Posted on 06/09/2009 10:38:19 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
And exactly which law is it that grants constitutional rights to terrorists who may be shot on sight under the Geneva Convention and aren't even Americans, or on American soil.
How did that come to pass?
Moreover, waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation techniques", while they might be unpleasant as hell, shouldn't be confused with torture.
We wouldn't torture our own troops, now, would we?
Who decides? President Obama? Obama probably thinks you are a terrorist for visiting this site. You are far more trusting of politicians to make this distinction that I am.
Too right!! I did not mention that because it looks like over kill, but Bennet is still a casino kind of guy and he and NEWT will never be the soul of the republican party. Rush is insteresting as a speaker, but like Newt and Dennis Prager they are guys with so much baggage - despite their audience. Let them stick to the radio and lets find some serious polical leaders. People who are not ashamed to be conservative. ..Cantor and Palin are a good start.
He needs allies to take up his banner and rally around his simple but brilliant observation about the failure of the marxist crypto-muslim HUSSEIN BARAKAS socialist policies.
Of course, the President has the right to make that determination when it involves illegal combatants with whom we are at war. Why would he not; he is the Commander-in-Chief.
So far as Obama thinking we on this site are terrorists, Congress has not declared war on FreeRepublic. Not yet, anyway.
And I assure you that liberals will have no difficulty finding some kind of trumped-up legal reason to oppress whomever they choose. They'll do what they want, when they want, so long as the courts, the Congress and we let them.
Let's not confuse the legal exercise of power with the illegal abuse of power.
Dennis Prager is really a liberal at heart, of a Hubert Humphrey- Robert Kennedy sort. Big on Civil Rights legislation and other do-gooder big government junk. He used to identify himself as a liberal, but as he developed a popular following among conservatives he stopped making the distinction. Dennis is okay as liberals go, much in the way of Michael Dukakis’ speechwriter, Charles Krauthammer.
Bill Bennett was still a registered Democrat when his neoconservative pals attacked Mel Bradford in order to scuttle Bradford’s appointment to the National Endowment for the Humanities, and to secure the job for Bennett. To those who witnessed the affair it was an early warning of Bennett’s character, and of the neoconservative willingness to attack conservatives in order to advance themselves.
Rush might make a doubtful leader of the Republican Party- he first registered to vote when he was 37 years old, meaning that he twice failed to vote for Reagan. Not exactly what you’d expect from a fan of politics, or conservatism for that matter. But Rush is a genius at his chosen profession of radio host, and he is a sometime waterboy for Republicans- waterboy being his own description of what he was doing for Dubya. But he’s not particularly knowledgeable about economics or political history- in contrast I suspect he’d be able to speak accurately and with exhaustive knowledge about the NFL and professional golf.
As for who is going to lead either the Republican or the conservative movement, I have no idea. In California I’m merely looking for someone who realizes that America isn’t Mexico’s welfare office and is willing to do something about it.
Congress has not declared war on anyone since 1941 but that never stopped the executive branch (now headed by the man you want to empower, Obama) from attacking individual liberty and shredding legal rights.
Re-read your Constitution. In a declaration of belligerency, it does not require Congress to use the precise words: "Declaration of War".
Both the Iraq War Resolution and the Authorization For The Use of Military Force (War on Terror) are declarations of war in their effect -- whether you personally agree with them or not.
It is a hopeless open-ended, perpetual, and subjective concept (something the founders disdained) which puts absxolutely no check no the president. As I said, Obama may well consider you a "terrorist" for even visiting this site.
Again, why do you put such trust in Obama to decide such details.
Let me repeat, slowly this time:
The...Iraq...War...Resolution...and...The...Authorization... For...The...Use...Of...Military...Force...are...fully... functional...as..."Declarations of War". There is no requirement in the Constitution to use the term "declaration of war" when declaring a state of belligerency.
For further edification, see Barbary Pirates.
Terror is a strategy, not a nation of entity.
So what nation would you have had them direct the Authorization For The Use Of Military Force against? Are we not, in fact, making war against those who employ "terror as a strategy" -- regardless of where they might be located?
You can argue about whether there might have been a better term -- but it wouldn't be a particular nation, would it?
Again, why do you put such trust in Obama to decide such details.
First, you should know better than to insult me with a misrepresentation like that. Second, it should be clear to us all now that Leftists don't need a precedent nor a statute in place in order to abuse it. They'll simply make it up, if they have to.
The only way we, as a nation, can protect ourselves from such abuse as power is to elect Presidents who respect the country and its Constitution. It's not any of Bush's framework that is empowering Obama, it's the MSM, his majority vote, his majority party and his overweening ego.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.