Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 112

Thread: How a U.S. Citizen Came to Be in America’s Cross Hairs

  1. #51
    Advisor TML's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    09-23-15 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    520

    Re: How a U.S. Citizen Came to Be in America’s Cross Hairs

    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    There's no such thing as a statute that can direct the President or restrict his actions in the conduct of war.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    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? .
    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.

    Even the power to suspend Habeas Corpus is given solely to Congress in Article 1 Section 9 Clause 2 either in times of war or times of peace, and not to the President.

    The President, whether in war or peace, shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur (Article 2 Section 2)

    He is charged to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” (laws which the Legislative branch [Congress] writes in accordance with the Constitution) (Article 2 Section 3) after taking an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” (Article 2 Section 1).

    You should rethink your erroneous position that there are no qualifications or limitations to the President’s authority in either war or peace, which remains unsupported.
    Last edited by TML; 03-12-13 at 02:55 PM.

  2. #52
    Curmudgeon


    LowDown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,552
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: How a U.S. Citizen Came to Be in America’s Cross Hairs

    Quote Originally Posted by TML View Post
    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.
    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.

    Yes

    He is subject to the Constitution at all times
    Yes, including when he is designated the Commander in Chief.

    which gives Congress the authority to declare war (Article 1 Section 8 Clause 11), which would define being in “war-time”, not the President.
    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?

    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.
    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. 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.

    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.
    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.

    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 powers.

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --HL Mencken

  3. #53
    Advisor TML's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    09-23-15 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    520

    Re: How a U.S. Citizen Came to Be in America’s Cross Hairs

    Quote Originally Posted by TML
    You seem to have the erroneous notion that the Constitution is, or may be, suspended during war-time
    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown
    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.
    I will correct my statement… you obviously have the erroneous notion that the Constitution is, or may be, suspended during war-time.

    Quote Originally Posted by TML
    which gives Congress the authority to declare war (Article 1 Section 8 Clause 11), which would define being in “war-time”, not the President.
    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown
    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?
    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)

    Quote Originally Posted by TML
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown
    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.
    When such a person is not engaged in combat to which he may be repelled by armed forces, it is the same thing. In the context of an actually military attack on the United States, where there is literally no time to contemplate citizenship, treason or anything, the President has the power to repel that attack regardless. 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.

    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by TML
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown
    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.
    The entire point is, there is no basis for you adding “except in times of war”… that is a gloss, my friend.

    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown
    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
    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)
    Last edited by TML; 03-12-13 at 11:37 PM.

  4. #54
    Curmudgeon


    LowDown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,552
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: How a U.S. Citizen Came to Be in America’s Cross Hairs

    Quote Originally Posted by TML View Post
    I will correct my statement… you obviously have the erroneous notion that the Constitution is, or may be, suspended during war-time.
    Neener neener

    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.
    Yes, even though Congress hasn't declared 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)
    I don't think the War Powers Act was what you think it was. It gave the President unprecedented power to re work the Federal budget and restructure the administration and armed forces, power that should have remained with the legislature. It gave the President power over the very thing that Congress is supposed to use to keep the President in check. It also gave the President the power to round up the Japanese (or facilitated the detention of them) and put a blanket of censorship over the mail. That's why it was unconstitutional, not because the President was given the power to initiate hostilities without a declaration of war (which didn't apply in WWII anyway since there was such a declaration.) Also, I'm pretty sure that the Act expired at the end of WWII.

    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.
    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.

    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.
    Nope. When was the last time anyone was convicted of treason? Benedict Arnold? In peace time there is a statute that governs when a person may be stripped of citizenship under certain enumerated circumstances, such as when they become an important leader in a foreign power. In war time the President may dispose of such people as he sees fit. No statute can limit the President's wartime power other than the one that cuts his funding. The President is the Commander in Chief without qualification and the separation of powers doctrine means that that power can't be abridged. Nor can the President delegate that power to Congress or agree to restrictions that would bind future Presidents, Jimmy Carter notwithstanding.

    The entire point is, there is no basis for you adding “except in times of war”… that is a gloss, my friend.
    There is a solid Constitutional basis for saying that. It is that the President is the Commander in Chief. That coupled with the doctrine of separation of powers.

    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.
    Yes, it does trump many laws in time of war depending on the effect those laws would have on the President's authority to conduct war.

    Btw… to what branch is the power to declare war and call forth the Militia vested? (hint: Article 1 Section 8)
    That goes back to the fact that the Legislature has the supreme authority over the military through their control of the size and funding of it. But what they many not do in the mean time is dictate how the war is to be conducted.

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --HL Mencken

  5. #55
    Advisor TML's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    09-23-15 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    520

    Re: How a U.S. Citizen Came to Be in America’s Cross Hairs

    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    It seems the Administration thinks you are wrong.


    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    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.
    “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?




  6. #56
    Curmudgeon


    LowDown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,552
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: How a U.S. Citizen Came to Be in America’s Cross Hairs

    Quote Originally Posted by TML View Post




    “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?



    I forget what the term is for the nation-state concept. The "Westphalian system" or some such; whereby you have states consisting of geographical areas governed by one government and only one government in accordance with an international treaty. My understanding is that this concept is only three or four hundred years old, and that before that the concept of a nation was quite a bit looser. Basically, anything a government had influence over it ... well ... had influence over and the world was not strictly divided up into rigidly defined areas with designated single governments ruling over them. For example, the Chinese in the People's Republic think that anywhere that people of Chinese descent live is subject to red Chinese rule or influence. (I kid you not.)

    We may be returning to that. 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.

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --HL Mencken

  7. #57
    Advisor TML's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    09-23-15 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    520

    Re: How a U.S. Citizen Came to Be in America’s Cross Hairs

    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    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. .
    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

  8. #58
    User
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    04-25-13 @ 07:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    29

    Re: How a U.S. Citizen Came to Be in America’s Cross Hairs

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    ...By becoming a terrorist and hiding out in foreign lands...well...all I can say is "Nice shootin' Tex.
    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.

  9. #59
    User
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    04-25-13 @ 07:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    29

    Re: How a U.S. Citizen Came to Be in America’s Cross Hairs

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    ...The number of Muslim morons that cheered the 9/11 attacks is nearly endless...
    What number is that?

  10. #60
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,677

    How a U.S. Citizen Came to Be in America’s Cross Hairs

    Quote Originally Posted by SJ-10 View Post
    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.
    Different subject for a different thread. THIS thread is about US citizens choosing to leave the borders and protections guaranteed citizens, hiding out in camps and plotting terror attacks.

Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... 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
  •