No Point Complaining About Obama if We Don't Elect a Republican Congress
There is no point complaining about Obama and his Administration unless we are going to elect a Republican Congress this year.
It's obvious by now that not only does Obama not take the hint that he is overstepping his Constitutional authority, but that he actually revels in doing so, because he sees the Constitutional limits on his office as a ( Read more... )
It's obvious by now that not only does Obama not take the hint that he is overstepping his Constitutional authority, but that he actually revels in doing so, because he sees the Constitutional limits on his office as a ( Read more... )
The sooner it all collaspes and dies in a fire, the happier I'll be. Because the Republic is dead.
Reply
Reply
Reply
That would be better than the leadership Obama is providing, but not better than Constitutional government of the sort I've known most of my life.
Reply
Reply
That's a nice dramatic cynical-sounding thing to say, but it betrays your lack of understanding of what things look like when a Republic really falls. If the Republic had really fallen, we would either be living under a dictator or witnessing violent civil warfare. And I don't mean a somewhat-unconstitutional President or fractious demonstrations, I mean a President who would be imprisoning or executing his opponents en masse or a situation in which actual armed troops were marching over the landscape fighting over key population concentrations.
Reply
Our president has stated, during the SOTU that he intends to, if the legislature defys him, "go it alone", and order the executive branch agencies to simply obey his lawless will.... as he has already done any number of times, and yet remains president.
We have a president that differs only in degree from the despots you speak of. degree is a matter of weeks.
Open your eyes man. we're off the cliff.
Reply
Firstly, the President has, as far as I know, so far only killed American citizens who were actively serving in the armed forces of a hostile Power, namely those who went over to the Terrorists. There is no requirement under either the US Constitution or the Laws of War to afford "due process" to persons in arms against one's country. No previous war has been fought under such a limitation, and I doubt that any war will ever be won under such a limitation, so I oppose any attempt to impose such a limitation upon America in this war.
If you disagree, can you tell me which wars were historically fought under such limitations, and who won them? For that matter, have you ever heard it seriously proposed to fight any war under such limitations, before the 2004 election campaign ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Do you really believe that they were just random Americans who happened to be Muslims, happened to be sympathetic to the Terrorists and happened to have gone missing and resurfaced in the Mideast in close association with known Al Qaeda leaders? I don't trust Obama, but I trust that sort of co-incidence even less.
Even if they *were*, they were still American citizens, subject to all the privileges and protections. They could be argued to have surrendered their citizenship, but that would involve due process of law, not a presidential decree.Dead wrong. It is a principle of international law dating back to the development of the field in the 17th century that when one enlists in an organization levying war against a sovereign state, that state has the right to kill you. This has been how every other war in American and in fact Western ( ... )
Reply
ON THE BATTLEFIELD! NOT by assassination! those are EXTREMELY different things.
"Their organization had expanded the "battlefield" to include the whole world including the territories of all other Powers."
Really Jordan? Really?
Reply
Really Jordan? Really?
Yes. Really. That's the strategy Al Qaeda and its state sponsors really chose. There are various possible responses -- my favorite would be knocking down the state sponsors one by one, and being willing to hit a country that then tried to get up and keep fighting again and again until it was simply a stretch of ground rather than a people or culture -- but ignoring it doesn't make it go away.
The term here is not "assassination." It is "sniping." It's still "sniping" whether you do it with rifles or with Hellfire ATGM's.
Reply
Assasination is when you prepare a dossier on an individual, find out where they are, and prepare an operation specifically to kill that individual.
Very different animals those.
Reply
Reply
Now, if you want to take out the regimes backing Al Qaeda and similar groups, that's another matter. Then seizing territory is not irrelevant, since you now have territorial goals. But Obama gave up on that when he took office.
Reply
First, there's the option to submit the names of the *4* (so we're not talking about a major judicial ordeal here) individuals that have been murdered, along with the evidence of their having taken up arms to a court of law. Upon such a finding, their citizenship is therefore revoked, and they become foreign members of a hostile military. Fair game.
OR, you could track them for a time, wait for them to meet other AQ members, and say "We have a meeting of the enemy, it's a fair target, and the American is just highly welcome collateral damage".
OR, you could issue a "capture or kill" order at the presidential level, and let the operatives in the field make the decision as to which it would be (still fair game).
What is NOT okay is "that american over there, go stick a gun up his nose and pull the trigger."
Reply
Leave a comment