I have no time for political theater! We need to focus on the State of the Union address!

THAT'S THE JOKE

I was responding to pvn's comment about how we should talk about something more important. I thought that he was implying that we need to focus more on military issues, even unrelated paranoid hypothetical issues like targeted killings of US citizens on US soil. So I thought it would be relevant to bring some context to the current military situation in that Obama seems to be going in the right direction.

So yeah, they're not really related. One is happening, the other is just a bizarre hypothetical. The only relation, a tenuous one at that, is that it is within the authority of the president to kill a US citizen if he joins the side of someone we're at war with and is in the united states and taking action against the US in some way.

Yeah, what's wrong with that? Why would the Obama admin want to get bogged down in someone else's play? It is a paranoid hypothetical that is not really vested in reality. It would be like wondering why Obama does not invite Alex Jones to the white house to explain why 9/11 was not an inside job. He's the POTUS, hit time is valuable.

Taking action like making angry youtube videos? Or actively shooting at people?

But the guy being nominated for DCI presumably doesn't have more important things to do than get confirmed, right? I agree it's a bit gauche for the Senate to try to exercise some oversight rather than just being a rubber stamp, but wouldn't dodging the filibuster by actually answering the Senate's questions help the nominee get down to assassinating faster than stonewalling?

Also, didn't Obama promise in the State of the Union to be "even more transparent" about his assassination powers? Obviously query whether its possible to be more transparent than Obama has already been, but he did say that.

You're deeply confused here. Asking the nominee for CIA Director, who will be directly in control of a major arm of the drone program, whether he thinks drones can be used in the United States against US citizens is germane to the actual job of the nominee, and a question which a Senator has the right to use in his decision vote against and/or block to nomination the extent possible if they think that the nominee's position is unconstitutional.

If answering that question honestly causes the administration some political harm, then perhaps they should rethink their position. Or tell the American public why they think their position is the correct one. Either way, debate on the subject is integral to a properly functioning democracy. You cannot possibly think that any issue which might hurt the President must not be discussed when the person who is going to be overseeing that policy issue must be confirmed by the Senate, and I have a strong suspicion you wouldn't think that this issue ought not be discussed if the President were a member of a different political party.

Yes, I read the white paper. However, stating clearly, in front of a national audience, the position of the nominee and thus the White House is not analogous to the leaking of a dry, obfuscatory memo written in legalese by some anonymous member of the OLC.

Joins the side of someone we're at war with and is taking action against the US in some way OR has an irresponsible father.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MwB2znBZ1g&t=2m31s

I gotta say, I find CC's blend of painfully earnest naive liberalism plus totally amoral power worship fascinating.

If they were to actually respond they would say shooting, which is kind of why the question is pointless. It's a hypothetical quagmire that allows each side to make it what they want it to be. It would only help Rand and his run to the white house.

I don't think it would be faster. I think the admin would have to spend time crafting a response. A response that would, not matter what, take flack from some people on the left and pretty much everyone on the right. If it does not go well it could last several news cycles and drown out any effect the state of the union might have. Plus, I don't think the filibuster is much of a threat and only hurts Rand unless people actually pay attention to him.

I know that Obama has failed on transparency issues across the board. I don't remember his saying anything in the state of the union about assassination powers.

I assume you'd have said the same thing if someone had asked Leon Panetta whether he believes he has the right to assassinate US Citizens via drone, cluster-bomb, and missile, far away from any battlefield, if the President simply declares said citizen to be associated with forces plotting against the United States?

Until Obama started actually doing that it was a fairly radical, "paranoid hypothetical." Then bombs started landing on peoples heads.

Big government has to stay outta our lungs, and the people who happen to be near us!

I know it was drowned out by universal pre-K, but here it is:

I guess it's possible that making "our efforts...even more transparent to the American people" means droning more Americans, but the most plausible reading is that they intend to answer the questions Paul is asking.

I don't understand how you can think its a worthless hypothetical.

He's targeted at least 2 US citizens for due-process-free assassination abroad. He's killed at least 3.

He's claimed that it

for him to do so, which kind of invalidates what you just said about shooting.

And finally, he's claimed the authority to indefinitely detain US citizens on US soil.

Huh? Most of the right is totally on board with killin' "terrorists," American or otherwise.

Tens of thousands of kids have been killed across the middle east from American wars of choice over the passed decade. I don't think this kid's citizenship makes a difference. He was not targeted, he was collateral damage. I too would like to end the war on terror. I don't think rand's question has anything to do with that or this kid.

He has the right to put out any question he wants. Although the question he is asking is on par with, "what happened to building 7?"

These paranoid hypotheticals are not integral to a proper functioning democracy.

It would not hurt the president because of his lawyered response. He would be hurt because he would give a political opponent undeserved legitimacy and because it is a waste of time.

Probably should just do away with Senate confirmation hearings all together then, right?

In fact, why even have a Senate or House? The President has important **** to implement, and those bodies are just getting in the way. Judiciary too.

How do we know he wasn't a target? Has the administration released the program's (which it does not even acknowledge exists) kill list?

**** all these damned elections too! Obama has more important **** to do than campaign.

SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT THE MINIMUM WAGE

dude what the **** are you talking about?

1) assassinating US citizens without due process is not a military issue

2) it's not paranoid given the ****ING MEMO that everyone except you seems to be aware of

I have to correct you here pvn. CC is well aware of the memo. The point is that, given this memo, which clearly establishes "that it is within the authority of the president to kill a US citizen if he joins the side of someone we're at war with and is in the united states and taking action against the US in some way," it's a paranoid hypothetical to ask how or if this power would be or has been used, at least if you're an unterpolitician like a United States Senator.

CC,

Do you want to comment on the ALCU's motives for suing the administration to get an answer to the exact same question Rand is asking? Is that political theater? Are they paranoid too?

Obama DOJ's response?



That's right, they can't confirm or deny whether a CIA drone program exists.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...-drone-secrecy

I don't think killing people who join al Qaeda is radical. If you're joining a group that is waging an open war with the united states then you're at risk to be killed. Congress has given the president that power.

Most of the right is on board with taking shots at the president for any reason whatsoever.

Who is the other person? I know about the youtube guy, who they alleged was actively planning attacks.

It's worthless because if it happens that way people are worried about you're not going to get an answer. If you actually think Obama is going to kill US citizens who are not actively fighting the US government then he's an evil dictator and we're all screwed. If he has no plans of killing US citizens that are of no threat to the US then...well duh we all know that. We gain nothing in either hypothetical. Like in the classic movie War Games, the only move is not to play.