• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Henry David said:
Says who? Some guy on the internet? :lamo

Nowhere in the USC is the term AUMF, yet you want me to believe that sophistry you throw out?

You are an amateur sir. You don't know WTF you're talking about. :peace
Click to expand...

If you feel so strongly then file petition for a writ of certiorari with the scotus. You can't because there is nothing unconstitutional about an AUMF it is the same as a declaration of war legally, morally, and in practice.
 
Last edited:
starcitizen said:
If you feel so strongly then file petition for a writ of certiorari with the scotus. You can't because there is nothing unconstitutional about an AUMF it is the same as a declaration of war legally, morally, and in practice.
Click to expand...

I suspect you are very young and have not a clue as to how expensive it is to bring cases to the USSC.

Further, you don't quite understand that I am well aware of how the system works. All sorts of illegitimate legislative products still exist today. I get it.

This sort of an answer reveals, yet again, your basic dishonesty in NOT addressing the powers granted POTUS in Article II. You won't even talk about it because you know what it would mean.

POTUS already has legitimate power to do as he pleases with the US military, and neither you nor Congress can make a persuasive statement about what was gained by AUMF. Congress was "giving" POTUS something he already had. Clearly you are not quite sophisticated or informed enough about the document to understand this, and the natural result of that is that you still today embrace the sophistry, too brainwashed to admit you are wrong and that Congress was wrong.

The several other "conservative" posters so informed about the USC also would rather not talk about it. Don't worry, The Emperor's New Clothes are just gorgeous, aren't they! :doh
 
Henry David said:
I suspect you are very young and have not a clue as to how expensive it is to bring cases to the USSC.

Further, you don't quite understand that I am well aware of how the system works. All sorts of illegitimate legislative products still exist today. I get it.

This sort of an answer reveals, yet again, your basic dishonesty in NOT addressing the powers granted POTUS in Article II. You won't even talk about it because you know what it would mean.

POTUS already has legitimate power to do as he pleases with the US military, and neither you nor Congress can make a persuasive statement about what was gained by AUMF. Congress was "giving" POTUS something he already had. Clearly you are not quite sophisticated or informed enough about the document to understand this, and the natural result of that is that you still today embrace the sophistry, too brainwashed to admit you are wrong and that Congress was wrong.

The several other "conservative" posters so informed about the USC also would rather not talk about it. Don't worry, The Emperor's New Clothes are just gorgeous, aren't they! :doh
Click to expand...

Lol the war powers are vested in the Congress until they authorize the POTUS to put our soldiers in harms way again you can call it a chicken dumpling if you want but regardless it is perfectly in line with the Constitution of which you know absolutely jack and **** about, obviously.
 
starcitizen said:
Ah so the other shoe drops the Bush administration never once said they had no evidence against him because in fact they had plenty of eyewitness testimony.
Click to expand...

And as your own source notes, a lot of that eyewitness testimony has been brought into question.

Are you denying the Bush Administration was working towards Aamer's release to SA?

If there is enough evidence to hold then there should be enough evidence for a trial. Could have had one, but neocons remained stubborn to hold these men in Gitmo without due process.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom