Posted on 12/09/2011 7:04:01 PM PST by giotto
Edited on 12/10/2011 10:32:56 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Santayana defined fanaticism as redoubling your effort while losing sight of your goal. America’s recent discussions about the war on terror would give him few grounds to change his view.
Several GOP presidential candidates have said they would support bringing back waterboarding, a practice the U.S. prosecuted as a war crime after WWII. Apparently it’s only torture when the other side does it.
Last week the Senate was consumed with debate over a defense bill. Among its provisions: an amendment by New Hampshire Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte to nullify an executive order banning torture. Another proposal: allowing U.S. citizens captured on U.S. soil to be held indefinitely without charge by the U.S. military. (An amendment to strike that language from the bill failed, despite the commendable support of Virginia Sens. Mark Warner and Jim Webb.) Yet another provision would require civilian authorities to hand over terrorism suspects to the military.
Supporters of the detention provision noted language stipulating that the “requirement” to detain a person in military custody “does not extend to citizens in the United States.” But as critics of the measure noted, there is a difference between what is required and what is allowed. The bill “does not preclude U.S. citizens from being detained indefinitely,” according to Rep. Justin Amash. Sen. Lindsey Graham put it more bluntly: the bill declares “that the homeland is part of the battlefield” and those suspected of terrorism can be held indefinitely without charge, “American citizen or not.”
Excerpt, read more at Reason.com
constitution bump for later..........
New Orleans was a failure of the state and city governments. George Bush had pre-authorized any requested help by the state governor and city mayor.
Unfortunately neither requested any help.
http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm
Just an analysis of the presidetial warpowers. If you read the document, you’ll find a part where it says that the president basically has unlimited authority to defend the country.
What does that mean? "...every US citizen..." IS the country. "They" exist, in theory, only to defend the right of those citizens to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Did you think the "country" means the federal government?
I meant the feds.
Unlimited means without limit.
This does mean that it’s both focused inward and outward.
Any person that thinks waterboarding is a war crime is not worth listening to.
The fed is at all times (supposed to be) limited by that enabling document, the Constitution. That is their authorization to act on out behalf.
If you have a problem with presidential warpowers, don’t tell me about it. The Forefathers set up the document, not me.
All it says is that for the defense of the country, the president has unlimited power. It doesn’t say unlimited, in an outward direction but very limited in an inward direction. It just says unlimited.
I think you can figure out what that means.
Well, A.Barton Hincle, I know what the A stands for.
What "presidential warpowers" exactly do you refer to?
Later on other ancestors returned as a conquering army to burn the place to the ground.
Such are the usages of war.
What a lot of folks forget is that we are in a state of war with foreign barbarians and savages. They have friends in America who also deserve to die.
So you’re citing justice.gov as an authority for emergency war powers. How about citing the constitution?
wouldn’t ususally waste time on this. but it is sad to see writing that screams of a person who can neither properly read or reason, holding forth on the genius of our founders.
where this person’s misunderstanding (giving the benefit of the doubt) is rooted includes failures to understand what a battlefield is, what a commander is, and what our founders defined as the separation of a hierachy of derived and implied powers is in the constitution (as established by our founders).
the problem is partially the statist smokescreen and the living and breathing standards wickedly applied by statists bent on the constitution’s destruction. perhaps a course in logic and a careful rereading is in order for this writer.
Speak for yourself.
This guy who is upset at Muslim terrorists being held for the duration who may be technically citizens (born in the US but not loyal to it) probably thinks it was fine for Lincoln to imprison US citizens for the duration for defending their homes. (Of course the men Lincoln imprisoned did not regard themselves as citizens of the United States—but he did.)
uh, excuse me, but this is called a *comment*, i.e., personal judgement based on fact, reason or opinion on the content of a posted article. i believe that is one of the purposes of FR. and i always speak for myself. but good luck to you.
Oh the truth. And here we are following the sames cycle as always in the election process as well. Conservatives start out with “I’ll Never vote for him”. But in the end they are attacking anyone who won’t. It is so predictable that I even told friends it would happen, and it did. And it will get much worse. The same cycle of human ignorance and stupidity that I have watched over and over these past 13 years.
There is the old saying about fooling me once....Twice....But you could fool most (so called) conservatives a thousand times it seems, and they still would not catch on. Human nature itself has rendered me with a feeling of hopelessness for the future. The brilliant people of the past no longer exist.
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.