Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ron Paul stands up for Julian Assange
Politico ^ | 12/3/10 12:56 PM EST | ANDY BARR

Posted on 12/03/2010 1:30:26 PM PST by lormand

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) is taking a stand as one of Julian Assange’s few defenders in Washington, arguing that the WikiLeaks founder should get the same protections as the media.

Attorney General Eric Holder said this week that the Justice Department is examining whether Assange can be charged with a crime for posting hundreds of thousands of leaked government intelligence documents and diplomatic cables.

Many Republicans have gone even further in their attacks on Assange, especially former Arkansas GOP Gov. Mike Huckabee, who said this week that the source who leaked to the WikiLeaks founder should be tried for treason and executed if found guilty.

But in a Thursday interview with Fox Business, Paul said the idea of prosecuting Assange crosses the line.

“In a free society we're supposed to know the truth,” Paul said. “In a society where truth becomes treason, then we're in big trouble. And now, people who are revealing the truth are getting into trouble for it.”

“This whole notion that Assange, who's an Australian, that we want to prosecute him for treason. I mean, aren't they jumping to a wild conclusion?” he added. “This is media, isn't it? I mean, why don't we prosecute The New York Times or anybody that releases this?”

Paul followed up with a post to his Twitter account Friday morning: "Re: WikiLeaks — In a free society, we are supposed to know the truth. In a society where truth becomes treason, we are in big trouble."


TOPICS: Astronomy; UFO's
KEYWORDS: 911truthers; drpaul; fulltimeapologists; julianassange; lunatic; patbuchanan; ronpaul; skinheadsonfr; texas; wikileaks
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-102 next last
I'm ever so ashamed that this @ssclown is from Texas
1 posted on 12/03/2010 1:30:33 PM PST by lormand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: lormand

I’ve got to admit that I’m liking the reports I’m reading of what’s being released by Wikileaks.


2 posted on 12/03/2010 1:32:04 PM PST by The KG9 Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lormand

He’s got a point, but the soldier that stole the information should be tried and executed.

Asswang should just “disappear”.


3 posted on 12/03/2010 1:33:11 PM PST by Bryanw92 (Obama is like a rocket scientist....who's trying to do brain surgery with a hammer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lormand
Well he makes more sense on the subject than Hucakbee at least.

An Australian can commit treason against Australia. I am unsure if an Australian can even commit treason against America. It sure doesn't fit the dictionary definition.

Treason
noun
1. the offense of acting to overthrow one’s government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2. a violation of allegiance to one’s sovereign or to one’s state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

4 posted on 12/03/2010 1:33:25 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lormand

He’s right about one thing: you can’t try an Australian for treason in America... maybe in Australia.


5 posted on 12/03/2010 1:33:37 PM PST by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lormand
I believe the should go after the new papers also!
6 posted on 12/03/2010 1:33:37 PM PST by factmart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lormand
In a free society, we are supposed to know the truth. In a society where truth becomes treason, we are in big trouble.

We are at war, assclown! Cripes, every time I think Ron Paul makes some sense, he says something so mind-numbingly stupid.

7 posted on 12/03/2010 1:33:50 PM PST by GOP_Party_Animal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lormand
I have yet to hear anything from these leaked documents that we weren't already aware of or already suspected. Much of it is gossip.

I even wonder if all this is to keep Hillary from running in 2012.

When Bush allowed Sandy Burglar to get away with stolen documents, I got a lot more upset. This is libertarian posturing, which is not to be taken too seriously. Libertarians are often effete.

8 posted on 12/03/2010 1:34:32 PM PST by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lormand

I belive they should go after the new papers also!


9 posted on 12/03/2010 1:35:24 PM PST by factmart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: samtheman

The point is that he always defends those who attack America.


10 posted on 12/03/2010 1:35:35 PM PST by lormand (A Government who robs Peter to pay Paul, will always have the support of Paul)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: lormand

Whether the leaked info contains beneficial or malicious material is irrelavent. It is classified material that should never see the light of day.
Assange needs to be punished for espionage, and with the normal punishment for espionage.


11 posted on 12/03/2010 1:35:48 PM PST by BuffaloJack (The Recession is officially over. We are now into Obama's Depression.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The KG9 Kid
The only report I want to hear about is the one that happens when a firing squad takes out this punk.

The "diplomatic cable" system has to be protected even at the expense of some lives. The alternatives are far more expensive and intrusive.

12 posted on 12/03/2010 1:39:22 PM PST by muawiyah (GIT OUT THE WAY ~ REPUBLICANS COMIN' THROUGH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: lormand; The KG9 Kid

“This is media, isn’t it? I mean, why don’t we prosecute The New York Times or anybody that releases this?”

Got to love this statement.

There’s nothing coming out of these *leaks* that seems anywhere near being treasonous. Although some would like you to think so.


13 posted on 12/03/2010 1:42:19 PM PST by wolfcreek (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lsd7DGqVSIc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
I even wonder if all this is to keep Hillary from running in 2012.

It is.

14 posted on 12/03/2010 1:44:02 PM PST by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
By punk you mean both Assange and Manning right? Both need swift justice.

Here's a novel idea, segment your database, put strict limits on those who use it, only allow normal people access, i.e., patriotic people with normal lifestyles.

If we see any military personel dancing to Lady Gaga, shoot them too.

15 posted on 12/03/2010 1:44:07 PM PST by lormand (A Government who robs Peter to pay Paul, will always have the support of Paul)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
There are wireless encryptions that would be more secure than cables.
16 posted on 12/03/2010 1:46:00 PM PST by wolfcreek (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lsd7DGqVSIc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: wolfcreek
I'm not pressing the "treason" argument, I'm just pointing out how quick Ron Paul is to defend scumbags...like he did regarding the Islamists after 911.

If you hate America, Ron Paul will be there to defend you.

17 posted on 12/03/2010 1:46:30 PM PST by lormand (A Government who robs Peter to pay Paul, will always have the support of Paul)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: lormand

Howling mad.


18 posted on 12/03/2010 1:48:00 PM PST by Deb (Beat him, strip him and bring him to my tent!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lormand

Treason for manning, Espionage for Asswipe, and one more rope for RON PAUL just for being an EFFING KOOK!


19 posted on 12/03/2010 1:48:16 PM PST by gwilhelm56 (OFFICER... when the TSA agent regains Consciousness.. Arrest him for Sexual Assault!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuffaloJack
It is classified material that should never see the light of day.

If everything is classified then we are a nation of slaves, dumb and happy. Is that what we want. There are materials that have to be classified but it should be directly related to our nation security.

20 posted on 12/03/2010 1:49:50 PM PST by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: gwilhelm56

Until we “man-up” and start prosecuting people for treason (think Johnny Lind Walker and Jane Fonda and this Manning freak), we will always be playing on defensive. My beloved country.


21 posted on 12/03/2010 1:52:45 PM PST by miss marmelstein
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Bryanw92
Asswang should just “disappear”.

And who did we disappear for the Pentagon Papers fiasco? We decided not to kill anybody then, and there was a US citizen involved who had committed treason.

Let's not go overboard here. Assange just printed in a foreign publication stuff handed to him. He broke no laws there, and isn't subject to our laws.

And it's beyond silly to think that this was the first time this info leaked, it was only the first leak of this stuff that got to the US Public. He's done us a favor in showing the incompetence of whoever has been in charge of security for the last few years.

3.5 million folks have had access to this info. Do you really thing that folks in Bejing or Moscow haven't been reading these papers and laughing at us for years?

Just because we (the American public) are the last to know this is no reason to kill the messenger.

22 posted on 12/03/2010 1:54:21 PM PST by slowhandluke (It's hard to be cynical enough in this age.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Logical me
"If everything is classified then we are a nation of slaves, dumb and happy."

Really? Is that what this is about, "everything"? That's a pretty broad statement.

We're talking about documents that reflect confidential discussions between American foreign service officers, their subordinates and superiors as well as their conversations with their foreign colleagues to include leaders of foreign countries.

You can't see ANY possible reason why these conversations should stay out of the public domain?

23 posted on 12/03/2010 1:55:15 PM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: lormand

Huck is an idiot. One cannot commit treason except against your own country. For instance, it is impossible for me to commit treason against Canada.

Espionage, absolutely. AS I understand this crime carries a potential death penalty, that’s good enough for me.

I see no reason why Wikileaks should not be considered a member of the press or why it should be any more subject to prosecution than the NYT or other media that publish this stuff. I am very uncomfortable with somebody deciding who is and is not a journalist.


24 posted on 12/03/2010 1:55:48 PM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lormand

He’s not being investigated for treason ... he’s being investigated for espionage.

SnakeDoc


25 posted on 12/03/2010 1:56:46 PM PST by SnakeDoctor ("They made it evident to every man [...] that human beings are many, but men are few." -- Herodotus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lormand

The Pentagon Papers, officially titled United States–Vietnam Relations, 1945–1967: A Study Prepared by the Department of Defense, was a top-secret United States Department of Defense history of the United States’ political-military involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967.

The papers were first brought to the attention of the public on the front page of the New York Times in 1971. A 1996 article in the New York Times said that the Pentagon Papers “demonstrated, among other things, that the Johnson Administration had systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress, about a subject of transcendent national interest and significance”.

Justice Black is often regarded as a leading defender of First Amendment rights such as the freedom of speech and of the press. He refused to accept the doctrine that the freedom of speech could be curtailed on national security grounds. Thus, in New York Times Co. v. United States (1971), he voted to allow newspapers to publish the Pentagon Papers despite the Nixon Administration’s contention that publication would have security implications. In his concurring opinion, Black stated,

In the First Amendment the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government’s power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. […] The word ‘security’ is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment.
—New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 714 (1971)


26 posted on 12/03/2010 1:58:12 PM PST by KDD (When the government boot is on your neck, it matters not whether it is the right boot or the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lormand

The old crank ought to have first had a conversation with Ann Coulter before he shot off his mouth, but typically he’s stuck in attention whore mode.

I hope he’s ignored by Fox News Channel. I hope, I hope, I hope.


27 posted on 12/03/2010 1:58:45 PM PST by onyx (If you truly support Sarah Palin and want on her busy ping list, let me know!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: slowhandluke
"He's done us a favor in showing the incompetence of whoever has been in charge of security for the last few years."

Apologies to Imperial Japan. They were doing us a favor by showing our vulnerabilities.

28 posted on 12/03/2010 1:59:33 PM PST by lormand (A Government who robs Peter to pay Paul, will always have the support of Paul)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: lormand
Both need swift justice.

Manning yes. But before you get to Assange, there's a huge list of folks in our 'security' establishment that needed to be punished for incompetence and/or malfeasance.

Letting 3.5 million folks have access to this stuff was beyond stupid. It's like removing the compartmentalization of information at our nuke labs and letting the secrets walk out the door. It's so stupid to do this that it suggests intent.

This low level stuff is mostly embarrassing, but it's likely the same ideas were implemented for the higher classifications, that is they were made available to a much wider audience than before. If so, we have much larger fish to find and fry than Mr Assange.

Mr Assange could have been the type to sell this to Moscow (though I'm betting they already had it). But he did the one thing that is likely to get the problem solved. He published it where everybody could see it.

29 posted on 12/03/2010 2:01:31 PM PST by slowhandluke (It's hard to be cynical enough in this age.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: wolfcreek

No doubt ~ and there are places in this world where we don’t have that access.


30 posted on 12/03/2010 2:01:54 PM PST by muawiyah (GIT OUT THE WAY ~ REPUBLICANS COMIN' THROUGH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SnakeDoctor
It is unlikely we can get him for espionage either. He didn't contract the flaming PFC to get that info. The flaming PFC contacted him after he stole it. So the most we can get him for is receiving stolen government property. We can hang Manning though. And we should. What he committed was treason.
31 posted on 12/03/2010 2:02:41 PM PST by ex 98C MI Dude (Alea Iacta Est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
"I see no reason why Wikileaks should not be considered a member of the press or why it should be any more subject to prosecution than the NYT or other media that publish this stuff. I am very uncomfortable with somebody deciding who is and is not a journalist."

It's about conspiracy, not press freedom. Yes, we should strongly protect the press's right to publish virtually whatever it wants. That's not in question.

What is in question is can the press continue to be the "press" when it conspires with others to break US law? Assange is alleged to have been in contact with Manning (either directly or through intermediaries), BEFORE any of the data breaches occurred. And it's possible that Assange or his colleagues provided material support to Manning in his criminal act. IOW, he was an accomplice before an after the fact.

That is wholly different from the NY Times recieving anonymous classified materials in the mail, and then publishing them. Or, speaking whistleblowers who may then disclose information that they did not come to learn of by theft. Manning stole these documents (allegedly) and Assange very well may have helped him.

Just like the attorney-client privilege doesn't shield lawyers from criminal conspiracy charges if they knowingly engage in criminal activity with a client, the reporter-shield law shouldn't inoculate the press when they knowingly engage in criminal activity.

32 posted on 12/03/2010 2:02:49 PM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: The KG9 Kid

“Huckabee, who said this week that the source who leaked to the WikiLeaks founder should be tried for treason and executed if found guilty. “

Huck is a DOLT.

I stand with Ron.


33 posted on 12/03/2010 2:03:52 PM PST by misanthrope (Liberals just plain suck!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BuffaloJack

You (and Lieberman etal) might be better served to direct your attention to the people who leaked to Assange.

Without those names we do not know the motivation of the leakers. Given that Hillary is Secretary of State and may be considering a primary challenge against her party’s incumbent President it is entirely possible that the White House itself is responsible for the leaks. Or—maybe it is a Clinton move. Dirty tricks is their trademark.

Or—maybe both of them!


34 posted on 12/03/2010 2:05:06 PM PST by cgbg (No bailouts for New York and California. Let them eat debt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: slowhandluke

Your post is far too rational for this thread.


35 posted on 12/03/2010 2:07:15 PM PST by achilles2000 ("I'll agree to save the whales as long as we can deport the liberals")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: The KG9 Kid

Some of the stuff is good but the leaks about the US military were bad.

Also this is soros/O punking Hillary and Bill. Hussein will have no primary challenger.


36 posted on 12/03/2010 2:08:02 PM PST by Frantzie (Imam Ob*m* & Democrats support the VICTORY MOSQUE & TV supports Imam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: misanthrope
"I stand with Ron."

You stand next to a Blame America moron and friend of Truthers.

I don't stand by either Huck or Paul. Both are camera whores, but Stevie Wonder can even see that Ron Paul is a certifiable kook.

37 posted on 12/03/2010 2:08:15 PM PST by lormand (A Government who robs Peter to pay Paul, will always have the support of Paul)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: lormand
, arguing that the WikiLeaks founder should get the same protections as the media.

The NY Times and Washington Post have done far more in revealing state secrets. He has a point.

38 posted on 12/03/2010 2:09:08 PM PST by LoneRangerMassachusetts (The meek shall not inherit the Earth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lormand

Only yesterday Ron Paul stood up for Charlie Rangel.

Keeping his reputation for nutjob-iness intact.


39 posted on 12/03/2010 2:09:21 PM PST by Carley (ISRAEL.......NOT SO ALONE!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein

You have a usurper who gained power in a coup in 2008 thanks to a fall guy on our side and Soros. As long as he is in power - things will only get worse.


40 posted on 12/03/2010 2:09:40 PM PST by Frantzie (Imam Ob*m* & Democrats support the VICTORY MOSQUE & TV supports Imam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: lormand
Apologies to Imperial Japan. They were doing us a favor by showing our vulnerabilities.

Comparing an info dump of embarrassing material to a murderous attack in peace time? That's a stretch.

You'd have a better argument if you compared it to the putative Chinese missile launched off the California shore.

The question is whether the warning implicit in the Assange data dump is early enough for us to shut the barn door before all the horses are out. Let's hope so. We'd be in more trouble if the leaks continued, but no Assange happened to tell us.

The problem with the missile launch is that it's probably intended to tell us that the barn is empty.

41 posted on 12/03/2010 2:10:07 PM PST by slowhandluke (It's hard to be cynical enough in this age.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

I certainly agree with all that, and was unaware there were claims he conspired to acquire the information.

I presume you are aware that a great deal of “investigative journalism” conspires to break various laws all the time, certainly after the fact of the crime if not before. Fraud, theft, etc. In fact, without the law breaking it would be real difficult to do investigative journalism.

The way it often works is: “whistle-blower” who works for corporation contacts member of press, tells what he has got, journalist works with him to figure out what information will work best. WB trots off and steals the relevant data, provides it to journalist who publishes it. Sounds like conspiracy and accessory before and after the fact to me, and except for the national security connection exactly what Wikileaks is accused of.


42 posted on 12/03/2010 2:11:00 PM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: slowhandluke
"You'd have a better argument if you compared it to the putative Chinese missile launched off the California shore."

Where's the proof of a Chinese missle launch off of California? It may be plausible, but so is a jet contrail until we know for sure.

Ron Paul loves to talk with Alex Jones. It is the Paul/Jones types who are quick to conclude things which are not provable. I hope you are not one of them.

Lets hope that your argument is correct, which is that it cannot be compared to Pearl Harbor. It's way early.

43 posted on 12/03/2010 2:15:47 PM PST by lormand (A Government who robs Peter to pay Paul, will always have the support of Paul)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: lormand; slowhandluke
“Apologies to Imperial Japan. They were doing us a favor by showing our vulnerabilities.”

In this instance, that could be a bad analogy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor_advance-knowledge_debate

IMO, the worst reactions from these leaks are coming from people who always dismiss conspiracy theories. Now that things are coming to light, it just blows their minds.

44 posted on 12/03/2010 2:19:44 PM PST by wolfcreek (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lsd7DGqVSIc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
"I presume you are aware that a great deal of “investigative journalism” conspires to break various laws all the time, certainly after the fact of the crime if not before. "

But, they have to operate within legal boundaries, as Food Lion Incorporated v. Capital Cities/abc Inc 194 F. 3d 505, demonstrates. These investigative stories don't come without some legal peril for the journalists doing them. Criminal prosecutions are probably rare, if only because of mens rea.

"WB trots off and steals the relevant data, provides it to journalist who publishes it. Sounds like conspiracy and accessory before and after the fact to me, and except for the national security connection exactly what Wikileaks is accused of."

This really isn't my area of practice, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that there may have been prosecutions (or at least indictments) in just this kind of case. I'd guess though most prosecutors would exercise more cautious discretion in bringing such a case.

It is the national security element that makes this so much different. Quite literally, the stakes are so much higher.

45 posted on 12/03/2010 2:19:59 PM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ex 98C MI Dude

I’m not sure the espionage case is quite that clear-cut. Assange runs a website that expressly solicits Americans with high clearance to steal and transmit classified information into their hands. That sounds like espionage to me.

Whether they requested this specific information beforehand doesn’t seem relevant when they have issued a general request for any and all classified information.

SnakeDoc


46 posted on 12/03/2010 2:21:50 PM PST by SnakeDoctor ("They made it evident to every man [...] that human beings are many, but men are few." -- Herodotus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
Obviously you did not read what I posted. Why don't you go back and check if I did not say:

There are materials that have to be classified but it should be directly related to our nation security.

National security covers many things. Need I spell out everything so you could understand.

47 posted on 12/03/2010 2:22:12 PM PST by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

I should have added, that if it turns out that Assange was just sitting in his office, and these materials plopped on his desk (or his computer inbox), then he has virtually no criminal exposure here. New York Times Co. v. United States absolutely guarantees this.


48 posted on 12/03/2010 2:22:40 PM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: lormand
"Ron Paul is the ONLY person WHO EVER LIVED who really truly understands The Constitution."

--FR's once vocal but dwindling core of RonPaulBots

49 posted on 12/03/2010 2:23:11 PM PST by Artemis Webb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein

Wrong set of people:
1 - The President,
2 - The Congress,
3 - The Supreme Court.

Here’s why:

The President because of the whole fiasco concerning LTC Lankin [ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2635498/posts ].
By subjecting the LTC to a Courts Martial, which is authorized/enacted by an executive order on the Manual for Court Martials, for questioning the legitimacy of orders is precisely that of allowing Obama to declare his own legitimacy and under that legitimacy subject him to trial. (i.e. it is, in effect, allowing Obama to be judge/jury in his own cause.)

Further, the ineligibility of Obama to be President would, if true, could render ALL foreign military actions/engagements to be illegitimate which, in turn, expose the soldiers overseas to charges of violating international law ratified by the US by treaty.

The continued allowance of having a president of questionable eligibility is therefore giving aid to the enemies of America.

The congress because of their allowance of the above. For the enactment, and enforcement of the GCA of 1968; the disarming/restriction of firearms to the people ACTIVELY inhibits them from responding to external threats under no such restrictions (ex. AZ vs. Mexican Gangs). For the refusal to seal the borders [see art 4 sec 4 of the US Constitution].

The USSC for degrading the Constitution.
The USSC has declared itself to be superior to the Constitution, and in so doing it has weakened the authority of the Supreme law of the land.
Example, in 1798’s Calder v. Bull the Supreme Court declared that the restriction against Ex Post Facto law was applicable only to criminal law [or law which could be prosecuted criminally]. {The Congress uses that as justification to make ex post facto tax law; which they claim to be ‘administrative’ or ‘regulatory’.} Yet violations of ex post facto tax law are prosecuted in criminal court. {And it is thus that the Constitution is made of none effect; if the Constitution is of none effect then how is that NOT the active act of “aid and comfort” to the enemies of the country whose supreme law is the Constitution [that is, America]?}

The same sort of undermining can be seen in more recent USSC decisions; the 2005 case of Kelo v. New London for example. In that case the Supreme Court ruled that larceny was a-ok should it be done with the government approval that is ‘eminent domain.’ {The 5th Amendment REQUIRES that eminent domain be “for public use” but in Kelo’s case it was being used to turn the land over to a private developer for the construction of some private business building, IIRC.}


50 posted on 12/03/2010 2:25:49 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-102 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson