Skip to main content

View Diary: So it turns out a talking filibuster is actually pretty darn good idea after all (115 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No. (0+ / 0-)

    1) If a passenger jet actually posed an imminent threat then shooting it down should be done by a human pilot flying an F16 who has closed with the plane and evaluated the situation --including signaling the plane to turn.
    A human pilot who can challenge unconstitutional orders from a President.

    2) I also think using unlikely, extreme events to justify policy is an invalid use of rhetoric -- akin to the ticking nuclear bomb that Alan Dershowitz used to justify torture.

    Anyone with experience in  intelligence operations -- which Alan does not have -- would know that Alan's scenario was unrealistic .  That compartmentation, cutouts , alias, and several other techniques are used to  limit the damage from such captures --and certainly would make torture of little use in the time critical situatiion that Alan posed.

    Alan also appears to have the lawyer's mindset that dishonesty is a valid tactic in argument.

    •  Why would you limit the options? And (0+ / 0-)

      the unlikely occurs, like hijackers taking over a plane and crashing it into a skyscraper in one of the most populated places on earth. If that plane can be stopped it's the president's responsibility to do so. The part of Holder's letter that every one seems to be freaking out about says

      "It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the president to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States," Holder wrote. "For example, the president could  conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances of a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on Dec. 7, 1941 and Sept. 11, 2001."
      Taking drones out of the tool box to address an immediate threat to the homeland is stupid. If the president can use an F-16 in a situation, he should be able to use a drone, a distinction without difference.
      •  It is NOT a distinction without a difference (0+ / 0-)

        Having human beings execute the orders --and giving human beings the right to challenge illegal orders by protecting those officers from retaliation -- is a fundamental protection of civil rights.  

        This is what really pisses me off about some Democrats -- they just as willing as the Nazis to create a fascist state in the name of doing good for the People --but they accept no responsibility whatsoever for ensuring that the power of that state is kept in check, that the government is managed in a responsible manner and that corruption and incompetence and criminality in high officials is severely punished.

        What ever happened to Senator Jon Corzine, by the way?
        And those $Billions?

      •  If Dick Cheney had claimed the right to kill (0+ / 0-)

        Americans on US soil with drones, we would have been
        raising holy hell.   So what makes it right if a Democrat does it?   There should be  a difference between the values of the Party and the values of the political hack.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site