DanG

I didn't bother to read the article, but I think you're wrong about this. I'm no expert, but at my company we have to take annual training regarding international sales. This may be because we are in the arms business, so I'm not sure if the rules are the same for general goods. However, it is illegal for us to sell goods to prohibited countries, regardless of what subsidiary's name appears on the paper. In fact, it is illegal for us to sell goods to an allowed country, if we have reason to believe the real end user is going to be a prohibited country. In other words, the purpose of the law is to keep our goods out of the hands of Iran, et al. Using foreign subsidiaries or intermediaries does not get you around the law. I'm not sure how the trade ban with Iran is set up, but I wouldn't be surprized to learn it had similar provisions. - Dan G

I realize it's rude to comment on spelling, and I've likely made a spelling mistake somewhere in this reply, but as much as you post in SC I can't believe you still don't know how to spell politician. In regards to your content, I assume you are refering to Article I, Section 7 (yes, I had to look it up) which says, "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills." That says that bills originate in the House. It doesn't say that only the House votes on them. In fact, it specifically says that the Senate may propose or concur. If you read the rest of the Article, it explains how bills must be passed by both houses, and signed by the President. Your Constitutional comment doesn't seem to be based on the Constitution. - Dan G

I think I see your problem. You think that for the Big Bang to be true that "everything came from nothing". That's not what the Big Bang theory says. - Dan G

Or have a "vacation home" in Florida. - Dan G

You can shoot your wife and it's not illegal if it happens in your home? I think you're missing the point. - Dan G

Well, considering 94% of blacks voted for Gore in 2004, it's hard to argue that the Obama vote was due to black racism. Unless Gore is black, in which case your point is valid. I think the interesting thing about Tea Party people being mostly white, and let's stop the silliness and admit they are, is that the Tea Party is really best described as an offshoot of the Republican Party and not the bipartisan big tent that Tea Party people claim it is. - Dan G

Can you stop being such a pedant for one thread? I never said *you* claimed they were anything. Many of the people objecting to bringing the detainees to the US objected because it was too dangerous. "Many of the people objecting" apparently does not include mnealtx. And if you bothered to read the thread, I was having a thoughtful, polite, and interesting discussion with lawrocket and others until you showed up and had to get snotty, as usual. This thread is likely now dead. - Dan G

I disagree. Claiming they are so dangerous and scary that the must be held on a remote island outpost, and freaking out at the suggestion that they be transfered to the US, gives them way more credit that they are due. The prisoners in Gitmo are just men, not X-Men. - Dan G

One could almost read that as being in favor of civilian casualties. Being at war with an emotion, such as terror, is not the same as being at war with another nation state. The lines get blurry, which is why we're having this discussion. - Dan G

Actually, they are. And they should be. By declaring that every jerkoff terrorist group is at war with the US just elevates their status. If we can capture them, like we have with everyone at Gitmo, we should try them like the dirtbag criminals they are. Affording them special status as enemy combatants gives them and their cause undeserved legitimacy. - Dan G

A kitten in every pot! - Dan G

If he's so powerless, why worry about him? - Dan G

Hmm. This isn't right. Mutual respect and polite discourse in SC. What can we do about that? Um, you're a Nazi! There, that's more like it. - Dan G

I think you're right about our level of agreement. I'm a strong believer in the Constitution and due process. I think our difference lies in what is a reasonable process to deal with people who are outside of our control, yet pose a significant threat. If I were living in Yemen specifically to put myself beyond the reach of US law enforcement or military personel, and I received notice (we can quibble about what level of notice is sufficient, but I doubt the Yemeni Post Office does certified mail) that I was wanted dead or alive, I'm sure I could find a way to communicate my desire to surrender. Al Alaqui, as head of communications for Al Queda, could have easily arranged surrender if he wanted to defend himself in court. He chose not to. Now, if you're arguing that a terrorist might not surrender because they don't believe they would receive a fair trial, I can agree with you. I'm a strong believer that the prisoners in Gitmo, even the super scary ones, should be brought to the US and stand up for civilian criminal trials. Not doing so delegitimizes our legal system, and is an insult to American ideals. - Dan G

Well, to be fair he's made some great movies, but I give his political opinions no more weight that any other dude on the street. Just because he can make a good movie, doesn't mean he knows jack about anything else. This is pretty much true for all entertainers. In fact, it is pretty much true for all people. - Dan G

I guess it comes down to what you require to satisfy the due process requirement. I don't think you can argue with a straight face that Al Alaqui didn't know he was wanted dead or alive. If we notify someone they are wanted, they flee to a non-extradition country, and proceed to wage war against our country, it don't think it is unreasonable to act to stop that person. If your beef is with the process by which the person is declared wanted, I can agree with you to some degree. I think judicial oversight of the wanted list is appropriate. If you are saying that going to a non-extradition country is like touching "base" in a game of tag, I can't agree with that. Again, I agree with you. I just think that in this case it is hard to argue that Al Alaqui wasn't given notice of our intent. - Dan G

Okay, so at the start of the first Gulf War, no shots have been fired, there is no immediate threat. Do we have to avoid targeting a SAM site for the first wave of bombing when we learn that a US citizen is at the controls? So you're okay with breaking some laws, just not others? It's okay to break international treaties, which are essentially part of the Constitution once enacted, but we must follow the letter of the law when it comes to treason? How? He wasn't posing any more of an immediate threat than Al Alaqui. The only difference I see between the two is that Al Alaqui was supposedly a US citizen by birth. - Dan G

Do we have an extradition treaty with Yemen? I'm not sure, but let's say we don't. At what point are we allowed to do something about a US citizen in Yemen who is actively waging war on our country? In your world, we would never be able to respond to a US citizen waging war from foreign soil. Can't you see how ridiculous that world would be? We would just have to sit there and take it. Let's say we go to war with Yemen. All they would have to do is recruit a few US citizens so we couldn't bomb them. "Sir, we can't fire missles at that SAM site, there is a US citizen manning the controls, and he must be arrested and tried." Do you support the killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan? - Dan G

Allow me to rephrase: If we are unable to arrest US citizens abroad (such as them being in an area prohibited to US law enforcement), are we not allowed to shoot at them? If a US citizen is standing one foot over the Pakistani border, plotting with his comrades to detonate bombs aboard US airliners, we aren't legally allowed to take action against him? That's what your vision of Constitutional law would lead to. "Nanny-nanny boo-boo, I stepped over the border." - Dan G

For that matter, what did bin Laden do? He didn't fly the planes into the towers, he didn't plant any roadside bombs, or blow up the USS Cole, or really much of anything beside ask other people to do those things, and maybe suggest ways to do them? Is your objection to his targeting the fact that Al Alaqui was a US citizen? If we can't arrest US citizens during battle, does that mean we can't shoot at them? Hell, if I had a prroblem wwith the US, does that mean I can attack the US with impunity, as long as I avoid arrest? I think that convicting him of treason in abstentia would have been the best route, but it sounds like you would not allow us to kill him even after such a conviction. - Dan G

It's all semantics. "Pro-Gun" means, literally, that you like guns. It doesn't say that you are an advocate for the right to bear arms. "Pro Gun Rights" is a better descriptor. It also sounds less wacko. It's just like "Pro Life" and "Pro Choice". What stupid phrases. Labels like that are just attempts to control the rhetoric. They aren't accurate desciptions of anything. - Dan G

I'd rather hear a candidate described as Pro Gun Rights. Pro-Gun doesn't make much sense. - Dan G

I'm not sure if I agree that due process was not necessarily afforded. Are we sure that there was not a legal proceeding declaring him an enemy of the state? I understand the slippery slope we get on if we allow targeting killing of US citizens. On the other hand, there is another slipperly slope if we are not allowed to attack US citizens who are engaged in armed conflict with the United States, especially if those citizens are abroad. I haven't voted in your poll, but I lean toward, "Yes, but with appropriate judicial safeguards in place." - Dan G

FIFY - Dan G

Of course it was. How could it be applied to straight people? Being a straight man, if I told my commander about my sexual orientation, I would not have been thrown out of the Army. If I were gay, the same could not be said, - Dan G