Posted on 11/18/2001 1:30:37 PM PST by It'salmosttolate
No, I am accusing those that completely fail to understand what it means, not to mention your failure to grasp the difference between a foreign national operating in this country as a combatant without uniform in an “army” that we are at war with and a common domestic criminal, of using overheated rhetoric.
Trials for the Enemy by the New York Post.
And don't forget the anti-psychotics! Sounds like folks are gonna need 'em!
There is no declaration of war. This is a WAR ON Terrorism. You have a problem with that talk to Congress.
"The Joint Resolution gave him those powers and he is using them."
The joint resolution did not give him the powers of Congress.
"Do you want a law to be passed that make the tribunals permanent?"
That is the job of Congress. That was not for the President to decide.
" Bush can cancel that EO at any time."
He can keep it too.
"I wish the Patriot Act had been implemented the same way."
Stroke of the pen law of the land was not good for other Presidents and its not good now.
"The PA is now a permanent law that will never be repealed."
I have just been on another thread with you and you just said Yes the Patriot Act was a good thing. Now you say it should have not be permanent but should have an EO by Bush. You need to READ the constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Patriot Act.
It is clear from your opinions expressed on this forum that you do not care what anyone says. Your partisanship, disregard for the constitution, and anything goes for Bush because the end justifies the means is getting old and makes you look like nothing more than a government shill.
Go back to that thread and read my last response. As to the other portions of your reply you are using semantics to make a point I don't play semantic games. The Congress gave Bush full War powers as CIC under the joint resolution the constitutional requirements have been met. You don't like it but that is the fact.
Look, I don't know you and I don't want to insult you - but I've got two issues with this. One, George W. Bush was indeed joking when he made the remark you refer to in quotation marks above. You know that. To take it out of context, put it in print, and try to lead people to believe that he was serious is beyond irresponsible. I don't know what kind of person you are, of course, but it seems to me rather deceitful that someone would knowingly mislead people regarding something the President said.
Two, I think if you're going to quote a "Bush Advisor", you should provide context and sources for your quotes, since you have proven yourself unworthy of trust by quoting the President out of context.
Look, jr. says a LOT of stupid things, but many of us don't appreciate HIS humor. Must teach it in the S&B Society.
I think you know, also, that President Bush is not a "jr."; this, of course, serves as an indication of where you're coming from. (I will take that into consideration.) Here, you admit that you understand it was indeed a joke, albeit one you did not appreciate - so why try to make it sound like the comment was to be taken at face value? I see, also, that you're terribly worried about the Skull and Bones thing. I guess it fits.
No you go back and read the thread. Your last response to someone else was the complete opposit of what you had been arguing in your replys to me.
"As to the other portions of your reply you are using semantics to make a point I don't play semantic games."
I did not use sematics with you. It is the constitution I refer to.
"The Congress gave Bush full War powers as CIC under the joint resolution the constitutional requirements have been met."
No they have not. Whatever semantics you want to use does not change that fact. Congress did not declare war.
"You don't like it but that is the fact."
The fact is Congress and the President are not following the constitution.
No you use the word constitution as some sort of justification for your total lack of understanding of the document. The Congress is the ONLY branch of government empowered to declare war, however the constitution is silent on how they must do it. No one in either the executive or, other than a few nut-cases, in congress and their equally ignorant fellow travelers in the population are claiming this is any thing other than a WAR.
I disagree with a couple of your premises. I don't think George Bush has a cynical bone in his body. Also, there is little here that is unprecedented. Wasn't WWII our last "declared" war?
We're in a situation where we (at least I) won't get too bogged down on principle. Perhaps this is because I AM somewhat cynical. I don't think you will get any congress to "declare" war. That may be one of those anachronisms that IS a casualty of the modern era.
Sorry, I don't think conservatives can afford the luxury of that principle. If we do, we have to say since we can't seem to be able to delare war, perhaps we shouldn't fight it. Although from a different angle, that seems clintonesque.
Whether the war is declared or not, these terrorist cells had better be eradicated with as extreme a prejudice as can me mustered, or we'll be having this argument when the bad guys have all the advantages. We can't wait for that.
I wouldn't mind living to see the Constitution (all of it) become the supreme law of the land once again. In the meantime, I'd like to see us retain a land in which to have this discussion. They say that war is the BEST friend of the state. Unfortunately, that is likely true. There still aren't any prizes in being runner-up.
You kust keep proving you dont know the constitution very well.
"The Congress is the ONLY branch of government empowered to declare war, however the constitution is silent on how they must do it."
LOL What is so silent about "Congress shall have power to declare war? You need to read Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution.
"No one in either the executive or, other than a few nut-cases, in congress and their equally ignorant fellow travelers in the population are claiming this is any thing other than a WAR."
ROTFL Why would they? They are the ones gaining power and setting the precident for people like Bill Clinton.
Is Ron Paul a nutcase? I guess by your standards the founding fathers were nut cases.
Yes.
JOINT RESOLUTION Declaring that a state of war exists between the Imperial Government of Japan and the Government and the people of the United States and making provisions to prosecute the same.
Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.
Approved, December 8, 1941, 4:10 p.m. E.S.T.
| Here is the joint resolution authorizing the use of force against terrorists adopted unanimously on Sept. 14 by the Senate and by a 420-1 vote in the House |
| To authorize the use of United States armed forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States. WHEREAS, on Sept. 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and WHEREAS, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad, and WHEREAS, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence, and WHEREAS, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, WHEREAS the president has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States. RESOLVED by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Section 1. Short Title This joint resolution may be cited as the “Authorization for Use of Military Force” Section 2. Authorization for Use of United States Armed Forces (a) That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. (b) War Powers Resolution Requirements (1) Specific Statutory Authorization — Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. (2) Applicability of Other Requirements — Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution. |
In what way do you think I protest too much? Are you implying that I'm a terrorist?
Under that definition, Congress and the President are definitely off the hook, along with their cheerledaers here. The rest of us seem to be fair game, don't we?
Allow me, I see you as a person that real deep down is saying that "yeah I can dig it. Anyone that hits the man where it hurts is ok by me". You obviously would NEVER commit a terrorist act but you have a real "understanding" of why this government could drive someone to do so.
And they haven't ruled he can't. You are in a fit of circular reasoning and can't break out.
Exactly. But don't expect the chicken littles, mainly those who have always despised Bush, to listen.
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.