It is currently Sat Nov 29, 2014 12:47 am Advanced search

"Too big to ...", Continuing the "new era" thread

Talk about everything and anything.

Re: "Too big to ...", Continuing the "new era" thread

Postby psu_dad » Thu Mar 07, 2013 11:34 am

And another thing I don't understand. Holder isn't in charge of the Treasury or the Federal Reserve. His job is to enforce the law. Why is he worrying about the implications of law enforcement on the economy? Is that really the standard for the Justice Department? "We'll only seek criminal charges if you're not important to the economy."

Good Grief.
"Obviously this particular result was not anticipated."
User avatar
psu_dad
 
Posts: 2451
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 11:31 am

Re: "Too big to ...", Continuing the "new era" thread

Postby Blue&White » Thu Mar 07, 2013 12:36 pm

Well, given that they have not prosecuted a single bank or banking executive for the massive fraud that went on, it certainly seems to be their standard.

And, this is the administration that was going to get tough with Wall Street. Imagine we had people who ran on the platform of being pushovers.
User avatar
Blue&White
 
Posts: 3752
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:57 pm

Re: "Too big to ...", Continuing the "new era" thread

Postby Carl Spackler » Thu Mar 07, 2013 6:02 pm

Blue&White wrote:Well, given that they have not prosecuted a single bank or banking executive for the massive fraud that went on, it certainly seems to be their standard.

And, this is the administration that was going to get tough with Wall Street. Imagine we had people who ran on the platform of being pushovers.



Not to worry folks: the new slogan is TO BIG TO FAIL or JAIL but not TO BIG TO BAIL!

Anyway, Holder is too busy wordsmithing the Obama semantics to allow him to use drone missiles to kill us on our own soil without due process or 5th amendment access. He doesn't like you and drums up any reason, bang, you are gone. Quite a deal really if you don't like someone they just go poof in the night. Could this work for bank CEO's, yes I know, it is too funny to think about.
Carl Spackler
 
Posts: 1045
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:39 pm

Re: "Too big to ...", Continuing the "new era" thread

Postby LioninVa » Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:26 pm

Carl, this probably belongs in the Politics thread, but since you mentioned it... The Holder Drone issue is not as simple or clear cut as you might think. The question was asked, I believe, if drones could be used against civilian Americans. The answer is that it is possible that they could be used. I mean, President GW Bush was considering using missiles to take down a civilian jetliner on Sept 11th and National Guard have been used in the past to quell demonstrations where civilians were killed. Yes, it could happen. Should it or is it legal are different questions. I had this discussion with a very conservative coworker today who said he would have fully supported GWB if they shot that plane down but felt that Obama doesn't have the same authority in a crisis because it hasn't happened yet. He said the same thing you did... they can just pick us off in a cafe at lunch (or something like that). I hardly think that is realistic and believe it is a result of some form of fear mongering.
LioninVa
 
Posts: 278
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 5:12 am

Re: "Too big to ...", Continuing the "new era" thread

Postby Blue&White » Thu Mar 07, 2013 9:17 pm

I'm with Carl on this. Obviously the idea that you can be randomly murdered in a cafe is a ridiculous exaggeration but the idea that our government actually believes there are instances when it would be "Constitutionally permissible" to execute a US citizen, on US soil, without due process of law, is horrifying. And, on the off chance there is some vagary to this and Holder can actually envision a scenario where he can pass legal muster and kill someone, I hope Congress takes immediate action and passes a law stating that the President cannot do that.

Also, the Bush example fails on several levels. There is a tremendous difference between taking a decision to shoot down a hijacked airliner that you know is being piloted by people intent to crash that plane into a building with the intent of murdering civilians and specifically targeting a US citizen. One is a tough decision in a bad situation where you take the decision to kill people who are, for all intent and purpose, are already dead. The other is an affirmative decision to roll back a 1,000 years of legal precedent, dating back to the Magna Carta, to grant the executive the power to be sole arbiter of life and death. The idea is absolutely appalling, but not nearly so as the lengths people (not you, specifically) will go to justify it. Personally, I'm glad that Rand Paul tried to block John Brennan's confirmation and only wish he could have been successful. I think the man is scary and his views on issues like this are something to really worry about.

Carl - I laughed at the "not to big to bail" comment. Nice! I think the problem is that the rest of us are too small to bail.
User avatar
Blue&White
 
Posts: 3752
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:57 pm

Re: "Too big to ...", Continuing the "new era" thread

Postby psu_dad » Thu Mar 07, 2013 9:19 pm

Drones aren't necessary for domestic use. They're used when (1) you know exactly where someone is and (2) they're in a foreign country where a manned attack would require a dangerous stealth mission. If an "enemy of the state" is holed up in the U.S and you know where, all you have to do is send in the ATF and they'll set their house on fire.
"Obviously this particular result was not anticipated."
User avatar
psu_dad
 
Posts: 2451
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 11:31 am

Re: "Too big to ...", Continuing the "new era" thread

Postby LioninVa » Thu Mar 07, 2013 9:31 pm

I am not arguing the legality of a hypothetical or anything like that, B-Dub.I am simply saying that it is "possible" that a situation could arise, like Sept 11th, where this action was an option. I don't like it or hope for it, but am reluctant to say it could never happen. I don't like most political officials (elected or appointed) but respect Paul for doing an old fashioned fillibuster yesterday. My problem really was with the original questioning that I believe was vague, not that I have paid too close attention.

By the way, I love the ATF comment, _dad!
LioninVa
 
Posts: 278
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 5:12 am

Re: "Too big to ...", Continuing the "new era" thread

Postby Blue&White » Thu Mar 07, 2013 9:42 pm

I think the ATF comment was ridiculously unfair.

Sometimes they use more subtle means, like a sniper shooting first your children, and then your wife.
User avatar
Blue&White
 
Posts: 3752
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:57 pm

Re: "Too big to ...", Continuing the "new era" thread

Postby Blue&White » Fri Mar 08, 2013 9:22 am

Quick follow up on Holder's comments. In his response back to Congress, he actually does say the President does not have the authority to kill an non-combatant American citizen on U.S. soil with a weaponized drone. I guess we can get into a debate as to who decides when someone is an enemy combatant, but he has backed off the initial statements substantially.

I know I feel better. How about you guys?
User avatar
Blue&White
 
Posts: 3752
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:57 pm

Re: "Too big to ...", Continuing the "new era" thread

Postby psu_dad » Fri Mar 08, 2013 9:58 am

I see one of these in your future if you don't stop with the wisecracks.
"Obviously this particular result was not anticipated."
User avatar
psu_dad
 
Posts: 2451
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 11:31 am

PreviousNext

Return to Free for All

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests