- Joined
- Jan 4, 2013
- Messages
- 9,122
- Reaction score
- 3,751
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
That's asinine. What is the government supposed to do? Let's take your standard right here and apply it to a traditional war. Would the government have to gather evidence, present that evidence to the court, get an arrest warrant, arrest the enemy, bring the to court, put on a trial of their piers and then, if found guilty, put them back on the battle field and kill them? Is that how you envision this? These people are actively engaging in a war against the United States. They shouldn't be given special treatment just because they are American.
No one is advocating that on the battlefield, we have rules of engagement and rules re. POWs that apply to those situations. We have the ability to have a fair trial in these other cases.
The question is: How do you know that these people are guilty? I would not except the word of a government employee (FBI, CIA etc.) or an informant alone as proof. Both have a financial incentive to make the accused appear guilty. There is a reason why many of the prisoners in Guantanamo have been released.
The same way we know any other enemy combatant is guilty...they are on the enemies side! Why is that so hard to understand?
"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."
1.That is too much power to put in one person's hands.
2. That declaration should be considered unconstitutional due to being vague and overly broad. (By the way, notice that the word "knowingly" is not included.)
3. That resolution is being used to imprison and kill people with absolutely no connection with the 9-11-01 attacks, such as the people killed by drones in Yemen.
That is pure government sophistry sir, nothing more.
Next you're going to tell me that since LBJ declared war on poverty or illiteracy that the constitution can be suspended? :lamo
Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it unconstitutional. I'm all about supporting the Constitution. But, the Constitution says there needs to be a declaration of war and nothing more. It doesn't put any real limitations on congress or the President after the declaration made. Maybe that's a short coming, but that's how it stands today. Don't like it? Change it.
I'd rather focus on the things that are really unconstitutional, like welfare, medicare, etc.
You're missing the larger point sir--there IS NO DECLARATION. That's the point. The cowards in Congress got into all this play-acting, writing memos to impress the gullible media.
The last declaration of war was December 8, 1941.
AUMF is not a declaration of war. It is a bull==== statement about facts that already exist. By rights, the President has the constitutional power to invade any country he wants, but that does not mean that he would be acting legally or morally when doing so.
There is no declaration of war. With Congress' blessing and funding, we have been engaged in illegal military aggression against numerous countries for 11 years now.
You are kidding yourself with your claim that you care about what's 'really' unconstitutional.
Should Martha Stewart be able to possess a firearm?
Should a convicted child rapist?
Should a convicted child rapist?
No one is advocating that on the battlefield, we have rules of engagement and rules re. POWs that apply to those situations. We have the ability to have a fair trial in these other cases. The question is: How do you know that these people are guilty?
our military makes that decision on our behalf every day
just because it is someone of American birth who has decided to be our nation's enemy does not change a thing
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?