Predictions: Who will be the GOP Candidate?

[Warren Dew]

What boggles my mind is that the same argument that Bush opponents rejected under Bush is now offered in support of an assassination without trial -- without even the benefit of a military tribunal. I don't know if you were one of the ones claiming that Gitmo detainees had a right to civil trial or any due process, but I fail to see how one can say that Awlacki did not have a right to be arrested and tried, and also say that Gitmo detainees have any greater rights.

I certainly agreed with Scalia's opinion in Hamdi v Rumsfeld that Hamdi, a U.S. citizen, should be charged with a crime or released immediately rather than held without trial in violation of the constitution, so my position is perfectly consistent - if the opposite of yours.

[eXcommunicate]

And are you seriously griping about Awlaki? Say it ain't so. Then go complain to Abe Lincoln about all those Confederates he shot down without trial.

That's precisely the argument I made when folks were being held in Gitmo and subjected to military tribunals. I cited examples of the Nazis captured during WW2 who had landed in Florida, and they were tried quickly before a military tribunal and executed. And, the Civil War incidents are another example.

What boggles my mind is that the same argument that Bush opponents rejected under Bush is now offered in support of an assassination without trial -- without even the benefit of a military tribunal. I don't know if you were one of the ones claiming that Gitmo detainees had a right to civil trial or any due process, but I fail to see how one can say that Awlacki did not have a right to be arrested and tried, and also say that Gitmo detainees have any greater rights.

I, for one, am not griping about Awlacki. I merely marvel at the lack of complaint about his assassination from those who were so vocal about similar activities against non-Americans a mere 3-5 years ago.

The problem with Gitmo is that we decided to take them into custody. Once we did that, then the argument for due process comes into play. It probably would have been better, long term, to have given most of the inmates at Gitmo battlefield paroles or have tried them quickly and been done with it. What I object to is this legal limbo they've been subjected to and the massive amount of ill-will the whole thing created and still fosters.

It's like how, suddenly, drone attacks in non-consenting countries is fully compliant with international law, according to any Obama supporter I can find. Weird.

Nah, the drone attacks should cease. There, first Obama supporter you've found who doesn't support the drone attacks. Still not gonna vote for the Republican or some fringe candidate in November.

[Coito ergo sum]

And are you seriously griping about Awlaki? Say it ain't so. Then go complain to Abe Lincoln about all those Confederates he shot down without trial.

That's precisely the argument I made when folks were being held in Gitmo and subjected to military tribunals. I cited examples of the Nazis captured during WW2 who had landed in Florida, and they were tried quickly before a military tribunal and executed. And, the Civil War incidents are another example.

What boggles my mind is that the same argument that Bush opponents rejected under Bush is now offered in support of an assassination without trial -- without even the benefit of a military tribunal. I don't know if you were one of the ones claiming that Gitmo detainees had a right to civil trial or any due process, but I fail to see how one can say that Awlacki did not have a right to be arrested and tried, and also say that Gitmo detainees have any greater rights.

I, for one, am not griping about Awlacki. I merely marvel at the lack of complaint about his assassination from those who were so vocal about similar activities against non-Americans a mere 3-5 years ago.

The problem with Gitmo is that we decided to take them into custody. Once we did that, then the argument for due process comes into play. It probably would have been better, long term, to have given most of the inmates at Gitmo battlefield paroles or have tried them quickly and been done with it. What I object to is this legal limbo they've been subjected to and the massive amount of ill-will the whole thing created and still fosters.

That makes no sense, from a legal standpoint. Summary execution without charge or arrest is just as much a violation of due process as executing them after they were detained. Extrajudicial executions of foreign nations - assassinations - were traditionally serious violations of international law. It was unthinkable that American citizens suspected of crimes would be executed. Now, it's been accepted that on the say-so of the President, a person can be declared a terrorist and executed. As violations of due process go, extended stays in Gitmo pale in comparison.

It's like how, suddenly, drone attacks in non-consenting countries is fully compliant with international law, according to any Obama supporter I can find. Weird.

Nah, the drone attacks should cease. There, first Obama supporter you've found who doesn't support the drone attacks. Still not gonna vote for the Republican or some fringe candidate in November.

Yes, you would be that first Obama supporter I've heard say that. I may or may not vote Republican depending on who is the nomination. As it stands now, I will probably cast my vote to some third party candidate.

[Coito ergo sum]

What boggles my mind is that the same argument that Bush opponents rejected under Bush is now offered in support of an assassination without trial -- without even the benefit of a military tribunal. I don't know if you were one of the ones claiming that Gitmo detainees had a right to civil trial or any due process, but I fail to see how one can say that Awlacki did not have a right to be arrested and tried, and also say that Gitmo detainees have any greater rights.

I certainly agreed with Scalia's opinion in Hamdi v Rumsfeld that Hamdi, a U.S. citizen, should be charged with a crime or released immediately rather than held without trial in violation of the constitution, so my position is perfectly consistent - if the opposite of yours.

I think to be consistent you would also need to conclude the Awlacki execution as unlawful, since he too would have been entitled to be charged and tried. However, I am not recalling what your position on that was.

[Jesus_of_Nazareth]

If you give up what you are meant to be fighting for - it means you have lost.........no matter that the guns are still going bang.

[Clinton Huxley]

Santorum? Seriously, Merkins? Seriously?!?

[Coito ergo sum]

Santorum? Seriously, Merkins? Seriously?!?

Not yet, Hux. For a while Herman Cain was going to be the nominee...then it was Newt...then it was Romney...then it was Newt again...now Santorum....it's all flavor of the moment stuff.

[Clinton Huxley]

Santorum? Seriously, Merkins? Seriously?!?

Not yet, Hux. For a while Herman Cain was going to be the nominee...then it was Newt...then it was Romney...then it was Newt again...now Santorum....it's all flavor of the moment stuff.

Hope so - read something in the paper today re Santorum sounding off about public schools - seems he wants all those good old American boys and girls to be taught at home....

And all that stuff about abortions should not be allowed even in rape cases, because the baby is "a gift".

Seriously creepy - it's like something out of The Handmaids Tale...

[Robert_S]

Santorum is the flavor of the month?

I think I'll pass if it's all the same to you.

[Coito ergo sum]

Each GOP candidate has had their time to be set up, and then each one has been fed to the dogs in turn. We shall see who stands in the end. If it's Santorum, I will not vote for him.

[Warren Dew]

What boggles my mind is that the same argument that Bush opponents rejected under Bush is now offered in support of an assassination without trial -- without even the benefit of a military tribunal. I don't know if you were one of the ones claiming that Gitmo detainees had a right to civil trial or any due process, but I fail to see how one can say that Awlacki did not have a right to be arrested and tried, and also say that Gitmo detainees have any greater rights.

I certainly agreed with Scalia's opinion in Hamdi v Rumsfeld that Hamdi, a U.S. citizen, should be charged with a crime or released immediately rather than held without trial in violation of the constitution, so my position is perfectly consistent - if the opposite of yours.

I think to be consistent you would also need to conclude the Awlacki execution as unlawful, since he too would have been entitled to be charged and tried. However, I am not recalling what your position on that was.

What else did you think I was being consistent with?

[eXcommunicate]

Santorum +5.8 nationally over Romney
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -1452.html

Romney leads in the delegate count
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... count.html

Also, on RCP, Santorum leads in Michigan and Ohio (both have lots of delegates), while Romney leads comfortably in Arizona, and Gingrich leads by a wide margin in Georgia.

[Coito ergo sum]

Romney/Paul ticket? http://harndenblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012 ... -mate.html

[eXcommunicate]

Romney/Paul ticket? http://harndenblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012 ... -mate.html

I couldn't think of a ticket that would excite the Republican base less.

[Coito ergo sum]

Romney/Paul ticket? http://harndenblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012 ... -mate.html

I couldn't think of a ticket that would excite the Republican base less.

Depends which "base" you're talking about.

There is a huge split in the Republican Party. There is the "religious right" and then there are the non-religious republicans who wish that the social conservative agenda driven by the religious right could be buried somewhere. The latter portion is larger than you may realize.