Jump to content


The Lawyer Behind the Drone Policy


  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

#1 Tom Ray

Tom Ray

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,077 posts
  • Location:Punta Gorda FL
  • Interests:~~/)/)~~

Posted 13 May 2014 - 11:23 AM

The Lawyer Behind the Drone Policy

 

 

When the White House nominated David Barron to be a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, based in Boston, it expected the usual Republican opposition. Mr. Barron, a Harvard law professor, is known as a liberal who was pointedly critical of President George W. Bush’s national security policy. What it didn’t expect — but should have — was that Democrats would have some problems with the nominee, too.

 

Mr. Barron served as a top official in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel under President Obama, and he wrote several memos justifying the use of drones to kill an American citizen affiliated with Al Qaeda. The citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, died in a C.I.A. drone strike in Yemen in 2011.

 

The administration has never explained in detail the legal justification for this killing and has resisted all requests to make public Mr. Barron’s memos. That didn’t sit well with several Senate Democrats who have been critical of the drone policy and the excessive secrecy surrounding it, and they demanded that the White House release the memos. Senators have a right to see the quality of a nominee’s legal analysis, particularly when he is trying to make a case for a morally questionable activity, before they confirm him to a lifetime post.

 

On Tuesday, the administration agreed to allow any senator to see the classified memos behind closed doors, an expansion of its need-to-know policy that restricted the information to those on relevant committees. That will probably be enough to ensure Mr. Barron’s confirmation on a majority vote now that the Senate has eliminated the three-fifths requirement for nominations.

 

But it is not enough for the public, which also has the right to evaluate one of the Obama administration’s most important national security decisions, and the qualities of the people it is nominating to the bench. ...

 

Rand Paul Wants Drone Killing Memos Released

 

This is one of those weird days when I agree with Rand Paul, Reason magazine, AND the NY Times editorial board.



#2 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,220 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 13 May 2014 - 11:37 AM

 Mr. Barron served as a top official in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel under President Obama, and he wrote several memos justifying the use of drones to kill an American citizen affiliated with Al Qaeda. The citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, died in a C.I.A. drone strike in Yemen in 2011.

 

The administration has never explained in detail the legal justification for this killing

 

Ummm..... how about because al fuklaki was an unabashed terrorist goatfucker who had more than enough opportunities to avail himself of his constitutional rights by turning himself in to the authorities and chose not to do so.  Boo freakin' hoo!  I would have been more than happy to pull the trigger on that Hellfire that day.  



#3 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,189 posts

Posted 13 May 2014 - 11:39 AM

 Mr. Barron served as a top official in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel under President Obama, and he wrote several memos justifying the use of drones to kill an American citizen affiliated with Al Qaeda. The citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, died in a C.I.A. drone strike in Yemen in 2011.

 

The administration has never explained in detail the legal justification for this killing

 

Ummm..... how about because al fuklaki was an unabashed terrorist goatfucker who had more than enough opportunities to avail himself of his constitutional rights by turning himself in to the authorities and chose not to do so.  Boo freakin' hoo!  I would have been more than happy to pull the trigger on that Hellfire that day.  

 

Which terrorist acts was he involved in?



#4 Tom Ray

Tom Ray

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,077 posts
  • Location:Punta Gorda FL
  • Interests:~~/)/)~~

Posted 13 May 2014 - 11:41 AM

 Mr. Barron served as a top official in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel under President Obama, and he wrote several memos justifying the use of drones to kill an American citizen affiliated with Al Qaeda. The citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, died in a C.I.A. drone strike in Yemen in 2011.

 

The administration has never explained in detail the legal justification for this killing

 

Ummm..... how about because al fuklaki was an unabashed terrorist goatfucker who had more than enough opportunities to avail himself of his constitutional rights by turning himself in to the authorities and chose not to do so.  Boo freakin' hoo!  I would have been more than happy to pull the trigger on that Hellfire that day.  

 

That might be the explanation. We don't know. We should.



#5 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,220 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 13 May 2014 - 11:54 AM

 

 Mr. Barron served as a top official in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel under President Obama, and he wrote several memos justifying the use of drones to kill an American citizen affiliated with Al Qaeda. The citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, died in a C.I.A. drone strike in Yemen in 2011.

 

The administration has never explained in detail the legal justification for this killing

 

Ummm..... how about because al fuklaki was an unabashed terrorist goatfucker who had more than enough opportunities to avail himself of his constitutional rights by turning himself in to the authorities and chose not to do so.  Boo freakin' hoo!  I would have been more than happy to pull the trigger on that Hellfire that day.  

 

Which terrorist acts was he involved in?

 

I already told you.... goat fucker.

 

BTW - you can google and/or wiki as easily as I can.  



#6 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,189 posts

Posted 13 May 2014 - 12:37 PM

 

 

 Mr. Barron served as a top official in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel under President Obama, and he wrote several memos justifying the use of drones to kill an American citizen affiliated with Al Qaeda. The citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, died in a C.I.A. drone strike in Yemen in 2011.

 

The administration has never explained in detail the legal justification for this killing

 

Ummm..... how about because al fuklaki was an unabashed terrorist goatfucker who had more than enough opportunities to avail himself of his constitutional rights by turning himself in to the authorities and chose not to do so.  Boo freakin' hoo!  I would have been more than happy to pull the trigger on that Hellfire that day.  

 

Which terrorist acts was he involved in?

 

I already told you.... goat fucker.

 

BTW - you can google and/or wiki as easily as I can.  

 

I'd like to see the evidence.



#7 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,542 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 13 May 2014 - 01:19 PM

All of a sudden the Minister wants to see evidence.  What about back when we went to war over fabricated evidence?  Or is this a new leaf?



#8 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,456 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 13 May 2014 - 01:28 PM

The problem that we have here, is that we have a Congress that is completely unwilling to provide oversight on the executive branch.  They let Obummer do whatever he wants without ever investigating anything.  If everyone in Congress was not so busy kissing Obama's ass, the Intelligence Committees could provide real oversight of this.  Because they all love Obummer so much, we need to declassify the information that they see, so that we can all review the evidence.  

 

What Obummer should be doing is dealing with active threats through the judicial process, regardless of whether intelligence suggests that someone is actively trying to attack the US.  We can't trust our Intel Committees to review these threats.  Their complete silence on this issue demonstrates their bipartisan love for the Kenyan.  



#9 Tom Ray

Tom Ray

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,077 posts
  • Location:Punta Gorda FL
  • Interests:~~/)/)~~

Posted 13 May 2014 - 01:36 PM

We don't need to declassify information in order to declassify strategery. I think the opening question in the quote below is a good one.

 

 

A Legal Way To Kill?

 

...How can a legal rationale possibly be a state secret? The facts upon which it is based could be secret, but the laws are public, the judicial opinions interpreting those laws are public, and there are no secret non-public parts of the Constitution. Yet notwithstanding the above observations, the Times lost.

 

The judge who dismissed the case obviously was uncomfortable doing so. She wrote: "The Alice-in-Wonderland nature of this pronouncement is not lost on me; but after careful and extensive consideration, I find myself struck by a paradoxical situation in which I cannot solve a problem because of contradictory constraints and rules—a veritable Catch-22. I can find no way around the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the Executive Branch of our Government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keeping the reason for their conclusion a secret."

 

Two weeks after Judge Colleen McMahon begrudgingly dismissed that case, the feds decided to gloat, and so they leaked a 16-page summary of their "secrets" to a reporter at NBC News. To the federal appeals court to which the Times appealed, that was the last straw. It is one thing, the appellate court ruled, for the president and his team to boast that they know how to kill legally by finding a secret "adequate substitute" for due process and keeping the secret a secret, but it's quite another for them to reveal a summary of their secrets to their favorite reporters.

 

Thus, earlier this week, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit unanimously ordered the DOJ to reveal publicly its heretofore secret rationale for extra-judicial killing.

 

Ooops. Telling friendly reporters a secret means it's not a secret any more.

 



 



#10 tuk tuk joe

tuk tuk joe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,007 posts

Posted 13 May 2014 - 01:56 PM

 

 

 

 Mr. Barron served as a top official in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel under President Obama, and he wrote several memos justifying the use of drones to kill an American citizen affiliated with Al Qaeda. The citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, died in a C.I.A. drone strike in Yemen in 2011.

 

The administration has never explained in detail the legal justification for this killing

 

Ummm..... how about because al fuklaki was an unabashed terrorist goatfucker who had more than enough opportunities to avail himself of his constitutional rights by turning himself in to the authorities and chose not to do so.  Boo freakin' hoo!  I would have been more than happy to pull the trigger on that Hellfire that day.  

 

Which terrorist acts was he involved in?

 

I already told you.... goat fucker.

 

BTW - you can google and/or wiki as easily as I can.  

 

I'd like to see the evidence.

 

We don’t need no stinking evidence...



#11 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,220 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 13 May 2014 - 02:48 PM

What Obummer should be doing is dealing with active threats through the judicial process, regardless of whether intelligence suggests that someone is actively trying to attack the US.

 

Yes, because that worked so amazingly well under Clinton, 

 

And yes, I know you are being sarcastical.



#12 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,189 posts

Posted 13 May 2014 - 02:53 PM

All of a sudden the Minister wants to see evidence.  What about back when we went to war over fabricated evidence?  Or is this a new leaf?

 

UNSCOM



#13 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,542 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 13 May 2014 - 03:30 PM

I think it's more to do with the letter behind the big guy's name.



#14 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,456 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 13 May 2014 - 03:41 PM

What Obummer should be doing is dealing with active threats through the judicial process, regardless of whether intelligence suggests that someone is actively trying to attack the US.

 

Yes, because that worked so amazingly well under Clinton, 

 

And yes, I know you are being sarcastical.

You are exactly right; that was the point I was making.  Flash has it right, it's mostly about the letter behind the name, though I thought it was one of Bush's better decisions to use that program, and one of Obama's to expand it.  

 

Edit.  That is not to say I don't want to know the justification, though I don't need to know it myself.  I want my representatives on the Intelligence committees to know the legal justification.  



#15 Tom Ray

Tom Ray

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,077 posts
  • Location:Punta Gorda FL
  • Interests:~~/)/)~~

Posted 13 May 2014 - 04:38 PM

The entire Senate, not just intelligence committees, are being asked to confirm him for life.

 

It would be kind of nice if they knew when he thinks killing Americans is OK and why it is justified before that.

 

It would be even nicer if we all knew too, so we could evaluate how well our reps are representing us on that subject.

 

And there's no reason a legal argument has to be secret, as noted above. The facts surrounding a case may need to be secret, but the justification itself? No.



#16 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,384 posts

Posted 13 May 2014 - 06:44 PM

The entire Senate, not just intelligence committees, are being asked to confirm him for life.

 

It would be kind of nice if they knew when he thinks killing Americans is OK and why it is justified before that.

 

It would be even nicer if we all knew too, so we could evaluate how well our reps are representing us on that subject.

 

And there's no reason a legal argument has to be secret, as noted above. The facts surrounding a case may need to be secret, but the justification itself? No.

 

 Rand Paul thinks it's OK to use drones on suspected felons here. 

 

 http://www.forbes.co...hing-all-about/

 

 

 So what's his beef with some legal legal memos that say it's OK to do it to suspected felons elsewhere? 



#17 Tom Ray

Tom Ray

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,077 posts
  • Location:Punta Gorda FL
  • Interests:~~/)/)~~

Posted 14 May 2014 - 10:16 AM

The entire Senate, not just intelligence committees, are being asked to confirm him for life.

 

It would be kind of nice if they knew when he thinks killing Americans is OK and why it is justified before that.

 

It would be even nicer if we all knew too, so we could evaluate how well our reps are representing us on that subject.

 

And there's no reason a legal argument has to be secret, as noted above. The facts surrounding a case may need to be secret, but the justification itself? No.

 

 Rand Paul thinks it's OK to use drones on suspected felons here. 

 

 http://www.forbes.co...hing-all-about/

 

 

 So what's his beef with some legal legal memos that say it's OK to do it to suspected felons elsewhere? 

 

You mean legal legal secret memos? The beef is that there's no reason to keep them secret. Maybe the justification is the same as Paul's: visual evidence of a crime in progress. I doubt it.

 

I still want to know what the secret legal reasoning is.



#18 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,384 posts

Posted 15 May 2014 - 12:37 AM

 

The entire Senate, not just intelligence committees, are being asked to confirm him for life.

 

It would be kind of nice if they knew when he thinks killing Americans is OK and why it is justified before that.

 

It would be even nicer if we all knew too, so we could evaluate how well our reps are representing us on that subject.

 

And there's no reason a legal argument has to be secret, as noted above. The facts surrounding a case may need to be secret, but the justification itself? No.

 

 Rand Paul thinks it's OK to use drones on suspected felons here. 

 

 http://www.forbes.co...hing-all-about/

 

 

 So what's his beef with some legal legal memos that say it's OK to do it to suspected felons elsewhere? 

 

You mean legal legal secret memos? The beef is that there's no reason to keep them secret. Maybe the justification is the same as Paul's: visual evidence of a crime in progress. I doubt it.

 

I still want to know what the secret legal reasoning is.

 

 Rand Paul trusts jack-booted government thugs who are known gun-grabbers to make that decision, but not that black guy who was elected President? What's up with that? 



#19 Tom Ray

Tom Ray

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,077 posts
  • Location:Punta Gorda FL
  • Interests:~~/)/)~~

Posted 15 May 2014 - 10:24 AM

Ask Rand Paul. If his answer is, "It's a secret" come back and tell us, because that will make it relevant to this thread.



#20 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,384 posts

Posted 15 May 2014 - 08:50 PM

Ask Rand Paul. If his answer is, "It's a secret" come back and tell us, because that will make it relevant to this thread.

Somebody quoted Rand Paul near the beginning of this. Rand has never explained why a week after filibustering the use of drones against Americans he agreed it made sense, or revealed the legal memos he got that led to his conclusions. Most likely there are none, of course. He never sought council. He's acting mostly on just what feels right to him at any particular moment.

I don't think he feels right about not being President of the United States of America at the moment.

#21 Ned

Ned

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,571 posts
  • Location:Wahiawa, Oahu

Posted 16 May 2014 - 12:20 AM

Maybe the check Rand got from GA's people on K Street helped him revise his position?



#22 Tom Ray

Tom Ray

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,077 posts
  • Location:Punta Gorda FL
  • Interests:~~/)/)~~

Posted 16 May 2014 - 02:12 AM

Ask Rand Paul. If his answer is, "It's a secret" come back and tell us, because that will make it relevant to this thread.

Somebody quoted Rand Paul near the beginning of this. Rand has never explained why a week after filibustering the use of drones against Americans he agreed it made sense, or revealed the legal memos he got that led to his conclusions. Most likely there are none, of course. He never sought council. He's acting mostly on just what feels right to him at any particular moment.I don't think he feels right about not being President of the United States of America at the moment.

So if he becomes President, will you agree that the legal rationale being used should be revealed?

Does this whole question turn on Rand Paul, or could we discuss the lawyer behind the drone policy and the secret policy rather than your musings about Rand's feelings?

#23 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,384 posts

Posted 16 May 2014 - 02:49 AM

Lawyer behind the drone policy? As if it isn't so obviously legal in certain circumstances that even Rand Paul can see it?

#24 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,220 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 16 May 2014 - 04:52 AM

Tom, I always go back to the notion that the American joe on the street doesn't need to see every piece of policy the USG conducts.  There are some things that need to be secret.  As long as the congress is performing its statutory oversight function and has bought off on it and/or a FISA court has said its ok - then I'm comfortable that we are doing the right thing.  At some point, you have to trust the people you send to DC to do some things right.  That's why we have a representative democracy rather than a direct one. 

 

As to why this particular justification memo is not public?  I dunno.... I would assume that it likely contains information that might compromise future intelligence ops against other similar bad guys and networks.  I would assume the evidence we have to justify his getting whacked would compromise sources and methods to the other bad guys if it was revealed.  So while it might make YOU feel better about this one case if they revealed it, it might compromise all future cases once the goatfuckers figured out how we knew he was a terrorist.

 

You do NOT have a need to see everything.  its as simple as that.



#25 Tom Ray

Tom Ray

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,077 posts
  • Location:Punta Gorda FL
  • Interests:~~/)/)~~

Posted 16 May 2014 - 07:38 AM

Lawyer behind the drone policy? As if it isn't so obviously legal in certain circumstances that even Rand Paul can see it?

 


Anything so obvious does not need to be a secret from Rand, nor from the NY Times editorial board.

 

But if you try really hard, maybe you can make some people think this issue is all about Rand, he's the only one who thinks this secret should not be secret, and he's a crazy home-schooled libertarian anyway, so how could he believe anything at all that is right? Just ignore those NY TImes editors in the background.



#26 Tom Ray

Tom Ray

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,077 posts
  • Location:Punta Gorda FL
  • Interests:~~/)/)~~

Posted 16 May 2014 - 07:45 AM

Tom, I always go back to the notion that the American joe on the street doesn't need to see every piece of policy the USG conducts.  There are some things that need to be secret.  As long as the congress is performing its statutory oversight function and has bought off on it and/or a FISA court has said its ok - then I'm comfortable that we are doing the right thing.  At some point, you have to trust the people you send to DC to do some things right.  That's why we have a representative democracy rather than a direct one. 

 

As to why this particular justification memo is not public?  I dunno.... I would assume that it likely contains information that might compromise future intelligence ops against other similar bad guys and networks.  I would assume the evidence we have to justify his getting whacked would compromise sources and methods to the other bad guys if it was revealed.  So while it might make YOU feel better about this one case if they revealed it, it might compromise all future cases once the goatfuckers figured out how we knew he was a terrorist.

 

You do NOT have a need to see everything.  its as simple as that.

 


The Senate is being asked to perform an oversight function: confirming this man to a life appointment.

 

I think each Senator who votes on that decision should know the secret strategy.

 

I also think we should know as citizens, but the two thoughts are distinctly different. They are also different from only intelligence committee members knowing. At the very least, the entire Senate should know what this guy believes about important legal issues before being asked to confirm him.

 

I can not understand how legal reasoning can be secret and I'm unable to make assumptions that make me comfortable with a secret strategy like this. Assuming they might/must have a good reason is not in my nature.



#27 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,384 posts

Posted 16 May 2014 - 07:16 PM

The legal reasoning behind killing felons who are deemed too difficult or dangerous to capture isn't a mystery.



#28 Tom Ray

Tom Ray

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,077 posts
  • Location:Punta Gorda FL
  • Interests:~~/)/)~~

Posted 17 May 2014 - 09:37 AM

The legal reasoning behind killing felons who are deemed too difficult or dangerous to capture isn't a mystery.

 


You know it? Then by all means, you should reveal it.

 

I think you should do it here, but understand if you do it on the Sunday morning shows. It will be big news if you actually reveal it.



#29 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,384 posts

Posted 17 May 2014 - 05:04 PM

The legal reasoning behind killing felons who are deemed too difficult or dangerous to capture isn't a mystery.

 


You know it? Then by all means, you should reveal it.

 

I think you should do it here, but understand if you do it on the Sunday morning shows. It will be big news if you actually reveal it.

 

 Just point a gun at a cop, Tom. It will be revealed to you. 



#30 Tom Ray

Tom Ray

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,077 posts
  • Location:Punta Gorda FL
  • Interests:~~/)/)~~

Posted 18 May 2014 - 10:01 AM

Oh, so you don't really know what the secret reasoning is, huh?

 

Neither do I, but I found the explanation by the judge interesting:

 

The judge who dismissed the case obviously was uncomfortable doing so. She wrote: "The Alice-in-Wonderland nature of this pronouncement is not lost on me; but after careful and extensive consideration, I find myself struck by a paradoxical situation in which I cannot solve a problem because of contradictory constraints and rules—a veritable Catch-22. I can find no way around the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the Executive Branch of our Government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keeping the reason for their conclusion a secret."

 

She said the reason is a secret. You say it's not.

 

I'm going to go with the judge over some anonymous guy on the internet on this one.

 

It's a secret.



#31 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,189 posts

Posted 18 May 2014 - 11:47 AM

Oh, so you don't really know what the secret reasoning is, huh?

 

Neither do I, but I found the explanation by the judge interesting:

 

The judge who dismissed the case obviously was uncomfortable doing so. She wrote: "The Alice-in-Wonderland nature of this pronouncement is not lost on me; but after careful and extensive consideration, I find myself struck by a paradoxical situation in which I cannot solve a problem because of contradictory constraints and rules—a veritable Catch-22. I can find no way around the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the Executive Branch of our Government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keeping the reason for their conclusion a secret."

 

She said the reason is a secret. You say it's not.

 

I'm going to go with the judge over some anonymous guy on the internet on this one.

 

It's a secret.

 

There is a reason that judicial is a seperate branch.  Too bad the parties took that one over too.



#32 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,384 posts

Posted 18 May 2014 - 11:57 AM

Oh, so you don't really know what the secret reasoning is, huh?

 

Neither do I, but I found the explanation by the judge interesting:

 

The judge who dismissed the case obviously was uncomfortable doing so. She wrote: "The Alice-in-Wonderland nature of this pronouncement is not lost on me; but after careful and extensive consideration, I find myself struck by a paradoxical situation in which I cannot solve a problem because of contradictory constraints and rules—a veritable Catch-22. I can find no way around the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the Executive Branch of our Government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keeping the reason for their conclusion a secret."

 

She said the reason is a secret. You say it's not.

 

I'm going to go with the judge over some anonymous guy on the internet on this one.

 

It's a secret.

 

 Looks like you are asking to see all the evidence. Googling his name gives the reason. You seem to understand the concept of killing people who are deemed too dangerous or difficult to catch.  Are you demanding to see all of the evidence and the sources of that evidence? 



#33 Tom Ray

Tom Ray

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,077 posts
  • Location:Punta Gorda FL
  • Interests:~~/)/)~~

Posted 18 May 2014 - 08:27 PM


Oh, so you don't really know what the secret reasoning is, huh?
 
Neither do I, but I found the explanation by the judge interesting:
 



The judge who dismissed the case obviously was uncomfortable doing so. She wrote: "The Alice-in-Wonderland nature of this pronouncement is not lost on me; but after careful and extensive consideration, I find myself struck by a paradoxical situation in which I cannot solve a problem because of contradictory constraints and rulesa veritable Catch-22. I can find no way around the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the Executive Branch of our Government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keeping the reason for their conclusion a secret."

 
She said the reason is a secret. You say it's not.
 
I'm going to go with the judge over some anonymous guy on the internet on this one.
 
It's a secret.
 
 Looks like you are asking to see all the evidence. Googling his name gives the reason. You seem to understand the concept of killing people who are deemed too dangerous or difficult to catch.  Are you demanding to see all of the evidence and the sources of that evidence? 
What is this "his" you are talking about?

The same legal reasoning applies to all extrajudicial killings not just a single one.

The legal reasons are not case-specific and do not require knowing all the evidence. I anticipated that particular straw man in the quote above, saying, "the facts upon which it is based could be a secret..." That means we don't have to have all the information, so I'm not asking for it.

We don't have to know all the facts of a case to know the legal reasons it qualifies. It could be that the legal reason is: if the subject is a terrorist goat fucker, due process does not apply. OK, so designate him a terrorist goat fucker, say the reasons are secret, problem solved! Then we would know the legal rationale, but still know nothing about how we came to learn of the goat fucking, whether he prefers male or female goats, adult or juvenile, or any of those case-specific questions.

If that is the big secret, why keep it a secret?

#34 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,384 posts

Posted 18 May 2014 - 10:11 PM

 


Oh, so you don't really know what the secret reasoning is, huh?
 
Neither do I, but I found the explanation by the judge interesting:
 



The judge who dismissed the case obviously was uncomfortable doing so. She wrote: "The Alice-in-Wonderland nature of this pronouncement is not lost on me; but after careful and extensive consideration, I find myself struck by a paradoxical situation in which I cannot solve a problem because of contradictory constraints and rulesa veritable Catch-22. I can find no way around the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the Executive Branch of our Government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keeping the reason for their conclusion a secret."

 
She said the reason is a secret. You say it's not.
 
I'm going to go with the judge over some anonymous guy on the internet on this one.
 
It's a secret.
 
 Looks like you are asking to see all the evidence. Googling his name gives the reason. You seem to understand the concept of killing people who are deemed too dangerous or difficult to catch.  Are you demanding to see all of the evidence and the sources of that evidence? 
What is this "his" you are talking about?

The same legal reasoning applies to all extrajudicial killings not just a single one.

The legal reasons are not case-specific and do not require knowing all the evidence. I anticipated that particular straw man in the quote above, saying, "the facts upon which it is based could be a secret..." That means we don't have to have all the information, so I'm not asking for it.

We don't have to know all the facts of a case to know the legal reasons it qualifies. It could be that the legal reason is: if the subject is a terrorist goat fucker, due process does not apply. OK, so designate him a terrorist goat fucker, say the reasons are secret, problem solved! Then we would know the legal rationale, but still know nothing about how we came to learn of the goat fucking, whether he prefers male or female goats, adult or juvenile, or any of those case-specific questions.

If that is the big secret, why keep it a secret?

 

 "His" is the guy we killed. 

 

   We can kill people are deemed too dangerous or difficult to capture, particularly when they have been advised of the charges against them and when they are obviously fleeing to escape due process. 

 

 The secrets may involve informants in the world of Yemini tribes.  If you believe the government has no reason or legal rights to have any secrets whatsoever, say so. 



#35 Tom Ray

Tom Ray

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,077 posts
  • Location:Punta Gorda FL
  • Interests:~~/)/)~~

Posted 19 May 2014 - 09:30 AM

 "His" is the guy we killed. 

 

   We can kill people are deemed too dangerous or difficult to capture, particularly when they have been advised of the charges against them and when they are obviously fleeing to escape due process. 

 

 The secrets may involve informants in the world of Yemini tribes.  If you believe the government has no reason or legal rights to have any secrets whatsoever, say so. 

 

We have killed more than one.

 

Your guess about the legal rationale is appreciated and is every bit as good as JBSF's guess. Neither one seems to me like something that needs to be a secret.

 

If you're a terrorist goatfucker, you have no right to due process.

 

If you're difficult or dangerous, you have no right to due process.

 

Either one makes some sense (and presents some danger to liberty) but I would like to know which is the real one.

 

And once again, no, that does not mean I want to know every secret about every case. Just want to know when citizens are entitled to due process and when we are not.

 

If all you can do on this subject is assume that wanting to know this one secret means wanting to know every secret, just say so. I'll try to explain the difference between a singular and a plural to you or something.



#36 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,220 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 19 May 2014 - 09:49 AM

JFC, Tom - you can be pedantic sometimes often.  

 

I would seriously like to know what YOU, TOM RAY would do if you were king for a day to deal with terrorist goatfuckers who happen to be American citizens and are not easily able to be captured and tried in a court of law?  Ignore lawyer crafted secret drone policies for a moment.  Lets pretend they don't even exist.  Let say hypothetically this is the first instance of having to deal with a US citizen who is in Yemen at this moment fucking goats and plotting to attack America and kill American's.  And you are watching him with an armed drone in real time at this very moment.

 

Seriously, king for a day Tom..... what policy would you implement?  How would you handle due process?  I'm not saying or implying he should or should not get his due process.  I just would like to know how you would do it.



#37 Tom Ray

Tom Ray

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,077 posts
  • Location:Punta Gorda FL
  • Interests:~~/)/)~~

Posted 19 May 2014 - 10:19 AM

One day? I can do a lot more good unwinding the drug war, so I'd probably ignore terrorists in caves all day and concentrate on that objective.

 

I don't know. I like animals. Can I blast the guy without hurting the goat?



#38 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,220 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 19 May 2014 - 11:58 AM

One day? I can do a lot more good unwinding the drug war, so I'd probably ignore terrorists in caves all day and concentrate on that objective.

 

I don't know. I like animals. Can I blast the guy without hurting the goat?

 

You have as many days as you need, tom.  So what's your plan to deal with extra-judicial killings?  And what happens to the goat is all up to you....



#39 Tom Ray

Tom Ray

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,077 posts
  • Location:Punta Gorda FL
  • Interests:~~/)/)~~

Posted 19 May 2014 - 12:04 PM

How about this:

 

State clearly the conditions under which due process need not apply.

 

If a person is a terrorist goatfucker who is hard to reach, due process need not apply.

 

That seems to be the policy. Why keep it a secret?



#40 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,220 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 19 May 2014 - 12:11 PM

How about this:

 

State clearly the conditions under which due process need not apply.

 

If a person is a terrorist goatfucker who is hard to reach, due process need not apply.

 

That seems to be the policy. Why keep it a secret?

 

Works for me.  But I thought you wanted the legal justification behind why the gov't had arrived at the conclusion a particular person was a jihadi goat fornicator.  If I have that wrong, I apologize in advance.



#41 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,384 posts

Posted 19 May 2014 - 05:08 PM

 "His" is the guy we killed. 

 

   We can kill people are deemed too dangerous or difficult to capture, particularly when they have been advised of the charges against them and when they are obviously fleeing to escape due process. 

 

 The secrets may involve informants in the world of Yemini tribes.  If you believe the government has no reason or legal rights to have any secrets whatsoever, say so. 

 

We have killed more than one.

 

Your guess about the legal rationale is appreciated and is every bit as good as JBSF's guess. Neither one seems to me like something that needs to be a secret.

 

If you're a terrorist goatfucker, you have no right to due process.

 

If you're difficult or dangerous, you have no right to due process.

 

Either one makes some sense (and presents some danger to liberty) but I would like to know which is the real one.

 

And once again, no, that does not mean I want to know every secret about every case. Just want to know when citizens are entitled to due process and when we are not.

 

If all you can do on this subject is assume that wanting to know this one secret means wanting to know every secret, just say so. I'll try to explain the difference between a singular and a plural to you or something.

 

    They are not even mutually exclusive examples Tom. One can be a terrorist goatfucker and be too difficult and dangerous all at the same time. When we are justified to kill someone depends on a lot of details that can't be anticipated well enough for any law to be written in the way you are demanding it be, and you know that. 

 

  The OP is about a specific case.  

 

 

 

  

 

   



#42 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,456 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 19 May 2014 - 05:38 PM

 But I thought you wanted

 

in other words, look at those goalposts go!

 

movinggoalpost.gif



#43 Tom Ray

Tom Ray

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,077 posts
  • Location:Punta Gorda FL
  • Interests:~~/)/)~~

Posted 20 May 2014 - 09:21 AM

How about this:

 

State clearly the conditions under which due process need not apply.

 

If a person is a terrorist goatfucker who is hard to reach, due process need not apply.

 

That seems to be the policy. Why keep it a secret?

 

Works for me.  But I thought you wanted the legal justification behind why the gov't had arrived at the conclusion a particular person was a jihadi goat fornicator.  If I have that wrong, I apologize in advance.

 

This thread is about a nominee and I want the Senate to do oversight on his appointment.

 

The thread that everyone is ignoring, linked at post number 9, is about how a judge already ordered the administration to do what I want done: tell us the circumstances under which due process will not be applied to US citizens.

 

When the administration leaked part of that legal reasoning to friendly reporters, were they revealing national secrets and endangering us? I just want the same standing as friendly reporters. If what the administration did can't be done without compromising national security, we need to impeach.

 

But, as I said above, the idea that we must release everything if we are to release anything is just a straw man and is not what I'm asking for. The administration managed to leak the strategy without compromising security, proving it can be done.

 

This article was written before the ruling referenced in the ignored thread.


 

...The ACLU has already vowed to appeal McMahon’s decision. But its success is far from certain.  It’s also unclear whether any court will ever require the government to release the memos documenting its legal rationale for these secret extrajudicial killings. McMahon’s decision, however, highlights why Obama should release them nonetheless.

 

Demands for the memos have been mounting ever since The New York Times first revealed that administration lawyers had documented their justification for the Awlaki killing in 2010.

 

Both U.S. citizens and foreign allies, whom the U.S. government strongly relies on in fighting its “war on terror,” have been skeptical of the program’s legality for years.  This has stymied intelligence-sharing with foreign governments, such as Germany, and infuriated local populations in Pakistan and Yemen, whose support is critical to defeating Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

 

It has also undermined Obama’s reputation — making it easier for critics to say he’s no better than his predecessor. It could even tarnish his legacy as a president, for he took office promising shiny reforms after a particularly dark chapter in U.S. history.


Can we really tell a goat herder from a goat fucker? "Infuriated" local populations seem to think we can't. We just plain don't know. All we can do is trust Bush, trust Obama, trust whomever comes next, to kill on our behalf only when appropriate.

 

I have the same problem with this plan that I do with the death penalty: governments are full of people and people fuck up.



#44 Tom Ray

Tom Ray

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,077 posts
  • Location:Punta Gorda FL
  • Interests:~~/)/)~~

Posted 20 May 2014 - 09:48 AM

Edit.  That is not to say I don't want to know the justification, though I don't need to know it myself.  I want my representatives on the Intelligence committees to know the legal justification.  

 

How about the Senators who do not sit on those committees, but who still have to exercise their oversight on whether this man should get a lifetime appointment?

 

Should they know when he thinks it's OK to kill us, or should they just guess and take a shot in the dark?
 



#45 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,220 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 20 May 2014 - 12:22 PM

Can we really tell a goat herder from a goat fucker? "Infuriated" local populations seem to think we can't. 

 

Yes



#46 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,189 posts

Posted 20 May 2014 - 12:34 PM

 

How about this:

 

State clearly the conditions under which due process need not apply.

 

If a person is a terrorist goatfucker who is hard to reach, due process need not apply.

 

That seems to be the policy. Why keep it a secret?

 

Works for me.  But I thought you wanted the legal justification behind why the gov't had arrived at the conclusion a particular person was a jihadi goat fornicator.  If I have that wrong, I apologize in advance.

 

This thread is about a nominee and I want the Senate to do oversight on his appointment.

 

The thread that everyone is ignoring, linked at post number 9, is about how a judge already ordered the administration to do what I want done: tell us the circumstances under which due process will not be applied to US citizens.

 

When the administration leaked part of that legal reasoning to friendly reporters, were they revealing national secrets and endangering us? I just want the same standing as friendly reporters. If what the administration did can't be done without compromising national security, we need to impeach.

 

But, as I said above, the idea that we must release everything if we are to release anything is just a straw man and is not what I'm asking for. The administration managed to leak the strategy without compromising security, proving it can be done.

 

This article was written before the ruling referenced in the ignored thread.


 

>...The ACLU has already vowed to appeal McMahon’s decision. But its success is far from certain.  It’s also unclear whether any court will ever require the government to release the memos documenting its legal rationale for these secret extrajudicial killings. McMahon’s decision, however, highlights why Obama should release them nonetheless.

 

Demands for the memos have been mounting ever since The New York Times first revealed that administration lawyers had documented their justification for the Awlaki killing in 2010.

 

Both U.S. citizens and foreign allies, whom the U.S. government strongly relies on in fighting its “war on terror,” have been skeptical of the program’s legality for years.  This has stymied intelligence-sharing with foreign governments, such as Germany, and infuriated local populations in Pakistan and Yemen, whose support is critical to defeating Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

 

It has also undermined Obama’s reputation — making it easier for critics to say he’s no better than his predecessor. It could even tarnish his legacy as a president, for he took office promising shiny reforms after a particularly dark chapter in U.S. history.


Can we really tell a goat herder from a goat fucker? "Infuriated" local populations seem to think we can't. We just plain don't know. All we can do is trust Bush, trust Obama, trust whomever comes next, to kill on our behalf only when appropriate.

 

I have the same problem with this plan that I do with the death penalty: governments are full of people and people fuck up.

 

 

It gets lonely out in the hills.  They are pretty much the same hence the old biblical saying "Many are called by ewes are chosen".



#47 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,456 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 20 May 2014 - 12:52 PM

Edit.  That is not to say I don't want to know the justification, though I don't need to know it myself.  I want my representatives on the Intelligence committees to know the legal justification.  

 

How about the Senators who do not sit on those committees, but who still have to exercise their oversight on whether this man should get a lifetime appointment?

 

Should they know when he thinks it's OK to kill us, or should they just guess and take a shot in the dark?
 

That is an interesting hypothetical, Tom.  Imagine if that was the situation in this case.  Can you imagine it?  

 

From your cite in the OP:

On Tuesday, the administration agreed to allow any senator to see the classified memos behind closed doors, an expansion of its need-to-know policy that restricted the information to those on relevant committees. That will probably be enough to ensure Mr. Barron’s confirmation on a majority vote now that the Senate has eliminated the three-fifths requirement for nominations.



#48 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,384 posts

Posted 20 May 2014 - 05:06 PM

 

How about this:

 

State clearly the conditions under which due process need not apply.

 

If a person is a terrorist goatfucker who is hard to reach, due process need not apply.

 

That seems to be the policy. Why keep it a secret?

 

Works for me.  But I thought you wanted the legal justification behind why the gov't had arrived at the conclusion a particular person was a jihadi goat fornicator.  If I have that wrong, I apologize in advance.

 

This thread is about a nominee and I want the Senate to do oversight on his appointment.

 

The thread that everyone is ignoring, linked at post number 9, is about how a judge already ordered the administration to do what I want done: tell us the circumstances under which due process will not be applied to US citizens.

 

When the administration leaked part of that legal reasoning to friendly reporters, were they revealing national secrets and endangering us? I just want the same standing as friendly reporters. If what the administration did can't be done without compromising national security, we need to impeach.

 

But, as I said above, the idea that we must release everything if we are to release anything is just a straw man and is not what I'm asking for. The administration managed to leak the strategy without compromising security, proving it can be done.

 

This article was written before the ruling referenced in the ignored thread.


 

>...The ACLU has already vowed to appeal McMahon’s decision. But its success is far from certain.  It’s also unclear whether any court will ever require the government to release the memos documenting its legal rationale for these secret extrajudicial killings. McMahon’s decision, however, highlights why Obama should release them nonetheless.

 

Demands for the memos have been mounting ever since The New York Times first revealed that administration lawyers had documented their justification for the Awlaki killing in 2010.

 

Both U.S. citizens and foreign allies, whom the U.S. government strongly relies on in fighting its “war on terror,” have been skeptical of the program’s legality for years.  This has stymied intelligence-sharing with foreign governments, such as Germany, and infuriated local populations in Pakistan and Yemen, whose support is critical to defeating Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

 

It has also undermined Obama’s reputation — making it easier for critics to say he’s no better than his predecessor. It could even tarnish his legacy as a president, for he took office promising shiny reforms after a particularly dark chapter in U.S. history.


Can we really tell a goat herder from a goat fucker? "Infuriated" local populations seem to think we can't. We just plain don't know. All we can do is trust Bush, trust Obama, trust whomever comes next, to kill on our behalf only when appropriate.

 

I have the same problem with this plan that I do with the death penalty: governments are full of people and people fuck up.

 

 

 

 The Spiegel article contained one hell of a statement: 

This, however, is contradicted by the general legal view that there is no armed conflict in Pakistan. 

 

 By 2011, the Paki's had lost nearly 8,000 men fighting in FATA. They were and to a degree still are engaged in a war in those hills.  They would go on to lose a couple thousand more, so far.  The "General legal view" can sometimes be incredibly silly.  There is a civil war going on in Yemen too. Damn near always is. 



#49 Tom Ray

Tom Ray

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,077 posts
  • Location:Punta Gorda FL
  • Interests:~~/)/)~~

Posted 20 May 2014 - 05:57 PM

 

Edit.  That is not to say I don't want to know the justification, though I don't need to know it myself.  I want my representatives on the Intelligence committees to know the legal justification.  

 

How about the Senators who do not sit on those committees, but who still have to exercise their oversight on whether this man should get a lifetime appointment?

 

Should they know when he thinks it's OK to kill us, or should they just guess and take a shot in the dark?
 

That is an interesting hypothetical, Tom.  Imagine if that was the situation in this case.  Can you imagine it?  

 

From your cite in the OP:

On Tuesday, the administration agreed to allow any senator to see the classified memos behind closed doors, an expansion of its need-to-know policy that restricted the information to those on relevant committees. That will probably be enough to ensure Mr. Barron’s confirmation on a majority vote now that the Senate has eliminated the three-fifths requirement for nominations.

 

 


I know what the article said. I was curious about what you said. You said you wanted Senators on the intelligence committees to know. That suggests you did not want the rest to know.

 

They found out anyway, but that does not tell me whether you wanted them to know.



#50 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,456 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 20 May 2014 - 06:01 PM

 

 

Edit.  That is not to say I don't want to know the justification, though I don't need to know it myself.  I want my representatives on the Intelligence committees to know the legal justification.  

 

How about the Senators who do not sit on those committees, but who still have to exercise their oversight on whether this man should get a lifetime appointment?

 

Should they know when he thinks it's OK to kill us, or should they just guess and take a shot in the dark?
 

That is an interesting hypothetical, Tom.  Imagine if that was the situation in this case.  Can you imagine it?  

 

From your cite in the OP:

On Tuesday, the administration agreed to allow any senator to see the classified memos behind closed doors, an expansion of its need-to-know policy that restricted the information to those on relevant committees. That will probably be enough to ensure Mr. Barron’s confirmation on a majority vote now that the Senate has eliminated the three-fifths requirement for nominations.<

/span>

 


I know what the article said. I was curious about what you said. You said you wanted Senators on the intelligence committees to know. That suggests you did not want the rest to know.

 

They found out anyway, but that does not tell me whether you wanted them to know.

 

I was talking about the legality of drone strikes against American citizens, not about the confirmation process, but if you want to use it for that, go right ahead. 



#51 Tom Ray

Tom Ray

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,077 posts
  • Location:Punta Gorda FL
  • Interests:~~/)/)~~

Posted 21 May 2014 - 08:45 AM


I was talking about the legality of drone strikes against American citizens, not about the confirmation process, but if you want to use it for that, go right ahead.

 

 

 

Oh, you got lost and went to the wrong thread. Got it.



#52 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,456 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 21 May 2014 - 03:01 PM

 

I was talking about the legality of drone strikes against American citizens, not about the confirmation process, but if you want to use it for that, go right ahead.

 

 

 

Oh, you got lost and went to the wrong thread. Got it.

I probably saw something upon which I felt like commenting.  I'd go back and look at it to be sure, but the chances that you are actually addressing something I wrote, in the context in which I wrote it, are so slim that I don't feel like I need to do so.  






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users