Page 15 of 21 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 208

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

  1. #141
    Sage


    Thoreau72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 09:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    20,267

    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
    Let's see now, that would be a court inferior to the court that gave us Kelo, right?

  2. #142
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    It's about what it is or not. We can have a war against organized crime, but that doesn't mean we should follow the rules of traditional war without admitting differences.

    And because we won doesn't make wrongs right, or tell us if we could have still won without doing wrong.
    Yes, it's great to sit back and point out the shortcomings of those who fought and died during WWII, and we can enjoy our philosophical accusations comfortable in the knowledge that they have already won it for us and that we don't have to get our hands dirty.

  3. #143
    Sage


    Thoreau72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 09:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    20,267

    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.
    I guess the same logic would apply to the Gulf Of Tonkin Resolution, eh?

    The neocon sophistry is alive and well!

  4. #144
    Sage


    Thoreau72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 09:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    20,267

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

    Quote Originally Posted by OldWorldOrder View Post
    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.
    No, they just opened under new management in Africa. That's why we're operating there, "getting rid of" all those bogeymen.

    Hell, another 30 or 40 years we will have killed every camel there, and the bad guys will have to walk everywhere.

  5. #145
    Sage


    Thoreau72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 09:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    20,267

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

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    I'm not defending the terrorists. I'm stating, unambiguosly, that the Military Tribunals are pre-arranged frauds and that the Major Media should publicize that fact. Otherwise, maybe one of these days you or yours will be tried by a military Tribunal. "Liberty and Justice for all."
    The Major Media is an essential part of the hoax. Don't expect them to ask any questions OTHER THAN approved and vetted questions.

  6. #146
    Sage
    Gaius46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,444

    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.
    If this is the case then isn't the United States obligated to treat those captured in the war on terror as POWs and thus entitled to protections under the Geneva Conventions?
    Don't be a grammar nazi - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book 1 #7

  7. #147
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaius46 View Post
    If this is the case then isn't the United States obligated to treat those captured in the war on terror as POWs and thus entitled to protections under the Geneva Conventions?
    No. The GC lays out the requirements: wear uniforms or other identification; don't hide behind civilians; don't fight from hospitals, schools, churches; etc. If they don't follow those rules of war, they are illegal combatants and can be summarily executed. Although the GC is vague on whether they can be interrogated first...
    "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

  8. #148
    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 Grant View Post
    Yes, it's great to sit back and point out the shortcomings of those who fought and died during WWII, and we can enjoy our philosophical accusations comfortable in the knowledge that they have already won it for us and that we don't have to get our hands dirty.
    Frankly. That's not what I'm doing. Framing it that way is an avoidance effort.

    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.

  9. #149
    Sage
    Gaius46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,444

    Renditions continue under Obama, despite due-process concerns

    Quote Originally Posted by Diogenes View Post
    No. The GC lays out the requirements: wear uniforms or other identification; don't hide behind civilians; don't fight from hospitals, schools, churches; etc. If they don't follow those rules of war, they are illegal combatants and can be summarily executed. Although the GC is vague on whether they can be interrogated first...
    If it is as the poster I responded to stated that the AUMF constitutes a declaration of war I have to ask against whom have we declared war? Where are the combatants? Have we captured or killed anyone to date who fits into the GC definition of combatant?
    Don't be a grammar nazi - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book 1 #7

  10. #150
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    They are actually growing in Iraq, Libya and Syria and of course the Muslim Brotherhood has taken over Egypt. The Taliban is also poised to take over as soon as the US pulls out.

    While the formalities of war are quite important to many in the Democracies, Islamists just wait and wear down their enemies. The west, in many ways. has not changed their strategies much since WWII.
    Let's accept that (although it's not really borne out by intelligence): they go from almost barely nothing to barely nothing? Worth intelligence and military outfits noticing, not worth much more.

    Quote Originally Posted by Henry David View Post
    No, they just opened under new management in Africa. That's why we're operating there, "getting rid of" all those bogeymen.
    Umm...no.

    Hell, another 30 or 40 years we will have killed every camel there, and the bad guys will have to walk everywhere.
    Okay, well that's weird.
    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

Page 15 of 21 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... 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
  •