Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Simply a difference of opinion. Mine is that terrorists, people who have declared war on us, blown up our civilian population etc... and are inaccessible for arrest, are open game.
Your opinion is that Civil Liberties should be the top priority when it comes to terrorists, people who have publicly declared war on us, openly aided and abbetted our enemies.
This is a matter of interpretation.
I'm not saying all of these suddenly Liberal-minded Conservatives don't have a valid point. They do.
I'm saying that we have had legal remedies for dealing with matters such as this, which we've employed for over 200 years.
Would you dispute that there are a lot of things in the USC which have exceptions?
Legal remedies do not do much good for the fact that we just broke the Constitution, do they? Not to mention the guy you just wiped off the planet because you did not like his politics.
Legal remedies such as not being able to yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre? That Sharia Law shall not supercede Fed or Local law? That felons are not allowed to own nukes?
Yeah okay. Nice to see the little puppy following me around just to take another shot as a contrarian. Cute.
You may now continue your feeble atte,pts at finding anything possible to disagree with me on. It's actually kind of entertaining and has certainly provided laughs in the household! BTW, my lovely bride is convinced you're a teen-aged girl. I told her I believe you said you were a teen-age gay male but may have gotten you confused another poster. Help me out here sweetheart, which is it?
No, Civil Liberties are top priority for us, the American citizen, it has nothing to do with the terrorists per se. Just as with the president, terrorists dont have a say as to their legal status, they dont get to declare anything.Mine is that terrorists, people who have declared war on us, blown up our civilian population etc... and are inaccessible for arrest, are open game.
Your opinion is that Civil Liberties should be the top priority when it comes to terrorists, people who have publicly declared war on us, openly aided and abbetted our enemies.
I have no fucking idea what they did with Nazis in BA during the war.We didn't if they were in Buenos Aires.
If you don't want to answer the question, fine. I was trying to understand your viewpoint.
The point is that the law actually prevents countries from fighting in neutral territory. Nazis and US Army forces were both in Argentina, and even went to the same parties during the war.
No, Civil Liberties are top priority for us, the American citizen, it has nothing to do with the terrorists per se. Just as with the president, terrorists dont have a say as to their legal status, they dont get to declare anything.Mine is that terrorists, people who have declared war on us, blown up our civilian population etc... and are inaccessible for arrest, are open game.
Your opinion is that Civil Liberties should be the top priority when it comes to terrorists, people who have publicly declared war on us, openly aided and abbetted our enemies.
Which declared war?And there is PLENTY of jurisdiction for the U.S. to act on its OWN declaration of war. The AUMF is the jurisdiction we need.
The war on "terror" is no more a lawfully declared war than are the "wars" on poverty and (some) drugs.
The only lawfully issued warrants or indictments I've seen have been issued by Yemeni courts.....No jurisdiction...That's no red herring....A first week law plebe can see that.We aren't doing it to enforce some other nation's laws. That's a red herring.
Are you really going to ignore reality to frame your "arguments?"
Funny, I was wondering the same about you.
No, Civil Liberties are top priority for us, the American citizen, it has nothing to do with the ‘terrorists’ per se. Just as with the president, ‘terrorists’ don’t have a say as to their legal status, they don’t get to ‘declare’ anything.Mine is that terrorists, people who have declared war on us, blown up our civilian population etc... and are inaccessible for arrest, are open game.
Your opinion is that Civil Liberties should be the top priority when it comes to terrorists, people who have publicly declared war on us, openly aided and abbetted our enemies.
Jones great to stand up for a persons right, but obama and any other president has the authority to kill any American citizen he wants to without desecration. If he feels the person is a threat he can have them wacked at anytime he see's fit. And most American like germans of 1934 cheered.
No, Civil Liberties are top priority for us, the American citizen, it has nothing to do with the terrorists per se. Just as with the president, terrorists dont have a say as to their legal status, they dont get to declare anything.
Jones great to stand up for a persons right, but obama and any other president has the authority to kill any American citizen he wants to without desecration. If he feels the person is a threat he can have them wacked at anytime he see's fit. And most American like germans of 1934 cheered.
It's called DISCRETION...and that is a lie!
Intelligence experts along with the Department of Justice and the entire legal team of the administration reviewed the case and advised the President...
section 1. Short title.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `authorization for use of military force'.
Sec. 2. Authorization for use of united states armed forces.
(a) in general- that the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on september 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the united states by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) war powers resolution requirements-
(1) specific statutory authorization- consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the war powers resolution, the congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the war powers resolution.
(2) applicability of other requirements- nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the war powers resolution.
Approved september 18, 2001.
Why did you leave off "the 9/11 attacks?"in general- that the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized,
Why did you leave off "the 9/11 attacks?"in general- that the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized,
Could it be because it doesn't suit your agenda, liar?
Jones great to stand up for a persons right, but obama and any other president has the authority to kill any American citizen he wants to without desecration. If he feels the person is a threat he can have them wacked at anytime he see's fit. And most American like germans of 1934 cheered.
It's called DISCRETION...and that is a lie!
Intelligence experts along with the Department of Justice and the entire legal team of the administration reviewed the case and advised the President...
joint resolution
to authorize the use of united states armed forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the united states.
Whereas, on september 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the united states and its citizens; and
whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the united states exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect united states citizens both at home and abroad; and
whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the united states posed by these grave acts of violence; and
whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the united states; and
whereas, the president has authority under the constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the united states: Now, therefore, be it
resolved by the senate and house of representatives of the united states of america in congress assembled,
.section 1. Short title.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `authorization for use of military force'.
Sec. 2. Authorization for use of united states armed forces.
(a) in general- that the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on september 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the united states by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) war powers resolution requirements-
(1) specific statutory authorization- consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the war powers resolution, the congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the war powers resolution.
(2) applicability of other requirements- nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the war powers resolution.
Approved september 18, 2001
in general- that the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized,
Jones great to stand up for a persons right, but obama and any other president has the authority to kill any American citizen he wants to without desecration. If he feels the person is a threat he can have them wacked at anytime he see's fit. And most American like germans of 1934 cheered.
It's called DISCRETION...and that is a lie!
Intelligence experts along with the Department of Justice and the entire legal team of the administration reviewed the case and advised the President...
joint resolution
to authorize the use of united states armed forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the united states.
Whereas, on september 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the united states and its citizens; and
whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the united states exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect united states citizens both at home and abroad; and
whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the united states posed by these grave acts of violence; and
whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the united states; and
whereas, the president has authority under the constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the united states: Now, therefore, be it
resolved by the senate and house of representatives of the united states of america in congress assembled,
section 1. Short title.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `authorization for use of military force'.
Sec. 2. Authorization for use of united states armed forces.
(a) in general- that the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on september 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the united states by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) war powers resolution requirements-
(1) specific statutory authorization- consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the war powers resolution, the congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the war powers resolution.
(2) applicability of other requirements- nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the war powers resolution.
Approved september 18, 2001.
in general- that the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized,
It's called DISCRETION...and that is a lie!
Intelligence experts along with the Department of Justice and the entire legal team of the administration reviewed the case and advised the President...
joint resolution
to authorize the use of united states armed forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the united states.
Whereas, on september 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the united states and its citizens; and
whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the united states exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect united states citizens both at home and abroad; and
whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the united states posed by these grave acts of violence; and
whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the united states; and
whereas, the president has authority under the constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the united states: Now, therefore, be it
resolved by the senate and house of representatives of the united states of america in congress assembled,
section 1. Short title.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `authorization for use of military force'.
Sec. 2. Authorization for use of united states armed forces.
(a) in general- that the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on september 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the united states by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) war powers resolution requirements-
(1) specific statutory authorization- consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the war powers resolution, the congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the war powers resolution.
(2) applicability of other requirements- nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the war powers resolution.
Approved september 18, 2001.
in general- that the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized,
whereas, the president has authority under the constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the united states
The President IS the Chief executive and the Commander in Chief, but he does not just act alone and he never has, he acts in conjunction with the entire executive branch including the Department of Justice, and the authority of that JOINT resolution came under the authority provided in the Constitution. It is an hysterical LIE to characterize his authority as a whimsical FEELING he could have of any one of us citizens...
What's to prevent a president from simply declaring Americans he doesn't like for whatever reason "enemy combatants" and having them murdered? The same thing that prevents him from launching nuclear weapons, launching military attacks, and otherwise abusing the incredible power that comes with that office: the system, such as it is.
The Thorniest Question: When Can a President Order an American Killed? - James Joyner - Politics - The Atlantic
joint resolution
to authorize the use of united states armed forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the united states.
Whereas, on september 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the united states and its citizens; and
whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the united states exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect united states citizens both at home and abroad; and
whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the united states posed by these grave acts of violence; and
whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the united states; and
whereas, the president has authority under the constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the united states: Now, therefore, be it
resolved by the senate and house of representatives of the united states of america in congress assembled,
in general- that the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized,
whereas, the president has authority under the constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the united states
The President IS the Chief executive and the Commander in Chief, but he does not just act alone and he never has, he acts in conjunction with the entire executive branch including the Department of Justice, and the authority of that JOINT resolution came under the authority provided in the Constitution. It is an hysterical LIE to characterize his authority as a whimsical FEELING he could have of any one of us citizens...
What's to prevent a president from simply declaring Americans he doesn't like for whatever reason "enemy combatants" and having them murdered? The same thing that prevents him from launching nuclear weapons, launching military attacks, and otherwise abusing the incredible power that comes with that office: the system, such as it is.
The Thorniest Question: When Can a President Order an American Killed? - James Joyner - Politics - The Atlantic
Does not matter he's been given the authority to kill any American he determines as a threat. And you still want to disagree? I said he has the authority and you're still bitching about.
whereas, the president has authority under the constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the united states
The President IS the Chief executive and the Commander in Chief, but he does not just act alone and he never has, he acts in conjunction with the entire executive branch including the Department of Justice, and the authority of that JOINT resolution came under the authority provided in the Constitution. It is an hysterical LIE to characterize his authority as a whimsical FEELING he could have of any one of us citizens...
What's to prevent a president from simply declaring Americans he doesn't like for whatever reason "enemy combatants" and having them murdered? The same thing that prevents him from launching nuclear weapons, launching military attacks, and otherwise abusing the incredible power that comes with that office: the system, such as it is.
The Thorniest Question: When Can a President Order an American Killed? - James Joyner - Politics - The Atlantic
Does not matter he's been given the authority to kill any American he determines as a threat. And you still want to disagree? I said he has the authority and you're still bitching about.
I am not "bitching" I am trying to get you to comprehend.
Where does it say he has the authority to kill any American? I want to see where that is in the constitution.
Nowhere.Where does it say he has the authority to kill any American?
Nowhere.Where does it say he has the authority to kill any American?
I would if I thought it would make you smarter but that is an impossibility.Nowhere.Where does it say he has the authority to kill any American?
His action just proved he had the authority. Now care to neg me again?
