dagblog - Comments for "The voice of that woman is worth listening to"

International law to the

jollyroger — Wed, 29 May 2013 02:21:54 +0000

In reply to Then I'll settle the issue:

International law to the contrary notwithstanding ...

Then I'll settle the issue:

Aaron Carine — Wed, 29 May 2013 02:04:20 +0000

In reply to Dude, the crux of the issue

Then I'll settle the issue: this is war. When you're overseas fighting a hostile army(Al Qaeda and the Taliban forces are armies), it's a war.

Dude, the crux of the issue

jollyroger — Wed, 29 May 2013 01:30:19 +0000

In reply to Circular reason? Bull. I'm

Dude, the crux of the issue was war or not war...remember?

Circular reason? Bull. I'm

Aaron Carine — Wed, 29 May 2013 01:25:43 +0000

In reply to Circular reason much?

Circular reason? Bull. I'm giving you a fact; in war, combatants don't have to get a trial before you kill them. If you don't believe the government, believe the non-governmental sources I cited.

http://natsec.newamerica.net/drones/pakistan/analysis

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drones/

Circular reason much?

jollyroger — Wed, 29 May 2013 01:09:11 +0000

In reply to Dude, when you're killing

Circular reason much?

Dude, when you're killing

Aaron Carine — Wed, 29 May 2013 00:58:42 +0000

In reply to There's a judge involved?

Dude, when you're killing combatants, there doesn't have to be a judge involved. Would you complain that no judge was involved in the killing of German soldiers in Normandy? The two best sources, The Bureau for Investigative Journalism and the New America Foundation, say that a majority of those killed by drones have been combatants.

I went to a board meeting

rmrd0000 — Wed, 29 May 2013 00:43:28 +0000

In reply to "I agree that Presidential

I went to a board meeting were we decided that the board lawyer should write the message that went out announcing something all the board members agree was the proper thing to do. So before we get into this are you making a legal argument? If so, just lay out your pertinent beliefs and I'll say yea or nay in response.

When I say have to be curtailed I mean that Congress, as big a bunch of worthless carbon atoms as the Republicans in general may be, has to have a say in what acts of aggression we take. The forever war on terror is not rational.

There's a judge involved?

jollyroger — Wed, 29 May 2013 00:13:13 +0000

In reply to Okay, but killing combatants

There's a judge involved? Oh, well, carry on then...

"I agree that Presidential

LULU — Tue, 28 May 2013 23:00:14 +0000

In reply to I think that the situation in

"I agree that Presidential war powers have to be curtailed. I do see some choices as complex"

First, lets try to understand each others reasons for the thing we seem to agree on.
Why do you believe that Presidential war powers have to be curtailed? And, for the sake of clarity, do you mean “have to be curtailed” as in the curtailment is a necessity to avoid some great harm or do you instead mean that the powers just should be curtailed for some reason, maybe of pragmatic purpose or to align with some value, either abstract or codified as in the Constitution? I assume that you have seen our President assume and use military powers over the last five years in some unacceptable way or else you would not see a reason to curtail them.

Okay, but killing combatants

Aaron Carine — Tue, 28 May 2013 22:13:47 +0000

In reply to No, I was saying ( vis-a-vis)

Okay, but killing combatants isn't extrajudicial killing.