? It isn't shooting up a car with two Chinese women while looking for a black man bad, but it still seems confusing.

I cannot believe we have reached a point where practicing our constitutional rights makes us a suspect.



Now, lets talk about drones.

The grandfather of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, the 16-year-old American citizen killed by a drone strike, has sued the Justice Department now that the Obama administration admits being responsible for the death. He wants answers as to why his son is dead at the hands of his own government.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/18/opinion/the-drone-that-killed-my-grandson.html?hp&_r=2&

SANA, Yemen — I LEARNED that my 16-year-old grandson, Abdulrahman — a United States citizen — had been killed by an American drone strike from news reports the morning after he died.

The missile killed him, his teenage cousin and at least five other civilians on Oct. 14, 2011, while the boys were eating dinner at an open-air restaurant in southern Yemen.

I visited the site later, once I was able to bear the pain of seeing where he sat in his final moments. Local residents told me his body was blown to pieces. They showed me the grave where they buried his remains. I stood over it, asking why my grandchild was dead.

Nearly two years later, I still have no answers. The United States government has refused to explain why Abdulrahman was killed. It was not until May of this year that the Obama administration, in a supposed effort to be more transparent, publicly acknowledged what the world already knew — that it was responsible for his death.

The attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr., said only that Abdulrahman was not “specifically targeted,” raising more questions than he answered.

My grandson was killed by his own government. The Obama administration must answer for its actions and be held accountable. On Friday, I will petition a federal court in Washington to require the government to do just that.

Abdulrahman was born in Denver. He lived in America until he was 7, then came to live with me in Yemen. He was a typical teenager — he watched “The Simpsons,” listened to Snoop Dogg, read “Harry Potter” and had a Facebook page with many friends. He had a mop of curly hair, glasses like me and a wide, goofy smile.

In 2010, the Obama administration put Abdulrahman’s father, my son Anwar, on C.I.A. and Pentagon “kill lists” of suspected terrorists targeted for death. A drone took his life on Sept. 30, 2011.

The government repeatedly made accusations of terrorism against Anwar — who was also an American citizen — but never charged him with a crime. No court ever reviewed the government’s claims nor was any evidence of criminal wrongdoing ever presented to a court. He did not deserve to be deprived of his constitutional rights as an American citizen and killed.

Early one morning in September 2011, Abdulrahman set out from our home in Sana by himself. He went to look for his father, whom he hadn’t seen for years. He left a note for his mother explaining that he missed his father and wanted to find him, and asking her to forgive him for leaving without permission.

A couple of days after Abdulrahman left, we were relieved to receive word that he was safe and with cousins in southern Yemen, where our family is from. Days later, his father was targeted and killed by American drones in a northern province, hundreds of miles away. After Anwar died, Abdulrahman called us and said he was going to return home.

That was the last time I heard his voice. He was killed just two weeks after his father.

A country that believes it does not even need to answer for killing its own is not the America I once knew. From 1966 to 1977, I fulfilled a childhood dream and studied in the United States as a Fulbright scholar, earning my doctorate and then working as a researcher and assistant professor at universities in New Mexico, Nebraska and Minnesota.

I have fond memories of those years. When I first came to the United States as a student, my host family took me camping by the ocean and on road trips to places like Yosemite, Disneyland and New York — and it was wonderful.

After returning to Yemen, I used my American education and skills to help my country, serving as Yemen’s minister of agriculture and fisheries and establishing one of the country’s leading institutions of higher learning, Ibb University. Abdulrahman used to tell me he wanted to follow in my footsteps and go back to America to study. I can’t bear to think of those conversations now.

After Anwar was put on the government’s list, but before he was killed, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights represented me in a lawsuit challenging the government’s claim that it could kill anyone it deemed an enemy of the state.

The court dismissed the case, saying that I did not have standing to sue on my son’s behalf and that the government’s targeted killing program was outside the court’s jurisdiction anyway.

After the deaths of Abdulrahman and Anwar, I filed another lawsuit, seeking answers and accountability. The government has argued once again that its targeted killing program is beyond the reach of the courts. I find it hard to believe that this can be legal in a constitutional democracy based on a system of checks and balances.

The government has killed a 16-year-old American boy. Shouldn’t it at least have to explain why?

Nasser al-Awlaki, the founder of Ibb University and former president of Sana University, served as Yemen’s minister of agriculture and fisheries from 1988 to 1990.

And that court case is becoming interesting, as the Justice Department argues that you cannot defend your Constitutional rights overseas, as it is not court jurisdiction.
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2013/07/judge-troubled-by-doj-position-in-drone-strike-case.html

A Washington federal judge today said she was "troubled" by the U.S. Department of Justice's position that the courts are powerless to hear a challenge of the government's ability to target and kill U.S. citizens abroad.
The government argued the court should dismiss a lawsuit brought by the families of American citizens killed in Yemen in 2011 by targeted missile strikes. Justice Department lawyers argued the court was barred from hearing a case that would require an assessment of sensitive military and political issues far outside its purview and ability to review.

U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer repeatedly expressed concern that the government's position would essentially strip U.S. citizens abroad of their constitutional rights. Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian Hauck argued there was a difference between having a constitutional right—which he said could be protected by the executive and legislative branches—and being able to make constitutional claims in court. Collyer countered that not being able to access the courts would deprive citizens of the ability to enforce their rights.
"I'm really troubled…that you cannot explain to me where the end of it is," Collyer said. "That, yes, they have constitutional rights but there is no remedy for those constitutional rights."

The two missile strikes at issue killed suspected terrorist Anwar Al-Aulaqi, an American citizen, along with two other Americans, Al-Aulaqi's 16-year-old son Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi and Samir Khan. In a complaint filed by the elder Al-Aulaqi's father and Khan's mother last July, they accused the federal government of violating the Americans' Fourth and Fifth Amendments rights.

Arguing before a standing-room only gallery, Hauck said the legal principle known as the political question doctrine prevented the court from taking up the case. A federal judge, he said, didn't have the same "apparatus" as the military and the executive and legislative branches to weigh the policy considerations that went into missile strikes. To consider a claim that the strikes were unconstitutional, Hauck said, the court would have to answer "extraordinarily sensitive questions."

When Hauck said that the "constitutional structure" enabled the executive and legislative branches to protect citizens' rights, Collyer pointed out that the structure included three branches of government.

"The problem is, how far does your argument take you?" Collyer said, adding that she found it "a little disconcerting" that the government was arguing that there could be no court review of a decision by the executive and Congress to target American citizens abroad.

Pardiss Kebriaei of the Center for Constitutional Rights, arguing for the plaintiffs, said the question of the whether the government violated the Americans' Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights could be answered by the court, pointing to a legal opinion published by the Justice Department spelling out the standards for deciding whether an attack was constitutional.

Collyer asked Kebriaei to explain how the court would evaluate some of the sensitive security questions at issue, such as whether an imminent threat justified the strikes. Kebriaei replied that that the court had taken up habeas petitions by detainees at Guantanamo Bay, which required the court to delve into national security issues.

The judge asked Hina Shamsi of the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, also arguing for the plaintiffs, how the case could be brought under a 1971 Supreme Court ruling known as Bivens, which gave individuals the right to sue a federal official for alleged constitutional violations. The government argued that Bivens didn't apply because it would create a new category of cases that could be brought and raise separation-of-powers concerns.

Shamsi said it was a "quintessential Bivens case" because the plaintiffs had no other remedy. Unlike other terrorism cases cited by the government in which the courts found Bivens didn't apply, the current case didn't involve military operations during an immediate conflict and didn't raise questions of the plaintiffs' citizenship.

Collyer did not rule from the bench and didn't say when she expected to issue a decision.

That should be disturbing to everyone. If you get killed, attacked, or taken as prisoner, accidentally or not, by a US initiative while visiting another country, you or your family have no legal recourse, according to the Obama Administration.
 
If all your old people are as dumb and dependent on the government teat as Keef says they are, I don't think Saskatchewan is going to be interested in joining the U.S. of A. Think of Saskatchewan as Texas of the north...:sly:

Maybe. I thought Alberta was the "Texas of the North" though. :D
 
Another situation that could have resulted in an innocent being shot because LEOs have no idea how to approach someone who appears to be doing nothing violent. She didn't even have a gun until she felt her life was threatened.

...and if she had been shot people would say she was an idiot for pointing a gun at a cop (inside her own home), that if someone claims to be a cop you should immediately let them order you around regardless of your rights.

It's so unfamiliar to hear a story about a cop threatening people who are exercising their rights precisely because those people know their rights and exercise them.... oh wait... no... it's super familiar!

That lady is lucky she only had a gun pointed at her by a stranger both from outside and inside her home. If the cop had felt like being abusive he'd have arrested her for exercising her rights and strip searched her at the station (as happened in another story a while back that was discussed on GTPlanet). Or he could simply have shot her like the guy with the garden hose. At least she had a gun, the garden hose guy was totally unarmed.

Cops need a LOT more education about what people's rights are and a lot more training in how law abiding people who are prepared to defend themselves may act when you threaten them and refuse to show identification. Our rights don't really exist if the cops we encounter refuse to acknowledge them.

Maybe it was mentioned, but I don't remember seeing anywhere in the story that they had gotten a warrant - or that said warrant was shown before barging in with guns.
 
If all your old people are as dumb and dependent on the government teat as Keef says they are, I don't think Saskatchewan is going to be interested in joining the U.S. of A. Think of Saskatchewan as Texas of the north...:sly:
Luckily, every state between Saskatchewan and Texas has a strong identity of their own. They all vote Republican but at least the citizens of those states all value their independence quite heavily.

Honestly, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba are a perfect fit next to our Rockies and plains states. It's really too bad they're part of Canada because they're more American than anything.

That's kind of funny because in New England there are quite a few people along the Canadian border who would be interested in leaving the US for a seceded Quebec. In some places people actually speak French inside the US. I never realized that before but apparently it exists.
 
Saskatchewan was the first province with universal health care. How American.
I'm talking culture, not politics. If you drove the back roads from Bismark to Saskatoon you probably wouldn't notice much of a difference. Don't get sassy because you city folk can't wrangle your cowboys any better than we could.
 
Maybe it was mentioned, but I don't remember seeing anywhere in the story that they had gotten a warrant - or that said warrant was shown before barging in with guns.
They were looking for a suspect reportedly in the apartment complex and were going door to door. When the couple refused to open the door they claim that gave them reasonable cause to suspect the guy was in their apartment.

And that only makes sense if you believe a suspect on the run would hand his hostage a gun. He was found in a completely different part of the city.
 
They were looking for a suspect reportedly in the apartment complex and were going door to door. When the couple refused to open the door they claim that gave them reasonable cause to suspect the guy was in their apartment.

And that only makes sense if you believe a suspect on the run would hand his hostage a gun. He was found in a completely different part of the city.

No warrant = cops broke the law coming in. She would have been justified in shooting them.
 
Keef
I'm talking culture, not politics. If you drove the back roads from Bismark to Saskatoon you probably wouldn't notice much of a difference. Don't get sassy because you city folk can't wrangle your cowboys any better than we could.

You're forgetting that at least half of Canadian culture is being smug about health care and criticizing the US.
 
No warrant = cops broke the law coming in. She would have been justified in shooting them.

I agree, and that is why the Marshalls are sticking to their reasonable suspicion story. They claim they were doing it for her own good.
 
Back