I do find it interesting the slew of Papist neo-con pamphleteers who reduce US foreign policy to the latest incarnation of the Crusades. The end-goal is of course the return of the Holy Roman Empire.
Why anyone with knowledge of Reformational history would put any stock in these arguments is beyond me.
What does Catholicism have to do with it? On the one hand, the late William F. Buckley was a critic of the Iraq war.
On the other hand, I don't think Catholicism is a precondition to be write for NRO. Is Jonah Goldberg Roman Catholic? Or Dennis Prager? Or Charles Krauthammer? Or Mark Levin?
Two things stand out in McCarthy's so-called arguments.
If the language in this bill is so unremarkable and already codified in previous legislation then what need is there for this language if not to plow some new ground?
McCarthy, in his not so humble analysis of the Constitution, "blows past" Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution. No good Globalist would consider that!
The body of his argument was not about the legitimacy of targeting American citizens in drone attacks, but about the illegitimacy of Ron and Rand according full due process rights to terrorists who are not American citizens.
"...and the use of drones to kill American citizens undoubtedly leaves McCarthy giggling in his boots."
That's a deceptive way of framing the issue. Anwar al- Awlaqi was a treasonous American citizen living abroad, in a Muslim country, to aid a terrorist network engaged in hostilities against the United States.
Legislative intent is the best way to analyze legislative language. Here's Lindsey Graham, a major supporter of the legislation:
“If you’re an American citizen and you betray your country, you’re going to be held in military custody and you’re going to be questioned about what you know,” he said, “and you’re not going to be given a lawyer if our national security interests dictate that you not be given a lawyer and go into the criminal justice system, because we’re not fighting a crime, we’re fighting a war.”
Why do you keep harping on McCarthy's Catholicism? The contemporary church of Rome is very pacifistic. It's not as if the current pope or the US Conference of Catholic bishops are hawkish.
"Why do you keep harping on McCarthy's Catholicism? The contemporary church of Rome is very pacifistic. It's not as if the current pope or the US Conference of Catholic bishops are hawkish."
A globalist is a globalist is a globalist despite, perhaps, what means one would use to achieve those ends.
I do find it interesting the slew of Papist neo-con pamphleteers who reduce US foreign policy to the latest incarnation of the Crusades. The end-goal is of course the return of the Holy Roman Empire.
ReplyDeleteWhy anyone with knowledge of Reformational history would put any stock in these arguments is beyond me.
He presents a detailed argument, which you blow past, substituting a polemical caricature that bears no resemblance to what he actually wrote.
ReplyDeleteWhat does Catholicism have to do with it? On the one hand, the late William F. Buckley was a critic of the Iraq war.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I don't think Catholicism is a precondition to be write for NRO. Is Jonah Goldberg Roman Catholic? Or Dennis Prager? Or Charles Krauthammer? Or Mark Levin?
I didn't find McCarthy's polemical caricatures to be detailed arguments.
ReplyDeleteBut he certainly exposed his motivations.
The reintroduction of Laud's Star Chamber and the use of drones to kill American citizens undoubtedly leaves McCarthy giggling in his boots.
Two things stand out in McCarthy's so-called arguments.
ReplyDeleteIf the language in this bill is so unremarkable and already codified in previous legislation then what need is there for this language if not to plow some new ground?
McCarthy, in his not so humble analysis of the Constitution, "blows past" Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution. No good Globalist would consider that!
The body of his argument was not about the legitimacy of targeting American citizens in drone attacks, but about the illegitimacy of Ron and Rand according full due process rights to terrorists who are not American citizens.
ReplyDeleteGSNIEDER SAID:
ReplyDelete"...and the use of drones to kill American citizens undoubtedly leaves McCarthy giggling in his boots."
That's a deceptive way of framing the issue. Anwar al- Awlaqi was a treasonous American citizen living abroad, in a Muslim country, to aid a terrorist network engaged in hostilities against the United States.
steve said:
ReplyDelete"the illegitimacy of Ron and Rand according full due process rights to terrorists who are not American citizens."
Our Papist friend would have us believe that but I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that is the case.
The Papist said:
ReplyDelete"If Senator Paul really wants to be a constitutionalist, there is a straightforward way to go about it: Propose the repeal of the 2001 AUMF"
That's exactly what he did, to no avail.
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00211
Speaking of deceptive, this guy must have been trained by the Jesuits!
Legislative intent is the best way to analyze legislative language. Here's Lindsey Graham, a major supporter of the legislation:
ReplyDelete“If you’re an American citizen and you betray your country, you’re going to be held in military custody and you’re going to be questioned about what you know,” he said, “and you’re not going to be given a lawyer if our national security interests dictate that you not be given a lawyer and go into the criminal justice system, because we’re not fighting a crime, we’re fighting a war.”
Why do you keep harping on McCarthy's Catholicism? The contemporary church of Rome is very pacifistic. It's not as if the current pope or the US Conference of Catholic bishops are hawkish.
ReplyDeletesteve said:
ReplyDelete"Why do you keep harping on McCarthy's Catholicism? The contemporary church of Rome is very pacifistic. It's not as if the current pope or the US Conference of Catholic bishops are hawkish."
A globalist is a globalist is a globalist despite, perhaps, what means one would use to achieve those ends.