RSSISIS fighters are not going to be able to drive an MRAP across the channel into London, or carry AKs and mortar launchers on the plane to Heathrow, so once in the UK, they will be limited to killing at best a few hundred people.
Implementing effective border controls in Turkey will require millions of UK soldiers which will result in them becoming targets with more than a few hundred dying regularly.
And that’s if Turkey were to say to the UK, have at it, close the border.
This is just typical free lunch political garbage. If this were a call for the UK to hike taxes drastically to pay Turkey to put millions of Turks on its border, paid enough to watch the watchers paid enough to not risk taking a bribe or be a slacker, then perhaps I could take it seriously, but no, its a free lunch of thinking that “pressure” will make Turks tax themselves a lot to please the UK who won’t sacrifice.
When did desiring greater trade ties with Western Europe mean “pro-American”???
When has anything European been “pro-American”?
It says “no person” not “no citizen” so you are calling into question the whole concept of war even for defense. Are you prepared to say that invaders with guns must get due process of a court trial and capital judgement before they can be shot by defenders?
In very few places does the Constitution use “citizen” because they saw no restrictions on who was welcome to the 13 States which they, the founders, hoped to expand to more States as the population increased from immigration, something they saw as necessary. However, these persons needed to be tested by citizens to be determined worthy of citizenship. Citizenship required a person meet the conditions set by Congress and by the State where they had lived for the required period.
In the context of the Constitution as written, Anwar al-Awlaki would not qualify as a “citizen”, but would have been merely a “person” no different than the persons Osama bin Laden or Adolf Hitler. Anwar al-Awlaki became a “citizen” in addition to a “person” by a failure of Republicans post Civil War to understand the Constitution’s basic concept of citizen as having a role in governance: voting, holding office, etc.
And today, many like Mr Van Buren totally misunderstand the scope of the Constitution’s use of “person” and rights. Those “inalienable rights” are without limits to location. It is only the limits of the government of the People that is limited to the territory of the USA. A person does not lose rights because they are not a US citizen or not in the US, but the US Constitution does not project the power of due process outside the USA. And a US citizen is not “protected” by the US Constitution any more than a person outside the USA is, The US Constitution simply does not apply in France or Japan or Yemen. (Those in the Navy or Army or diplomatic corp are subject to the laws that gave them their official authority.)
Seems the author thinks the president is a dictator able to highhandedly direct all of US government power.
Instead, for presidents from all eras, all required willing Congresses, and for even LBJ who had overwhelming Democratic majorities in Congress, he could not have passed his landmark legislation without Republican support. President Bush required Democrats to support his favorite initiatives even with Republican majorities in Congress.
Obama has faced total opposition from Republicans from day 1, who totally rejected everything he proposed, even when he took Reagan and Romney laws as his proposals.
Republicans have moved further and further right because Obama has moved further right than Reagan in efforts to get Republican votes. Reagan hiked taxes 125% on Jan 6 1983 to create jobs when unemployment was at 10.8%. Today Republicans oppose tax hikes, oppose government spending to create jobs, and oppose government spending to fix the highways, fill potholes, replace bridges, because Republicans will not let Obama sign a bill that is identical to the bill that Reagan would sign today, because the Reagan of 1983 is a radical leftist socialist today.