Page 13 of 21 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 208

Thread: Renditions continue under Obama, despite due-process concerns

  1. #121
    Sage


    Thoreau72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    20,285

    Re: Renditions continue under Obama, despite due-process concerns

    Egads, why do I feel like I'm reading the posts of John Yoo?

  2. #122
    Guru
    Diogenes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Last Seen
    10-11-13 @ 06:52 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,980

    Re: Renditions continue under Obama, despite due-process concerns

    Perhaps because you are confused?
    "We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress & the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
    - Abraham Lincoln

  3. #123
    Sage


    Thoreau72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    20,285

    Re: Renditions continue under Obama, despite due-process concerns

    I think it's because I'm reading so much rhetoric that sounds so much like Yoo's "reasoning."

    Or maybe Nixon, as in 'if the President does it, it's not illegal'?

  4. #124
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,274

    Re: Renditions continue under Obama, despite due-process concerns

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Just a note: that is not a declaration of war. Nor equal to one.

    Just a note back at ya....:

    "A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation and another. For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to ... declare War". However, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation must have in order to be considered a "Declaration of War" nor does the Constitution itself use this term. Many[who?] have postulated "Declaration(s) of War" must contain that phrase as or within the title. Others oppose that reasoning. In the courts, the United States First Circuit Court of Appeals in Doe vs. Bush said: "[T]he text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an 'authorization' of such a war."[1] in effect saying an authorization suffices for declaration and what some may view as a formal Congressional "Declaration of War" was not required by the Constitution."

    Declaration of war by the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  5. #125
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,799

    Re: Renditions continue under Obama, despite due-process concerns

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    Al Qaeda has been losing? How do you figure that?

    The US, under Obama, is fleeing Afghanistan, has abandoned Iraq, and has given up on their reliable leaders in the ME to open the door for Islamism. Why do you think that the Islamists can feel safe attacking an American 'safe house', murder an Ambassador with impunity, and put out bounties on others? They know that the American leadership will respond with confusion and finger-pointing, just as they did.

    Meanwhile, in response to terrorism, the American government introduces more body scanners at airports or sends out another drone to pretend they are doing something serious. This is typical third world stuff. Know your enemy, it's wisely stated, but the goofy leftists won't even admit they have an enemy.

    Osama bin Laden: Strategic genius | Zero Dark Thirty | National Post
    I thought we were fighting terrorists.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  6. #126
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Renditions continue under Obama, despite due-process concerns

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Just a note back at ya....:

    "A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation and another. For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to ... declare War". However, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation must have in order to be considered a "Declaration of War" nor does the Constitution itself use this term. Many[who?] have postulated "Declaration(s) of War" must contain that phrase as or within the title. Others oppose that reasoning. In the courts, the United States First Circuit Court of Appeals in Doe vs. Bush said: "[T]he text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an 'authorization' of such a war."[1] in effect saying an authorization suffices for declaration and what some may view as a formal Congressional "Declaration of War" was not required by the Constitution."

    Declaration of war by the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Noted, though I'd love see some more thoughtful work on the issue.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  7. #127
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,274

    Re: Renditions continue under Obama, despite due-process concerns

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Noted, though I'd love see some more thoughtful work on the issue.

    Ok, let's see if this breaks through....


    "The United States is at war—and has been, continuously, for ten years. This is a reality, of course. But more than that, it is a legality. Legally—constitutionally—the United States has been in a condition of declared war for ten years.

    On September 18, 2001, Congress enacted into law, and President George W. Bush signed, what is arguably the broadest declaration of war in our nation’s history. “Whereas on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States,” begins the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF),

    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.
    Constitutionally, the 9-18-01 Act is a Declaration of War. Congress, not the President, has the power “to declare war,” the result of a deliberate decision by the framers of the Constitution to transfer the traditional war-initiating executive power of a king to a representative, republican legislature. The President, the framers determined, should have only the power to counter attacks on the nation—to repel and respond—but not to initiate war on his own. The President, as Commander-in-Chief, would have complete military authority to conduct war, once declared: he, and not Congress, makes the decisions as to how to wage war, including all matters of military engagement, strategy, tactics, rules of engagement, diplomacy, armistice, foreign relations with allies and adversaries, and policies toward captured enemies (including detention, interrogation, and military punishment—the subjects of so much friction in recent years). The framers’ division was clear: Congress declares wars; the President fights and concludes them.

    Congress’s power to declare war does not require the use of magic words. Congress need not say “declare” and it need not say “war,” and there may be practical and diplomatic reasons to couch a war declaration in terms more congenial to the regime of “international law,” which favors the language of individual and collective self-defense over the old-fashioned, indecorous language of war. But war it is. More to the point, constitutionally, the 9-18-01 Authorization for Use of Military Force is an exercise of Congress’s legislative power “to declare war.”

    The AUMF is remarkable, even stunning, in its sweep. It accounts for and justifies nearly every military action in which the United States has engaged in the past ten years in fighting the war on terror. (Iraq was the subject of a separate, overlapping war-authorization. U.S. military action in Libya, as I will discuss, is not justified by the AUMF and is probably best classified as an unconstitutional war.)"

    Declaration of War: Ten Years Later | Public Discourse

    So, "Bush's wars" were constitutional, and Obama's war was not.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  8. #128
    Sage
    OldWorldOrder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    10-12-15 @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,820

    Re: Renditions continue under Obama, despite due-process concerns

    al Qaeda has certainly lost. It's really not arguable. They lost basically a decade ago and have just been dick slapped every time they've tried to stand back up since.
    The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.
    -GK Chesterton

  9. #129
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Renditions continue under Obama, despite due-process concerns

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Ok, let's see if this breaks through....


    "The United States is at war—and has been, continuously, for ten years. This is a reality, of course. But more than that, it is a legality. Legally—constitutionally—the United States has been in a condition of declared war for ten years.

    On September 18, 2001, Congress enacted into law, and President George W. Bush signed, what is arguably the broadest declaration of war in our nation’s history. “Whereas on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States,” begins the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF),



    Constitutionally, the 9-18-01 Act is a Declaration of War. Congress, not the President, has the power “to declare war,” the result of a deliberate decision by the framers of the Constitution to transfer the traditional war-initiating executive power of a king to a representative, republican legislature. The President, the framers determined, should have only the power to counter attacks on the nation—to repel and respond—but not to initiate war on his own. The President, as Commander-in-Chief, would have complete military authority to conduct war, once declared: he, and not Congress, makes the decisions as to how to wage war, including all matters of military engagement, strategy, tactics, rules of engagement, diplomacy, armistice, foreign relations with allies and adversaries, and policies toward captured enemies (including detention, interrogation, and military punishment—the subjects of so much friction in recent years). The framers’ division was clear: Congress declares wars; the President fights and concludes them.

    Congress’s power to declare war does not require the use of magic words. Congress need not say “declare” and it need not say “war,” and there may be practical and diplomatic reasons to couch a war declaration in terms more congenial to the regime of “international law,” which favors the language of individual and collective self-defense over the old-fashioned, indecorous language of war. But war it is. More to the point, constitutionally, the 9-18-01 Authorization for Use of Military Force is an exercise of Congress’s legislative power “to declare war.”

    The AUMF is remarkable, even stunning, in its sweep. It accounts for and justifies nearly every military action in which the United States has engaged in the past ten years in fighting the war on terror. (Iraq was the subject of a separate, overlapping war-authorization. U.S. military action in Libya, as I will discuss, is not justified by the AUMF and is probably best classified as an unconstitutional war.)"

    Declaration of War: Ten Years Later | Public Discourse

    So, "Bush's wars" were constitutional, and Obama's war was not.
    Good source and an interesting read. I will eventually look for a valid rebuttal. But, enjoyed this one.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  10. #130
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:42 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,299

    Re: Renditions continue under Obama, despite due-process concerns

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    What I want to know is when we decided that terrorists were supervillains that can't be trusted to our normal justice system. When they talked about 9/11 trials for Al-Qaeda members being held in New York, people freaked out. We can't have the trial in Manhattan! Why the **** not? These guys are backwater murdering assholes with rifles and crappy homemade bombs, not Lex Luthor. A robot army is not going to crash through the wall in the middle of a trial and free them. There's Ocean's Eleven plan to bust them out of prison.

    So why can't we put them on trial and toss them in prison alongside every other murderer? They don't deserve special treatment. Treating them specially just gives the impression that they are special.

    If you try any of these $$sholes in Mainland US of A, they will be found not guilty because any evidence gained by torture is inadmissable. That is why they are being tried by Military Tribunals. The Tribunals leave the outcome without doubt, which should give pause to those who believe in "liberty and justice" for all. Two different justices. In the Military Tribunal, even newspaper articles are designated "classified" and cannot be submitted as evidence. Why don't our Media sycophants initiate a hue and cry aboout this failed justice system?

Page 13 of 21 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •