Off with their heads! Dem. vid to Military

[Oscar77]

Typical knee jerk strawman.

Imagine Obama is doing drone strikes off the radar, and there are secret court opinions justifying it. Do you believe those legal opinions should also be classified, and why? We're not talking intelligence here; we're talking about the political and bureaucratic rationale.

I'd love to hear the rationale for why and where Obama, Biden, or the next US Liberal whackjob president can unilaterally kill people outside of any conflict should be classified and never explained outside of a select few.

You are referring to me? I'm the "strawman?"
Regardless, we dont have to imagine other Presidents doing that.
President Clinton: 1993 and 1998.
President Obama: 2009 and 2011.
And did the Republicans at the time, warn the Military against following "Illegal orders?"
No.

TBH I really dont mind bantering back/forth with you. It's- to me- done with respect. But dont lose your perspective here: These weren't secret actions- they announced them, there isn't a "secret court" opinion about it- It was a DOJ opinion that they are after, and Yes, part of this does involve Intelligence collection- so yes there maybe there is sensitive data on how we targeted those particular boats.
Finally its not classified nor "explained outside a select few"................... we and the press are beating this dead horse openly, arent we?

PS: Just so you know, this Selective Outrage from you (respectfully you are on "that side") and the left is old, really old.
Please stop, it was old when the Clintons did it, got irritating when Pres Obama did it and just non-stop under Pres Biden.
And now, well it's TDS.
(Same thing with the "victim" attitude or "We are the party of the working person" etc etc)

And dont ramble on when Political groups "unilaterally kill people outside of any conflict."
Mr Kirk was murdered unilaterally and the Left shrugged and outright said, "He deserved it."

[FoxtArt]

You are referring to me? I'm the "strawman?"
Regardless, we dont have to imagine other Presidents doing that.
President Clinton: 1993 and 1998.
President Obama: 2009 and 2011.
And did the Republicans at the time, warn the Military against following "Illegal orders?"
No.

TBH I really dont mind bantering back/forth with you. It's- to me- done with respect. But dont lose your perspective here: These weren't secret actions- they announced them, there isn't a "secret court" opinion about it- It was a DOJ opinion that they are after, and Yes, part of this does involve Intelligence collection- so yes there maybe there is sensitive data on how we targeted those particular boats.
Finally its not classified nor "explained outside a select few"................... we and the press are beating this dead horse openly, arent we?

PS: Just so you know, this Selective Outrage from you (respectfully you are on "that side") and the left is old, really old.
Please stop, it was old when the Clintons did it, got irritating when Pres Obama did it and just non-stop under Pres Biden.
And now, well it's TDS.
(Same thing with the "victim" attitude or "We are the party of the working person" etc etc)

And dont ramble on when Political groups "unilaterally kill people outside of any conflict."
Mr Kirk was murdered unilaterally and the Left shrugged and outright said, "He deserved it."

Strawman: an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

Things like "TDS" or "Charlie Kirk was murdered" are great examples of Strawmen. Also "that side".

You know what's funny? I'm a conservative/federalist. But my positions don't mold like playdough around whatever sociopath is in power.

I believe in the reduction of the federal government, balanced budget, and respect for the constitution, all of it, including the 10th, 11th, etc.

Remember the constitution? "MAGA" is no better than a commie when they act like the means justifies the end in its violations. E.g. "They are drug boats, who cares".

MAGA doing that today becomes progressive whack jobs tomorrow, that now have a foundation in violation. "They are domestic terrorists, who cares".

Trump is very far from a conservative/federalist. He believes in the massive expansion and centralizing federal power and the executive, the expansion of the budget, and direct payments to citizens to appease dissent.

He's nearly the antithesis of the party's core principles, but he's great at cosplay and headline generation, and also plays a martyr ridiculously well, which is wildly successful, everyone loves an underdog accosted by mutual enemies.

Is TDS feeling obligated to blindly justify every action a politician makes, never calling them out on anything?

I'll ETA: The classification points are good arguments... still, can't sensitive information be redacted as is the norm for public release of sensitive/CUI/TC/TSC information? We're talking less about the intelligence here, and more about the legal justification for an executive ordering death. Shouldn't that legal justification be public?

[Aloha_Shooter]

I'll ETA: The classification points are good arguments... still, can't sensitive information be redacted as is the norm for public release of sensitive/CUI/TC/TSC information? We're talking less about the intelligence here, and more about the legal justification for an executive ordering death. Shouldn't that legal justification be public?

I would like the legal justification to be public but since the justification is likely based on sensitive intelligence and would need to cite that intelligence extensively in order follow the legal reasoning, what we'd get after redaction to make it publicly releasable would probably be unsatisfying to most people. I expect it would be something along the lines of, "The boats in question were located at XXXXXXX by means of XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX. XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX which constitutes a threat to national security. XXXXXXX is XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX. The US is therefore justified in the use of deadly force." Probably several paragraphs (or pages) of XXXXXXXXXXX.

[FoxtArt]

I would like the legal justification to be public but since the justification is likely based on sensitive intelligence and would need to cite that intelligence extensively in order follow the legal reasoning, what we'd get after redaction to make it publicly releasable would probably be unsatisfying to most people. I expect it would be something along the lines of, "The boats in question were located at XXXXXXX by means of XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX. XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX which constitutes a threat to national security. XXXXXXX is XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX. The US is therefore justified in the use of deadly force." Probably several paragraphs (or pages) of XXXXXXXXXXX.

You certainly could be right, we've seen it before on other releases.

[Aloha_Shooter]

You certainly could be right, we've seen it before on other releases.

... and usually for good reasons (in my opinion). One thing the press always conveniently ignores in these situations is that the legislators in question could request to view the legal memo -- that's a part of oversight -- but they'd have to do so in the Congressional SCIF, they can't take notes, and once they view it, they can't talk about it. They would much rather stand on their soap boxes than actually view the memo and have to admit it makes sense. We've seen that game played before.