Should Federal Officials be tried for Treason for aiding Al Qaeda?

[The2ndAmendment]

So, in a normal world, I'd report those 3 who voted No for sympathizing with Al Qaeda.

But the DHS only recognizes those "reverent of individual liberty" as terrorists now; and they published a training manual obtained by a FIOA request from Judicial Watch that the Founding Fathers and their ideas are extreme.

 

[Contumacious]

The FSA are radical Islamists as well.

What the hell is Washington thinking when all they want to do is to weaken Assad's military?

Do they want to just hand AQ and the FSA the keys to all the chemical weapons?

They subscribe to the policy "the end justifies the means."

Their ultimate goal is to:

Place a Sunni administration controlled by Saudi Arabia

The New Sunni administration will NOT demand that Israel return the Golan Heights territory

The new Sunni administration will allow Israel to fly over its airspace and will NOT retaliate when Israel attacks Iran

They do not give a shit if thousands of innocent people die in the process.

.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

How do we check who voted "No." I checked the option to display names, I would like to debate that person.

It's an intriguing idea, but the only solution to the wars other than diplomatically, impeachment or congress is to change direction and our foreign policy.

 

[BlindBoo]

No, unless of course you have some proof a federal official aided al Qaeda.

 

[Contumacious]

No, unless of course you have some proof a federal official aided al Qaeda.

WUT?

Oh, wait you are blind...

 

[The2ndAmendment]

No, unless of course you have some proof a federal official aided al Qaeda.

WUT?

Oh, wait you are blind...

[MENTION=25197]BlindBoo[/MENTION]

Well, it is his name, isn't it? I suppose he can't see the 30 links from mainstream news sources like CNN, USA Today or Telegraph

 

[BlindBoo]

??? We were at war with Iran? I must have been partying for 8 years. Missed that one. I am sure Congress slipped a declaration of war in there when I was hung over.

December 6, 1985: Reagan Ignores Warning that Iran Arms Deals Are Illegal
Edit event

Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, who has opposed the arms-for-hostage deal with Iran from the outset, warns President Reagan that the arms transfers are patently illegal under the Arms Export Control Act (see 1981). Weinberger later says, “There was no way in which this kind of transfer could be made if that particular act governed.” According to Secretary of State George Shultz, who is also present, Reagan answers, “Well, the American people would never forgive me if I failed to get these hostages out over this legal question.” [New Yorker, 11/2/1992]

Iran-Contra and Arms-for-Hostages Scandals: Ronald Reagan

What Moonblow fails to tell you was that almost everyone was cleared of wrongdoing in the Iran Contra scandal. Moonblow, shut your trap. Nobody went to jail over it.

Oliver North and John Poindexter had their charges vacated. Reagan was cleared of wrongdoing. Everyone else was pardoned. You should try reading the Tower Commission report sometime. Actually, how about now.

Iran Contra Committee Key Findings

The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America[1] was a 1984 case of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in which the ICJ ruled in favor of Nicaragua and against the United States and awarded reparations to Nicaragua. The ICJ held that the U.S. had violated international law by supporting the Contras in their rebellion against the Nicaraguan government and by mining Nicaragua's harbors. The United States refused to participate in the proceedings after the Court rejected its argument that the ICJ lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. The U.S. later blocked enforcement of the judgment by the United Nations Security Council and thereby prevented Nicaragua from obtaining any actual compensation.

Nicaragua v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Never cleared. Just never punished. Big difference.

 

[BlindBoo]

So, in a normal world, I'd report those 3 who voted No for sympathizing with Al Qaeda.

But the DHS only recognizes those "reverent of individual liberty" as terrorists now; and they published a training manual obtained by a FIOA request from Judicial Watch that the Founding Fathers and their ideas are extreme.

What are you a hall monitor or something?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

So, in a normal world, I'd report those 3 who voted No for sympathizing with Al Qaeda.

But the DHS only recognizes those "reverent of individual liberty" as terrorists now; and they published a training manual obtained by a FIOA request from Judicial Watch that the Founding Fathers and their ideas are extreme.

What are you a hall monitor or something?

Amazing that you openly support Al Qaeda.

 

[BlindBoo]

No, unless of course you have some proof a federal official aided al Qaeda.

WUT?

Oh, wait you are blind...

[MENTION=25197]BlindBoo[/MENTION]

Well, it is his name, isn't it? I suppose he can't see the 30 links from mainstream news sources like CNN, USA Today or Telegraph

The one I read had no proof what so ever that any administration official has aided al Qaeda. How about posting some proof of your allegation instead of links. Name some names of those whom you think should be executed.

Hyperbole makes you look foolish.

 

[BlindBoo]

So, in a normal world, I'd report those 3 who voted No for sympathizing with Al Qaeda.

But the DHS only recognizes those "reverent of individual liberty" as terrorists now; and they published a training manual obtained by a FIOA request from Judicial Watch that the Founding Fathers and their ideas are extreme.

What are you a hall monitor or something?

Amazing that you openly support Al Qaeda.

Not agreeing with your premise that administration officials have aided and abetted al Qaeda is simply not support for al Qaeda.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Not agreeing with your premise that administration officials have aided and abetted al Qaeda is simply not support for al Qaeda.

You have over 30 links (and thee are hundreds more) from mainstream news that confirm this, it's not even contested; this is not "my" premise, it's regular news.

It's ok though, I know what you're going through, even though I was becoming Libertarians before the 2012 election, I still voted for Obama (again) in 2012 because I couldn't admit that everything I knew was a lie. The first step towards embracing the Constitution is admitting you've been living in the dark beforehand.

 

[Contumacious]

The one I read had no proof what so ever that any administration official has aided al Qaeda. How about posting some proof of your allegation instead of links. Name some names of those whom you think should be executed.

Hyperbole makes you look foolish.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, I see. So they just stole an ATM card from someone at the state department:

U.S. secretly backed Syrian opposition groups, cables released by WikiLeaks show


The State Department has secretly financed Syrian political opposition groups and related projects, including a satellite TV channel that beams anti-government programming into the country, according to previously undisclosed diplomatic cables.

The London-based satellite channel, Barada TV, began broadcasting in April 2009 but has ramped up operations to cover the mass protests in Syria as part of a long-standing campaign to overthrow the country’s autocratic leader, Bashar al-Assad. Human rights groups say scores of people have been killed by Assad’s security forces since the demonstrations began March 18; Syria has blamed the violence on “armed gangs.”

.

 

[Avatar4321]

Im not sure we ever could considering those who develop foreign policy also run the government. Not to mention they could simply redefine Al Qaeda as a "friend" for certain purporses. We worked with the Soviets to defeat Hitler, after all. A friend can become an enemy and vice versa. Our first wars as a nation were against Great Britain who is now, or was, our biggest ally.

Im not suggesting that Al Qaeda is now a friend. only that they could classify them as an ally for foreign policy purposes. (foolish in my opinion) and then get around the treason charges.

Im also not inclined to just throw around treason charges on people because our Founders were technically committing treason when they declared independence. Its not something Im going to do lightly.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

How about posting some proof of your allegation instead of links.

Ok dude, if posting links to CNN, USA Today and the Telegraph don't count as proof, WTF DOES COUNT AS PROOF?

 

[BlindBoo]

How about posting some proof of your allegation instead of links.

Ok dude, if posting links to CNN, USA Today and the Telegraph don't count as proof, WTF DOES COUNT AS PROOF?

Dude, which one has proof again? Can you provide a quote of the proof or a name of an administration official that is aiding al Qaeda? Or would you like to pull a Saddam move and execute all government officials who oppose your view?

 

[g5000]

I guess we will have to start by charging Dubya with treason since the invasion of Iraq was a boon to Al Qaeda.

Pity.

 

[Contumacious]

IIm also not inclined to just throw around treason charges on people because our Founders were technically committing treason when they declared independence. Its not something Im going to do lightly.

If WE THE PEOPLE don't enforce the Constitution , who will?

No authority has ever been given to interfere in the internal affairs of other nations or to use treasury funds and the military so that the Prez can save face.

.

 

[Contumacious]

How about posting some proof of your allegation instead of links.

Ok dude, if posting links to CNN, USA Today and the Telegraph don't count as proof, WTF DOES COUNT AS PROOF?

Dude, which one has proof again? Can you provide a quote of the proof or a name of an administration official that is aiding al Qaeda? Or would you like to pull a Saddam move and execute all government officials who oppose your view?

You are one retarded fuck or a federal government employee.

What is really amazing is that you retards claim than Assad is responsible even if he did not personally order the alleged attack.

But you miserable piece of shit , take the position that Obama is not ultimately responsible for whatever actions have been taken while he is the commander in chief!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.