Presidential Campaign: 2012

[Mnbruce]

Originally Posted by Davev

Did anyone see Michele Bachmann make a fool of herself with Piers Morgan last night?

No, but I live in MInnesota so I've seen it on a regular basis.

[roni]

Downloading the Washington Post Politics app on my iPad

[gingele]

Originally Posted by melliedee

Yes, and there is a part of me that fully agrees with the way you've expressed this. They are enemy combatants.

But we don't take out murderers and rapists and serial killers this way. Even anti-government types who do "take up arms" in opposition to their own country (oh, except Waco, maybe? ). I just want to know where the constitution and due process fits. When we are justified in overlooking the rights outlined there for the good of the order. And who defines when it is for that good?

Forgive the drive-by, here, but I'm swamped today.

Here's my short version:

a) Enemy combatants in time of war do not enjoy the benefits of traditional criminal procedural due process. This is well established and generally speaking in and of itself not unconstitutional. If someone is properly identified as an enemy combatant in time of war, then you cannot compare them (from a procedural standpoint) to a common criminal.

b) The part up there in bold is getting to the meat of the matter here. The discomfort you are expressing is quite natural I think, and I share it. Such extraordinary demonstrations of government power should cause discomfort, but that discomfort doesn't mean in and of itself the action was illegal.

The real problem is that as of right now, we just don't know enough about the process behind the scenes. The ACLU has submitted FOIA requests for the legal memos that specify the actual steps taken prior to the targeted killing and presumably their legal/constitutional justifications. These memos have not been released.

Yesterday, Holder spoke to some of the general, generic parameters of how targeted killing of enemy combatants in time of war can be carried out within the bounds of the Constitution. The fact that this speech was general in it's scope and not specific in answering questions about al-Awlaki is perfectly understandable given that he was speaking to law students, and not some congressional panel. (Gotta give a shout out to my alma mater here! W00T NULaw!)

So the question still remains: in the case of al-Awlaki, were the strict constitutional requirements adhered to? Was this a "targeted killing" or was it an assassination (illegal)? Was this man an "enemy combatant" or not? Was the action taken "in time of war" or was this preemptive?

It's a very, very tough situation. Targeted killing of enemy combatants in time of war is itself not patently unconstitutional or illegal, but the administration cannot or simply has not openly revealed the specific steps (and legal justifications for same) that were taken to show that all of the strict legal conditions were met.

And with that ambivalent and unhelpful response, I'm out.

[roni]

Independent voters to GOP candidates

We don't like any of you!!

Favorable ratings

Ron Paul - 38%
Mitt Romney - 32%
Rick Santorum - 30%
Newt Gingrich - 21%

Among independent voters, who are widely seen as the critical swing voting bloc in the fall election, none of the four candidates is regarded favorably by even 40 percent of the sample.

Texas Rep. Ron Paul does best with a 38 percent favorable rating and a 35 percent unfavorable rating. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, the frontrunner in the race, clocks in at a dismal 32 percent favorable score, 16 points lower than the 48 percent of independents who see him in an unfavorable light. Ditto former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum who is viewed favorably by just just three in 10 independents. That looks positively outstanding when compared to the 21 percent — yes, 21 percent — of independents who view former House Speaker Newt Gingrich favorably.

More, including ratings by GOP voters at

Voters to GOP candidates: We don't like any of you - The Washington Post

[ProfessorPibil]

Originally Posted by Robinhood

Hey PP your guys an Angel and so are the ones he hung out with.
The Vetting, Part I: Barack's Love Song To Alinsky

This is who Barack Obama was. This was before Barack Obama ran for Congress in 2000—challenging former Black Panther Bobby L. Rush from the left in a daring but unsuccessful bid.

I wasn't asking for a discussion of who Obama is, I am just pointing out there's a mountain of factual evidence that Ron Paul is a racist and that he is friendly with neo nazis. In fact, I hear that one of your favorite mainstream media outlets is about to publish an article that will make it impossible for him and his offspring to run for any kind of office, as early as next week.

[STOGEY]

Originally Posted by eccentrictinker

There is no (I) Obama in the word TEAM.


White House to Congress Dems: Expect no money

Read more: White House to Congress Dems: Expect no money - John Bresnahan - POLITICO.com

What would you expect?

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by gingele

Forgive the drive-by, here, but I'm swamped today.

Here's my short version:

a) Enemy combatants in time of war do not enjoy the benefits of traditional criminal procedural due process. This is well established and generally speaking in and of itself not unconstitutional. If someone is properly identified as an enemy combatant in time of war, then you cannot compare them (from a procedural standpoint) to a common criminal.

b) The part up there in bold is getting to the meat of the matter here. The discomfort you are expressing is quite natural I think, and I share it. Such extraordinary demonstrations of government power should cause discomfort, but that discomfort doesn't mean in and of itself the action was illegal.

The real problem is that as of right now, we just don't know enough about the process behind the scenes. The ACLU has submitted FOIA requests for the legal memos that specify the actual steps taken prior to the targeted killing and presumably their legal/constitutional justifications. These memos have not been released.

Yesterday, Holder spoke to some of the general, generic parameters of how targeted killing of enemy combatants in time of war can be carried out within the bounds of the Constitution. The fact that this speech was general in it's scope and not specific in answering questions about al-Awlaki is perfectly understandable given that he was speaking to law students, and not some congressional panel. (Gotta give a shout out to my alma mater here! W00T NULaw!)

So the question still remains: in the case of al-Awlaki, were the strict constitutional requirements adhered to? Was this a "targeted killing" or was it an assassination (illegal)? Was this man an "enemy combatant" or not? Was the action taken "in time of war" or was this preemptive?

It's a very, very tough situation. Targeted killing of enemy combatants in time of war is itself not patently unconstitutional or illegal, but the administration cannot or simply has not openly revealed the specific steps (and legal justifications for same) that were taken to show that all of the strict legal conditions were met.

And with that ambivalent and unhelpful response, I'm out.

Well, I feel a little better about that now. Thanks!

[Robinhood]

Ron Paul Idaho Team Welcomes Romney Family Members as Surrogate Caucus Speakers - MarketWatch

WOW! Romney can't even convince his own family?

[Robinhood]

Originally Posted by ProfessorPibil

I wasn't asking for a discussion of who Obama is, I am just pointing out there's a mountain of factual evidence that Ron Paul is a racist and that he is friendly with neo nazis. In fact, I hear that one of your favorite mainstream media outlets is about to publish an article that will make it impossible for him and his offspring to run for any kind of office, as early as next week.

You must be climbing over the same mountain of evidence they have to show Obama was born in Kenya and pals around with Communist America haters....or is the mountain a pile of crap that you like to sift through now and then? RON PAUL 2012

[Robinhood]

Good read and video on the Iran crisis from the CNN ireport.

Israel To Keep U.S. "Out of the Loop" On Bombing Iran To Protect US? Israel Doesn't Care About U.S. - CNN iReport

[roni]

In comment on Mr. Santorum's comments about college education:

“Knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”

Northwest Ordinance of 1787 (Continental Congress)

[ProfessorPibil]

Originally Posted by Robinhood

You must be climbing over the same mountain of evidence they have to show Obama was born in Kenya and pals around with Communist America haters....or is the mountain a pile of crap that you like to sift through now and then? RON PAUL 2012

You're funny, I like that.

[ProfessorPibil]

Originally Posted by Robinhood

Good read and video on the Iran crisis from the CNN ireport.

Israel To Keep U.S. "Out of the Loop" On Bombing Iran To Protect US? Israel Doesn't Care About U.S. - CNN iReport

Are you trying to prove that Ron Paul supporters are antisemitic?

I'm the last one to defend the current Israeli regime, but the only logical conclusion from that crazy rant is that Israel should self-destruct to make your gas prices lower

[D33RHUNT3R]

Originally Posted by Robinhood

Good read and video on the Iran crisis from the CNN ireport.

Israel To Keep U.S. "Out of the Loop" On Bombing Iran To Protect US? Israel Doesn't Care About U.S. - CNN iReport

Its BS is what it is .. Millions could have been saved had Hitler been stopped earlier...Appeasement cost Millions of lives..

Iran is the one that has made the threats saying Israel has no right to exist .. the Holocaust never happened and They would wipe Israel off the map..

I totally understand why they want Obama gone .. He's a danger to world peace..

Peace through Strength.. The weak get attacked an ate....

[bearcat]

Melliedee,

Interesting piece on Toledo and the election. I was interested to read the article based on the headline. I was curious to see which GOP incumbents were talking about Toledo as an "economic poster child" for success since many of them, especially Romney, opposed the auto bailouts which this article claims has turned around the city. Unfortunately, there is very little mention of the GOP so the headline is kind of a tease. However, interesting article that I thought I would share.

As Ohio heads to polls, incumbents point to Toledo as economic poster child | The Ticket - Yahoo! News