When George Washington called out the militia to put down the Whiskey Rebellion he was going to serve warrants and let local sheriffs make the arrests.  He wasn't going to kill Americans on American soil.  Nope. No way.

There. you go. again.  The mention of the Whiskey Rebellion was evidence and argument.

The argument is that our first president was going to kill Americans on American soil without a warrant or any due process.

There IS now a war going on, and the Congress has been satisfied that it used its congressional authority to authorize the use of force.

I think Holder had the best answer actually. Yeah they COULD drop bombs on enemy combatants on US soil without regard to citizenship, but, they wouldn't.  Why would you blow up a guy who successfully infiltrated the US?  You can grab him, wring him out, and bury him alive in a Supermax.

The notion that a war is different from insurrection is not supported by anything in the Constitution.

A distinction between "war" and "insurrection" is nowhere in the Constitution.

You imagined it.

I owe no loyalty to your imagination.

You're confused if you imagine  a difference.

I'm sure you really know the answer.

Hell. Yes.

Please explain this sentence.
Unless you mean that lawful war is unconstitutional without your continual permission? We don't need your continual permission.
End the war, or the war continues.  And it is the war that binds you.

Any traitor we shoot at is a combatant.
If they stand still, they're well-disciplined combatants!  Haha!

The "war" authorized by Congress is supposedly on terrorist threats to the United States. Examples of such threats are presumably the 9/11 hijackers and a handful of other would-be Arab/Muslim attackers from the Middle East.

Yet DHS documents reveal that they're most focused on white guys who value freedom, none of whom have attacked the United States. You're pretty much accepting that our government is at war with literally everyone, and they can kill literally anyone. Which, of course, they don't have the legal authority to do.

The Constitution hasn't been amended, and Congress cannot pass laws which violate the fourth of fifth amendments. It's still illegal to bomb Americans who aren't in combat or imminent threats. Laws supposedly permitting it are illegal. The fact that the current administration redefines the words "imminent" and "threat" and "combatant" doesn't change the Constitution, and it expressly forbids what they're doing and what Congress has authorized.

If there was an insurrection, they could legally combat it. Since there isn't one, they have no legal authority to bomb Americans or put their hands down children's pants.

The "war" authorized by Congress is an endless war against anyone and everyone it wants to search or kill, sidestepping Constitutional protections. Congress does not have legal authority to waive the Constitution whenever it's convenient. They passed a law saying they can do whatever they want. Unfortunately for them, the Constitution, the source of their legal authority, does not grant them the power to pass such a law. It's illegal, and our courts would strike it down if they were (A) not corrupt and (B) literate.

You accept your government's right to shoot you for your political beliefs which don't adhere to Obama's vision of America. That's what you're arguing here. That they can literally shoot you for being a traitor, and it'll be legal because shooting you makes you a combatant.

That's not American, and that's not legal in America.

Where is Al Qaeda located?

How will we know when we've won the war? An absence of attacks won't indicate anything, since we've had virtually that for more than a decade. Two idiots who couldn't even set off bombs don't qualify as warfare by literally any definition, sorry. Oh, wait, that one idiot military psychologist enabled by a "gun-free zone" and PCness in the military who emailed a dude counts as warfare.

How can we defeat them while we fund them in Libya and Syria?

On that note, why are we funding and arming them if we're at war with them?

Your claims literally make no sense. And none of them make legal Congress declaring endless war and that the 4th and 5th amendments don't apply to anyone they call an enemy of the state.

Stop using literally until you literally learn the definition.

Yes an attack with duds is still an attack. 

No an absence of attacks does not end the state of war.  google "sitzkrieg"

Yeah I'm thrown by the riots with American flags being burnt.

How's Dr. Paul know that one? Letters to his newsletter by Afghan readers?

Nice talk not to mean anything.  That's what you do, isn't it?  "If you support the war you're a sheeple but I won't end it because I want credit for being tough"

So?
End the war.
Defund the DHS.

But that's straight thought and action based on thought, and you libertarians don't do that.  You do street theater.  "Our next dance represents the violence inherent in the hypocrisy of a bipartisan conspiracy"

I addressed this by telling you to end the war if you think the war is unwinnable or silly.
For some reason libertarians can't deal with consequences and duties.
You prefer meaningless controversy and street theater.
You prefer to continue a war you condemn.

Of course it doesn't matter, to the wartime powers of the USA, that the DHS says that.
Of course your theories on the imagined distinction between insurrection and war are unsupported by the Constitution. 
The Constitution makes no distinction between insurrection and war.
As George Washington called up the militia to shoot down US citizens on US soil without a warrant or hearing, it follows a president fighting a war has that same powers.  Washington acted after the enactment of the 4th Amendment, and, only a libertarian could imagine Washington had no clue what the Bill of Rights meant.  Of course, so many many of you do claim that.

Good description of your conduct.

Which is it, I'm a fool who imagines they think of us at all, or, they are so right to hate us?  Which is it? They don't think about us or hate us, or, of course they don't like us?  Which is it?

He's not even addressing that point.

In response to my arguments he just says "well end it." Because obviously appeals to majorities are logical arguments.

Why bother thinking or arguing anything? By his logic, the sheep herd is always right. If they were going to do something, they'd have been herded into doing it already. Arguments are irrelevant because they don't think, they just do as they're told.

I made no claims that the Constitution distinguishes between "insurrections" or "war," The Yell. Please learn to read before responding to my posts that we may have a discussion.

What I said is that Congress doesn't have the legal authority to declare an endless war against everyone, nullifying the 4th and 5th amendments without the due process of amending the Constitution.

But, because I actually said that, you didn't respond on that topic.

Where's the evidence of insurrection of white freedom loving people against our federal government, The Yell? If there's actually a war going on in which they're the biggest terrorist threat, shouldn't you have any evidence to show for it? If it's a war, by definition shouldn't there be a lot of evidence?

You continually accuse me of theatre while refusing to respond to anything I've actually said. There's no need to be so defensive. And it's certainly not productive.

Debate over on the grounds that you declined to particupate. I won.

The point of this thread is that the president has not ruled out killing American citizens, on American soil, who are not imminent threats. It took Rand Paul's "balls" months to drag this admission out of the administration.

The point of discourse, argument, and debate is to make a case for one's position. I'm not advocating continuing the endless war against everyone that you support here. I'm arguing against it. I don't know what point you think you're making with your appeals to the majority (logical fallacy).

I know a majority of Americans aren't aware of the 1984-esque war on everybody. I know that a majority of Americans aren't aware of what's going on, and many wouldn't care even if they knew (they just want their welfare, social security, and the self-righteous attitude they derive from pretending that just paying their taxes makes them good human beings). Pointing out the obvious point that most Americans are sheep and support the authoritarian government of the USA/Orwell's 1984 isn't an argument. I know they are. That's why I'm making an argument against their apathy. Pointing out that they're apathetic isn't a counterargument.

"Defensive" and "offensive" are not opposites, in this context. Defensive is the way you refuse to address points and change topics frequently to post a response without addressing most of what I've said. You continue this still. Offensive, as the opposite of that, would be to actually respond to everything I've said and post real arguments ("attacking" my positions, "offensive" in a different context). Offensive in the context you used it would be to intentionally offend me, to insult my sensibilities--which is a different definition than the one in which offensive/defensive are opposites.

"Go get an English vocabulary." Clever word play to harp on something that isn't there! But entirely unproductive. Merely a distraction from your inability or unwillingness to respond to anything I've said.

Then explain to me how an endless "war" with "Al Qaeda" (who we're funding to this day) somehow equates with freedom loving white guys being an insurrection.

Since the two aren't related, and there is no insurrection, everything I said regarding law is correct. You're choosing to ignore the law and pretend there's always a state of endless war in America, and there is always an insurrection in America, despite a complete lack of evidence of such a war, let alone insurrection.

You can certainly argue that America is at war, since we start them frequently. But there's certainly no insurrection in America. That's so ridiculous it's downright psychotic. I've never seen someone speak such indoctrinated nonsense as you're proposing here. It reminds me of 1984 more than anything else, and a few things do remind me of it every now and then.

Your views are a fine example of how the American people have been herded to always support authoritarians, whether Republican or Democrat. Both parties are filled with peoplel who are willing to give up their freedoms for a sense of security offered by Big Brother.

Because of what?

A guy who failed to bomb a plane but succeeded to burn off his genitalia? Ohnoes terrorist masterminds managed to produce a guy who can't make or set off a bomb. We'd better suspend the constitution because this horrific threat cannot be combated without a state of war and suspending legal rights of Americans? Ridiculous.

A single gunman enabled by a "gun free zone" who emailed a dude in Africa? Ohnoes terrorists have email! We'd better suspend the constitution because this horrific threat cannot be combatted without a state of war and suspending legal rights of Americans! The war won't be over until no person who doesn't like the USA has access to email! It's too dangerous! Invade! Bomb! Suspend all legal rights of Americans until the email threat is gone! Ridiculous.

An inept guy who failed to set off a bomb in NYC despite a complete lack of interference from anybody? Ohnoes, terrorist masterminds again managed to produce another guy who couldn't make or set off a bomb. We'd better suspend the constitution because this horrific threat cannot be combated without a state of war and suspending legal rights of Americans! Ridiculous.

And it doesn't strike you as odd that the "war" is supposedly against Muslim radicals, yet DHS claims white freedom lovers are the biggest terrorist threat. You don't respond to this point, despite my having made it repeatedly, because it's so ridiculous there's nothing you could say to explain it or justify it.

Of course a fictitious war against radical Muslims across the globe doesn't equate with a state of war (exception to Constitutional protections of certain rights) impacting the rights of freedom loving causation Americans. Even accepting Al Qaeda as a horrible menacing enemy we're at war with despite their inability to harm us doesn't equate with a war against white guys who like freedom. They're not the enemy you're claiming we have in the war you're pretending we're having (which you must claim to legally bypass Constitutional protections of rights).

What does a "war" against a network of people who badmouth and attack America on very rare occasion have to do with the rights of freedom loving white American citizens? Nothing. And no such war qualifies with Constitutional exceptions to the 4th and 5th amendments. The guys you're claiming don't have rights under the law because we're at war aren't the guys we're supposedly at war with. Literally nobody has argued that white Americans who value freedom are Al Qaeda terrorists (enemy combatants), yet's you're claiming that's what they are under the law.

That's why Rand Paul asked for Obama's explanation of the legal basis for his actions, and for what actions his administration thinks it has the legal basis to engage in. That's why his administration's refusal to reveal that information is such a big deal. His administration isn't claiming it has the legal authority to use military force against enemy combatants. We all know and accept that. His administration is refusing to state that it doesn't have the legal right to kill anyone it wants for any reason it wants. His officials have made clear they're redefining words like "imminent," "threat," "combatant," and others to legally justify literally any killings the administration wants to.

That's the problem. That's why Paul demanded an explanation of the administration's legal policy

Our government is claiming a "war" on "terror" and that the biggest enemy is a group of people who have never attacked America. That's ridiculous. That's insane. The law of the Constitution doesn't remotely allow for such an excuse to bypass 4th and 5th amendment rights of Americans.

Claiming "gotcha" and accusing me of  saying something I didn't is silly and unproductive. Especially because literally nothing I've said relies upon a distinction between "war" or "insurrection" in the Constitution. You're just droning on about irrelevant false claims of details to avoid responding to anything I've said.

Chris if you break his conditioning I will set up a Gubanatorial Committee on your behalf.

First off this is dead wrong.  Congress doesn't have to make you happy about the war for it to have authorized a real live war.  It's Congress, and it voted for war.  The war is therefore legal.

And when you're wrong about whether or not we're at war, then every other argument you make based on the declaration that we're NOT at war, is wrong.  Right there. 

And secondly, I do not make any "fallacy" of an appeal to a majority.  I'm saying your complaints about the uselessness or meanness or cruelty or lack of racial focus, or whatever man, of the non-war, is solvable by ENDING THE WAR.

The war is lawful because Congress begun it.
After you end it, it will have been lawful because Congress voted on it.
You can't transform it into a unconstitutional war.
But you can END it.

With those two points I counter everything you've brought to the table.

You're totally wrong that Congress can't declare a war if it doesn't suit your secret unAmerican ahistorical definition of a war; all your complaints about that war are PROPERLY and FITLY resolved by ending the war.

Filibusters for no damn purpose are harmful.  Rand Paul is proving unfit to serve.

We ARE at war with Al Qaeda.

Adam Gadahn.
John Walker Lindh.
Anwar Al-Aulaqi.
Nidal Malik Hasan.

US citizens ARE the enemy we're fighting.

And obviously you're not reading my posts, I pointed out how you lie when you claim you say "literally nothing" about the difference between war and insurrection, and then I quoted you giving your theory of that difference.  I already posted it and you can read it.