Rand Paul does something I (mostly) approve of

[PLATO]

Not to mention that the preemptive nuclear strikes Reagan was talking about wouldn't be on an American Citizen on American soil...

So, who is the tool of what McFun? (Hint for your McBrain...you are the tool of the ultra liberal criticise anything conservative crowd).

[MrFun]

Why did Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) participate in Rand Paul's filibuster?

I was not arguing that only Republicans were speaking out against the idea of authorizing drone strikes on Americans, on American soil.

And for the record, I actually think this is the one and first time that Rand Paul has been sane/sensible enough, that I agree with him on something.

[giblets]

Abraham Lincoln, by his views that the CSA secession was not legitimate, authorized the deaths of thousands of "American citizens" on American soil.

Thank goodness he did. I guess Elok would prefer if Lincoln just did nothing and let the CSA have its way.

[Elok]

Thank goodness he did. I guess Elok would prefer if Lincoln just did nothing and let the CSA have its way.

Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking. How clever you are.

[giblets]

Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking. How clever you are.

Lincoln was just a tyrant who executed a bunch of Americans without trial.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Why did Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) participate in Rand Paul's filibuster?

He's a dope smoking hippie.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Not to mention that the preemptive nuclear strikes Reagan was talking about wouldn't be on an American Citizen on American soil...

No, but the resulting counterstrikes would be. The constitutional point is the same - Congress does not have micromanagement oversight of POTUS' authority as Commander in Chief in time of war.

The "American citizen on American soil" thing goes back to the Indian wars (Bent brothers among others) and back to the War of 1812. Would anyone seriously argue that American citizens acting as scouts for the British Army were only subject to civilian law enforcement and not military action?

[PLATO]

Abraham Lincoln, by his views that the CSA secession was not legitimate, authorized the deaths of thousands of "American citizens" on American soil.

Yep...acting under authority given by congress under Article One, Section 8 which gives Congress the power "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions"

Are you contending that a single terrorist constitutes an insurrection?

[Elok]

Lincoln was just a tyrant who executed a bunch of Americans without trial.

Well, except for the part where he was fighting an actual war against an actual army instead of a neverending murder version of whack-a-mole drummed up to justify a comically bloated defense budget, yes.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Lincoln was just a tyrant who executed a bunch of Americans without trial.

Are you channeling BK now? You're not that stupid. Lincoln conducted a war under his authority as CinC. His goal wasn't to send a police force to arrest a bunch of Charlestonians for that little pre-4th of July fireworks show.

[PLATO]

No, but the resulting counterstrikes would be. The constitutional point is the same - Congress does not have micromanagement oversight of POTUS' authority as Commander in Chief in time of war.

The "American citizen on American soil" thing goes back to the Indian wars (Bent brothers among others) and back to the War of 1812. Would anyone seriously argue that American citizens acting as scouts for the British Army were only subject to civilian law enforcement and not military action?

So, you are contending that all terrorist everywhere are covered by the war (or more specifically the authorization to use force that Congress passed)? Therefore, by extrapolation, we can strike anyone suspected of being a terrorist anywhere in the world and be within our legal rights with respect to Congress and the Constitution?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Yep...acting under authority given by congress under Article One, Section 8 which gives Congress the power "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions"

Are you contending that a single terrorist constitutes an insurrection?

Were Yankee military forces the militia? (Hint, no they were not) I don't recall US Grant being titular commander of the Union Assembled Militias. Under the law, the militia could only be called into another state on the application of the governor or the legislature thereof, or if they were unable to sit due to said insurrection, on application of any US District Court judge. None of the above happened, which is why ol' Abe had to sidestep that whole militia authority.

I'm contending that in event of a war on US territory, a US citizen acting in concert with enemy combatants or an unlawful combatant organization is legally subject to the laws of war, not the process of civilian law enforcement.

[giblets]

Are you channeling BK now? You're not that stupid. Lincoln conducted a war under his authority as CinC. His goal wasn't to send a police force to arrest a bunch of Charlestonians for that little pre-4th of July fireworks show.

I was being sarcastic.

[MichaeltheGreat]

So, you are contending that all terrorist everywhere are covered by the war (or more specifically the authorization to use force that Congress passed)? Therefore, by extrapolation, we can strike anyone suspected of being a terrorist anywhere in the world and be within our legal rights with respect to Congress and the Constitution?

All terrorists who are part of any organization which has attacked the US or American citizens or installations, or declares itself to be at war or engaged in jihad against the US, etc. etc., then pretty much, yes. Drones are expensive, so are hellfires. It's not as if we're flicking them at every Abdul the goatherd in the world. If we miss or get the wrong guy, well, **** happens with any weapons delivery system.

[PLATO]

I'm contending that in event of a war on US territory, a US citizen acting in concert with enemy combatants or an unlawful combatant organization is legally subject to the laws of war, not the process of civilian law enforcement.

Then I agree. Just clearing things up.