Remember how NDAA "doesn't do that"?

[tombogan03884]

Tom, your rigidity is on full display again. There is a very clear difference between an American citizen in a hostile war zone giving aid and comfort to the enemy OTOH, and an American citizen on US home soil supporting the US Constitution and demanding that the .gov comply with the Constitution's restrictions and limits on .gov power and authority against the citizens.

I can't recall who said it, but the old saying - it is always right to support your country against your government, it is never right to support your government against your country - applies here. I think most of us here are troubled by the .gov actions over the past 20+ years, especially the recent actions of the current POS occupying the WH. Alawaki is dead, we can do nothing about that, even though some of us think he had it coming for the whole "aid and comfort" thing he was doing.

Instead, we should be seeking any leverage we can to ensure that the .gov respect and complies with the US Constitution. Attacking each other here does not exactly advance that cause.

If both are doing something that violates the law then there is no difference at all and both are entitled to the same protections.
Unless you want to argue that the Constitution is a "living document" that needs to be "interpreted" by your betters.
Or are you saying that if the G can get you to "step across this line", (cross the border out of the country) they can then do anything they want to you ?
Or are you saying that govt sponsored  murder is OK as long as it just Targets "Ragheads" ?

[Rastus]

If you had a gang member that had been indicted for murder, assaulting police, etc....would the police not go after him?  It is stupid bravado and arrogant self-importance combined with the intoxication of power to say go and kill him which is I think where BHO is.  That having been said, the police would go after a gang member as directed and attempt an arrest with some certain knowledge the perp is armed and dangerous.  Outright assasination (sniping without door knocking, for instance) would be a violation except in mitigating circumstances like holding a hostage, etc.  

The issue here is a failing nation.  The Constitution is not going to protect us from evil men because the Constitution is only a dead piece of paper, not something to be worshipped.  Men and women in law enforcement and/or military who honestly adhere to the Constitution may protect us; citizens may protect us or we may protect ourselves.  When the system begins to rot from inside, as now, this is where we are.  The issue here is bigger than thumping our chests about the Constitution about a particular case and how a dead piece of paper protects us when we've lost the foundations and morality that produced the Constitution...it's more about where are we on a broad level and what do we do from here?

[tombogan03884]

If you had a gang member that had been indicted for murder, assaulting police, etc....would the police not go after him?  It is stupid bravado and arrogant self-importance combined with the intoxication of power to say go and kill him which is I think where BHO is.  That having been said, the police would go after a gang member as directed and attempt an arrest with some certain knowledge the perp is armed and dangerous.  Outright assasination (sniping without door knocking, for instance) would be a violation except in mitigating circumstances like holding a hostage, etc.  

The issue here is a failing nation.  The Constitution is not going to protect us from evil men because the Constitution is only a dead piece of paper, not something to be worshipped.  Men and women in law enforcement and/or military who honestly adhere to the Constitution may protect us; citizens may protect us or we may protect ourselves.  When the system begins to rot from inside, as now, this is where we are.  The issue here is bigger than thumping our chests about the Constitution about a particular case and how a dead piece of paper protects us when we've lost the foundations and morality that produced the Constitution...it's more about where are we on a broad level and what do we do from here?

Because most just watch American Idol and don't give a crap about it until it's their ox getting gored.
Listen to the wailing and gnashing teeth when some one proposes another anti gun law, (although they sat back and allowed that as well for 60 years with out even asking for Vaseline )
But no one said crap about the erosion of the 4th and 5th amendments over the years, or the steady govt. erosion of the 10th amendment because either "it was just aimed at drug dealers" or they were getting something for what seemed like nothing.
Most deserve to be screwed by the G since they allowed it to happen.
Why should I care about those cattle cars ? I'm not a Jew.
Remember, Adolph Hitler was elected in a general election and everything the Nazi's did was legal under German laws passed through their legislature.

[santahog]

Not trying to rekindle an arguement but here's a news flash on individual States (Virginia) attempting to put a halt to it..
http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/01/nullify-the-ndaa-virginia-house-bill-1660/
Guess not everybody got the memo, huh..

[tombogan03884]

Politicians talking about something they haven't read ?
I'm shocked, shocked I tell you !

[Sponsor]

[santahog]

 

[jnevis]

Either they haven't read it, as Ron Paul so aptly showed earlier, or <gasp> it's a political ploy to appease the portions of thier populace that haven't.

"shhh, I know it's moot but people are complaining, so if we have a law that does nothing we look like we're doing SOMETHING."
Cause THAT never happens...

[tombogan03884]

Either they haven't read it, as Ron Paul so aptly showed earlier, or <gasp> it's a political ploy to appease the portions of thier populace that haven't.

"shhh, I know it's moot but people are complaining, so if we have a law that does nothing we look like we're doing SOMETHING."
Cause THAT never happens...

Reminds me of "fighting crime" with gun control.