Shaker Aamer released from Guantánamo Bay after 14-year detention[W:70]

[jonny5]

Where in the USC does it authorize the Congress to "authorize use of military force"? It does not.

Under Article II, the POTUS is C-in-C and can do whatever he damn well pleases with the US military, just as FDR and others have noted for decades. As FDR noted way back when, the President can wage war as he pleases, but he cannot declare war. Only Congress can declare war, as stated in Article I. Probably because of the gross dumbing-down of Americans regarding Constitutional issues, the average American is uninformed enough to really fall hard for the sophistry presented by their elected officials.

Art 1, Sec 8

Congress shall have power...To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

AND the power to make laws regarding those powers (like a AUMF)

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers,

In fact, Art 5 requires the govt to use force:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;

And the President cant do what he pleases. He is restricted by Art 2, Sec 2

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;

 

[Alyssa T.]

Ok, but specifically enemies we capture on the battlefield engaged in combat. What do we do with them if not locking them in a military prison till hostilities end? Point being is the real issue here lack of transparency, duration of detention, or just blanket opposition to one prison?

Point is, the hostilities are not going to end. We need to figure out what we are going to do with these guys. We can't hold them indefinitely in that terrible place. We have laws and standards, and we shouldn't be afraid to live by them.

 

[Geoist]

Re: Shaker Aamer released from Guantánamo Bay after 14-year detention

I find it difficult to join the usual "Hate America First" crowd in their wailing and moaning. Let's keep an eye on this guy and see what he does after he gets out. See if he again leaves his wife and family in London to go back to working for "an Islamic charity in Afghanistan."

If even one American soldier is still alive because this one was taken off the battlefield for fourteen years, his incarceration was definitely worth it.

...And that is exactly how people ignore injustice, by rationalizing it.

 

[Thoreau72]

Art 1, Sec 8



AND the power to make laws regarding those powers (like a AUMF)



In fact, Art 5 requires the govt to use force:



And the President cant do what he pleases. He is restricted by Art 2, Sec 2

Just curious if you understand what word in the sentence is referred to in the phrase you bolded, when called into the actual service?

I am beginning to wonder about your comprehension. Thanks for printing those parts of the USC. I've read them many times, but I don't understand the point you're trying to make, except for your obvious enthusiasm for the sophistry of the AUMF.

 

[Geoist]

Re: Shaker Aamer released from Guantánamo Bay after 14-year detention

I was responding to a poster's comments about people who defend Muslim jihadists.

Alright, I'll bite...

Who on the Left is defending Muslim jihadists?

 

[matchlight]

Re: Shaker Aamer released from Guantánamo Bay after 14-year detention

Alright, I'll bite...

Who on the Left is defending Muslim jihadists?

Read Andy McCarthy's book "The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America." It's full of examples, if you doubt that is happening.

 

[Ray410]

Point is, the hostilities are not going to end. We need to figure out what we are going to do with these guys. We can't hold them indefinitely in that terrible place. We have laws and standards, and we shouldn't be afraid to live by them.

In years past, we would have killed them on the battlefield. Any problem with that?

 

[Alyssa T.]

In years past, we would have killed them on the battlefield. Any problem with that?

Umm, yeah, I do have a problem with that --- if there was no need to just kill them, that is.

 

[Ray410]

Re: Shaker Aamer released from Guantánamo Bay after 14-year detention

...And that is exactly how people ignore injustice, by rationalizing it.

I don't believe you should automatically sympathize with America's enemies when you have no more idea what the facts are than anyone else. At some point Americans absolutely must trust their soldiers to do what they believe is right - Trust them not only because we want them to come home, but because they are our sons and brother Americans.

 

[Alyssa T.]

Re: Shaker Aamer released from Guantánamo Bay after 14-year detention

I don't believe you should automatically sympathize with America's enemies when you have no more idea what the facts are than anyone else. At some point Americans absolutely must trust their soldiers to do what they believe is right - Trust them not only because we want them to come home, but because they are our sons and brother Americans.

And our daughters and sister Americans...

 

[Geoist]

Re: Shaker Aamer released from Guantánamo Bay after 14-year detention

Read Andy McCarthy's book "The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America." It's full of examples, if you doubt that is happening.

I already have a full reading list. Could you please provide some sourceable examples if you are going to make the claim?

 

[Geoist]

Re: Shaker Aamer released from Guantánamo Bay after 14-year detention

I don't believe you should automatically sympathize with America's enemies when you have no more idea what the facts are than anyone else. At some point Americans absolutely must trust their soldiers to do what they believe is right - Trust them not only because we want them to come home, but because they are our sons and brother Americans.

I would never trust a man who forcefully invades my homeland.

That aside, you once again assume Shaker Aamer was fighting the U.S. when there is no evidence to suggest that.

 

[Ray410]

Re: Shaker Aamer released from Guantánamo Bay after 14-year detention

I would never trust a man who forcefully invades my homeland.

That aside, you once again assume Shaker Aamer was fighting the U.S. when there is no evidence to suggest that.

I'm not in favor of any American fighting men ever being in the Middle East and I have no idea why either of our last two presidents have become involved in that morass, but once we're there, I'm standing solidly behind our guys doing what they have to because they have no other choice.

Everyone has the same evidence here and everyone makes this choice for themselves. There is no chance I would ever leap to the defense of America's enemies.

 

[Geoist]

Re: Shaker Aamer released from Guantánamo Bay after 14-year detention

I'm not in favor of any American fighting men ever being in the Middle East and I have no idea why either of our last two presidents have become involved in that morass, but once we're there, I'm standing solidly behind our guys doing what they have to because they have no other choice.

So you support a war even if you think justification for such a war is built upon flimsy evidence (at best)? This may be a radical idea, but I don't consider sending troops to their imminent deaths for no good reason very "supporting."

Everyone has the same evidence here and everyone makes this choice for themselves. There is no chance I would ever leap to the defense of America's enemies.

Silly jingoist rhetoric. I love my country. That is exactly why I am highly critical of my government's foreign policies.

But please keep ignoring the focus of this thread (Shaker Aamer).

 

[jonny5]

Point is, the hostilities are not going to end. We need to figure out what we are going to do with these guys. We can't hold them indefinitely in that terrible place. We have laws and standards, and we shouldn't be afraid to live by them.

So then what do you do with them? Put them in a state based prison indefinetely?

 

[jonny5]

Just curious if you understand what word in the sentence is referred to in the phrase you bolded, when called into the actual service?

I am beginning to wonder about your comprehension. Thanks for printing those parts of the USC. I've read them many times, but I don't understand the point you're trying to make, except for your obvious enthusiasm for the sophistry of the AUMF.

If youre going to be insulting, I wont bother responding.

 

[Kobie]

Re: Shaker Aamer released from Guantánamo Bay after 14-year detention

Read Andy McCarthy's book "The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America." It's full of examples, if you doubt that is happening.

LOL Andy McCarthy. He's a low-grade hack if their ever was one.

 

[matchlight]

Re: Shaker Aamer released from Guantánamo Bay after 14-year detention

I already have a full reading list. Could you please provide some sourceable examples if you are going to make the claim?

Nope. That is my opinion, based on many things I have both seen and read. A loathing of capitalism and of Western Civiliization in general is typical of the millions of leftists who are now taking up space in the U.S., a couple generations now whose minds have been more-or-less permanently addled by politically correct, anti-American indoctrination in our public schools during the past four decades.

This tends to go along with an idealization of anything that is primitive, exotic, and generally unlike modern industrial civilization. People who are non-white and non-Christian--like Muslim jihadists--tend to be seen sympathetically, while people like the ones who founded and built this country tend to be vilified. I think the roots of this kind of thinking, at least in modern times, are in the Romantic movement, and in particularly in the ideas of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. He is in a way the founder of leftism, which I see as a secular quasi-religion.

 

[Risky Thicket]

Re: Shaker Aamer released from Guantánamo Bay after 14-year detention

Nope. That is my opinion, based on many things I have both seen and read. A loathing of capitalism and of Western Civiliization in general is typical of the millions of leftists who are now taking up space in the U.S., a couple generations now whose minds have been more-or-less permanently addled by politically correct, anti-American indoctrination in our public schools during the past four decades.

This tends to go along with an idealization of anything that is primitive, exotic, and generally unlike modern industrial civilization. People who are non-white and non-Christian--like Muslim jihadists--tend to be seen sympathetically, while people like the ones who founded and built this country tend to be vilified. I think the roots of this kind of thinking, at least in modern times, are in the Romantic movement, and in particularly in the ideas of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. He is in a way the founder of leftism, which I see as a secular quasi-religion.

To which type of capitalism do you refer? Or are you under the impression that there is only one type?

 

[matchlight]

Re: Shaker Aamer released from Guantánamo Bay after 14-year detention

To which type of capitalism do you refer? Or are you under the impression that there is only one type?

I'm under the impression that there is some type of it you loathe. Which type is that, if my impression is right?

 

[Risky Thicket]

Re: Shaker Aamer released from Guantánamo Bay after 14-year detention

I'm under the impression that there is some type of it you loathe. Which type is that, if my impression is right?

I'm not interested in playing Question Dodge with you. I asked you a question based on a statement you made. That you chose to dodge the question by asking a question tells me that you spoke before you thought.

 

[matchlight]

Re: Shaker Aamer released from Guantánamo Bay after 14-year detention

I'm not interested in playing Question Dodge with you. I asked you a question based on a statement you made. That you chose to dodge the question by asking a question tells me that you spoke before you thought.

I think you answered my question pretty well. Thank you.

 

[starcitizen]

Where in the USC does it authorize the Congress to "authorize use of military force"? It does not.

Under Article II, the POTUS is C-in-C and can do whatever he damn well pleases with the US military, just as FDR and others have noted for decades. As FDR noted way back when, the President can wage war as he pleases, but he cannot declare war. Only Congress can declare war, as stated in Article I. Probably because of the gross dumbing-down of Americans regarding Constitutional issues, the average American is uninformed enough to really fall hard for the sophistry presented by their elected officials.

Absolute nonsense the war powers are vested in the Congress and there is absolutely no difference constitutionally or practically between an AUMF and a formal declaration of war. You have still not shown the difference between the two whatsoever regardless of how long your rant is.

 

[starcitizen]

I would never trust a man who forcefully invades my homeland.

That aside, you once again assume Shaker Aamer was fighting the U.S. when there is no evidence to suggest that.

Yep finally found the name of the charity took a while since no one is reporting it, it's the Revival of Islamic Heritage Society and a known AQ front, can I call it or can I call it?

 

[starcitizen]

So you support a war even if you think justification for such a war is built upon flimsy evidence (at best)? This may be a radical idea, but I don't consider sending troops to their imminent deaths for no good reason very "supporting."




Silly jingoist rhetoric. I love my country. That is exactly why I am highly critical of my government's foreign policies.

But please keep ignoring the focus of this thread (Shaker Aamer).

Revival of Islamic Heritage Society = AQ, I wish this Salafist pig got one behind the ear, next.