There's no such thing as a statute that can direct the President or restrict his actions in the conduct of war.
Do you see anything in the Constitution that says that the President is the Commander in Chief subject to the advice and consent of the Senate or some such? .
You seem to have the erroneous notion that the Constitution is, or may be, suspended during war-time, when no such notion ever existed in the mind of the founders, nor in the Constitution.
Yes
He is subject to the Constitution at all times
which gives Congress the authority to declare war (Article 1 Section 8 Clause 11), which would define being in “war-time”, not the President.
The Constitution defines treason, and is the only place in the Constitution in which the standards for Conviction are put forth in the Constitution itself (Article 3 Section 3), which consists of being convicted in a court, not at the whim of the President neither in time of peace or time of war.
Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4 gives the authority to make rules on naturalization and citizenship, and the loss thereof, which is congruent with Article 3 Section 3,and such rules must be followed by the President in both times of peace and times of war.
TML said:You seem to have the erroneous notion that the Constitution is, or may be, suspended during war-time
LowDown said:You seem to have erroneous ideas about the Constitution. It is the Constitution that names the President as the Commander in Chief. You have to come to grips with what that means.
TML said:which gives Congress the authority to declare war (Article 1 Section 8 Clause 11), which would define being in “war-time”, not the President.
LowDown said:Sorry, but this goes against what is generally understood to be the President's prerogative to respond to foreign aggression. I've explained this for you more than once. Apparently you just don't believe my explanation.
There hasn't been a declaration of war since WWII, but we've had no shortage of military conflicts to deal with. As far as I am aware, there hasn't been a single instance in which the President waited to respond to a military crisis while the Congress deliberated over whether they would declare war. How to you explain that?
TML said:The Constitution defines treason, and is the only place in the Constitution in which the standards for Conviction are put forth in the Constitution itself (Article 3 Section 3), which consists of being convicted in a court, not at the whim of the President neither in time of peace or time of war.
LowDown said:Charging a man with treason isn't the same thing as designating him as a foreign combatant who may be repelled by force of arms.
LowDown said:You seem to think that a person must be convicted of treason in order to lose his citizenship or to be targeted by our military. You are mistaken. Again, a brief review of recent history bears me out.
TML said:Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4 gives the authority to make rules on naturalization and citizenship, and the loss thereof, which is congruent with Article 3 Section 3,and such rules must be followed by the President in both times of peace and times of war.
LowDown said:There's no basis for your adding "and times of war". That is a gloss. There is no basis for your adding "and citizenship and the loss thereof". That is also a gloss.
LowDown said:As for the rest of what you wrote, again, you have no basis for saying that any of it applies in time of war or trumps the President's wartime power
I will correct my statement… you obviously have the erroneous notion that the Constitution is, or may be, suspended during war-time.
And I’ve explained that I agree with the President’s power to repel sudden attacks, but that he does not have the power to initiate hostilities, and make war.
The fact that we have not had a declaration of war since WWII (which immediately followed the attack on Pearl Harbor – no deliberation required) is testament only to violations of the Presidents constitutional power to make and provoke war. It can be explained by the War Powers Act which afforded the President unconstitutional power (to which you agreed was indeed unconstitutional, saying “The War Powers Act was an unconstitutional delegation of Congressional authority to the President, very much like the infamous enabling act and similar acts by the Venezuelan legislature more recently. Never has this nation gotten so close to tyranny as under FDR and Wilson.” In this thread 9th post down on the 13th page)
But the President does not have the constitutional power to initiate military assassinations or hostilities preemptively against those suspected of being a traitor of enemy combatant, anywhere in the world he may find them, without a declaration of war.
No, he may lose his citizenship according to the laws given by Congress in the US code, which I and others have already given to you. When it concerns alleged hostilities (not currently engaged in a sudden attack) he must be convicted of treason per that same US code, which coincides with the Constitution Article concerning treason, prior to his citizenship being revoked for those alleged hostilities. The history that you vaguely reference may only be proof of a constitutional violation.
The entire point is, there is no basis for you adding “except in times of war”… that is a gloss, my friend.
And again, I must persist, that you given no reference to any law, statute, or any part of the Constitution… except repeated referenced to Article 2 Section 2 Clause 1 “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States” as if that trumps every other part of the Constitution, or that certain parts I have presented do not apply in time of war.
Btw… to what branch is the power to declare war and call forth the Militia vested? (hint: Article 1 Section 8)
It seems the Administration thinks you are wrong.
My reasoning for agreement with the Administration differs from the Administration's rationale, which hinges on these people being an imminent threat with no other way to deal with them. My reasoning is simply that they are at war with us and are therefore fair game. Period.
:2brickwal
“They”? I will then ask my first question (again) in this thread (which you never answered); “Who, exactly, are we at war against? Iran? Iraq? Afghanistan? Pakistan? Libya? Syria? Mali? Yemen? Palestine? Lebanon? Egypt? The "terrorist"? The Islamist "extremist"? A religion called Islam? The Taliban (who we trained and armed)? Al-Qaida (who we trained as well, and seem to be as elusive and vaguely wide spread as "terrorism")? Exactly who are we at war with?
:duel
In other words, it's no use saying that we are at war with a certain set of nations if the people trying to kill us are scattered all over the world. Better admit to the fact that our enemy is more amorphous. What is our alternative? To refuse to acknowledge this and defend ourselves?
So, we are at war with those who are at war with us. Obviously. .
...By becoming a terrorist and hiding out in foreign lands...well...all I can say is "Nice shootin' Tex.
...The number of Muslim morons that cheered the 9/11 attacks is nearly endless...
Not just hiding out in foreign lands. These leaders made it perfectly clear that you can be targeted anywhere in the world. Even on US soil. And who is a terrorist is who they say it is, and whichever of their supporters take their word for it.
In other words a "terrorist" who can be killed is anyone, US citizen or not, Adult or juvenile, anywhere in the world, at any time, subject to the discretion of one guy only with zero oversight.
An everyday person even you might know could get blown up by a drone strike, even though he's no terrorist. The leaders will say he was a terrorist and there will be just as many people on the forum tomorrow, talking about how that person was a terrorist and deserved it, and they themselves don't have anything to worry about.
...THIS thread is about US citizens choosing to leave the borders and protections guaranteed citizens, hiding out in camps and plotting terror attacks.
For example...
The incident cited in the OP?
Far too many.
One is too many....
I mean what is the number that we should consider "nearly endless"?
Enough to elect Muslim Brotherhood candidates to run nations, or to wish to use Sharia law.
My fault.. I should have been more specific.
I mean examples of the terrorist plots. I'm especially interested in for the other two Americans killed in the drone strikes, and what plot they were hatching.
If you are chilling with terrorists roasting marshmallows and eating s'mores you are a viable target in my book. I'd personally rather see them dead before they blow **** up rather than after.
Which terrorists were they chilling with?
And does this mean you retract your allegation about them actively plotting terrorist attacks?
The only fact of our enemy being amorphous is that of the foolishness of refusing to clearly identifying them. I will then ask my question in reverse. Who, exactly, is at war with us?
As I’ve said, the President does have the Constitutional power to repel sudden attacks or command military forces in the defense against hostilities made directly against the United States, but without a degree from Congress he cannot put us in a state of war. Bin Laden is dead, but the wars rage on as we look for new enemies to feed the military industrial complex.
Defense against those who might attack us is entirely different than the preemptive imperialist policies which have led to perpetual undeclared wars, as you seem to think it’s acceptable to chase nomads and bandits to the ends of the earth without regard for the sovereignty of all those nations which I pointed out. There is a serious folly in the position you choose, and history supports that opinion at every turn.
“The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belong to one category” – “Terrorism is the best political weapon, for nothing drives people harder than the fear of sudden death” – Adolf Hitler
And lo and behold, you support endless wars against an amorphous enemy; the nameless, faceless, shadow boogeyman “terrorist”.
You support unbridled executive power to wage war on this undefined enemy, while arbitrarily disregarding the separation of powers delegated by the Constitution.
Not even the founders would agree with you.
“The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, & most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legislature.” – James Madison
“If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. The loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or imagined, from abroad.” – James Madison
“In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate… …an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home.” – James Madison
“America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity. She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights. She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.... She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....” – John Quincy Adams
Terrorists are terrorists. Our experience is they don't gather and plot bake sales and car washes. Training, plotting, sunbathing in the nude. I don't give a ****. You leave the states and go hang out with terrorists you are a target. There are intel agencies that track those groups. That's why they become "targets".
Does your continued posting mean you have now actually bothered to go back and read the article and OP in question? Just curious since you didn't have the first ****ing clue a few posts ago.
You didn't answer either question.
Who were the terrorists they were "chilling" with? You MUST know who in order to make the determination you did and make the factual claim you did.
And do you retract your claim about the active plotting of an attack?
So terrorists will continue to attack America whether they fit into the comfortable pigeon holes you prefer or not.
You want to use the non-traditional nature of these enemies as a pretext to limit the President's powers to respond to them.
They are warring with us, but it's not really a war, if I understand your meaning, therefore the President can't, or should not be able to, respond with the full authority of the Commander in Chief…. … Surely you don't mean to say that the President can't do anything until Congress declares war?
Also, do you mean to say that a terrorist who has attacked us before and who is known to be plotting to attack us again and is urging others to attack us is not at war with us and is not a fit target for military action? Is this the sort of creature that you would insist that the President must wait on a Congressional declaration of war to deal with?
Yes, criminals will always create violence; which for all practical purposes, that all the vague notions of “terrorist” amounts to… criminals.
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?