Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 12/26/2004 1:11:46 AM PST by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: JohnHuang2
Yet another travesty and gross hypocrisy. This thread is especially relevent in light of the one that delves into the actions of Scott Ritter and the active support, both financial and otherwise, from various individuals, including Jimmah Carter, in his Anti-American activities. This guy get a BCD and Ritter gets a pass with a reward. The thread is:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1308514/posts

2 posted on 12/26/2004 1:19:08 AM PST by drt1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: JohnHuang2
Judge Friedman wrote in his 35-page decision that trying to sort out whether the president had ceded too much authority to foreign military officers "would involve policy determinations beyond the competence of the court," the Sun reported.

Shouldn't he have recused himself if he is not competent to judge on the subject?

gitmo

5 posted on 12/26/2004 1:44:25 AM PST by gitmo (Thanks, Mel. I needed that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: JohnHuang2

An Executive Order seems to be in order here. (Stroke of the pen,,remember?)


6 posted on 12/26/2004 1:46:56 AM PST by Waco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: JohnHuang2
"We're disappointed," Daniel New said. "It's not printable what I want to say."

Ditto...

12 posted on 12/26/2004 5:37:12 AM PST by mewzilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: JohnHuang2

***Michael O'Hanlon, a military analyst at the Brookings Institution, contended the president's authority to defend America would be weakened if New prevailed.


"You'd be undercutting our ability to work with our allies. You'd also be weakening the power of the commander in chief of the United States," he said. ***

I'd like to know just HOW the above would be true.


18 posted on 12/26/2004 7:50:45 AM PST by kitkat (Merry CHRISTmas, everyone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: JohnHuang2; 2ndMostConservativeBrdMember; afraidfortherepublic; Alas; al_c; american colleen; ...
President Bush should encourage Congress to pass a law stating that our armed forces are to uphold the constitution of the United States and only the United states reporting only to the POTUS. 
 
Who would have ever thought that our armed forces are subjected to a world order NGO communist, pro-abortion organization and forced to wear their uniform parts.
 

USAID    UNESCO    UNFPA    UNICEF     UNEP    ICLEI    UN

 FTAA  LOST  GetUSOut  getusout.org  stoptheftaa

Oil-For-Food       Duelfer Report   Blood For Oil   Kojo  Michael New


22 posted on 12/26/2004 2:10:01 PM PST by Coleus (Keep Christ in Christmas, Christmas is part of our Western Civilization and is a US Holiday for ALL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: JohnHuang2
Judge Friedman wrote in his 35-page decision that trying to sort out whether the president had ceded too much authority to foreign military officers "would involve policy determinations beyond the competence of the court,"

Funny how Ginzy, and Sandra and Souter have such a 'jones' for international norms, but Friedman somehow can't decide if an American soldier should not be forced to don the uniform of some corrupt stateless entity?

27 posted on 12/26/2004 2:44:29 PM PST by sevry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: JohnHuang2; All

I think we are nearly unanimous in our opinion that US soldiers should never be under foreign control, or serve the flag of another nation, and CERTAINLY NOT the UN, but there is one final consideration to be taken into account.

Our troops undergo the best combat training in the world. They are highly motivated and dedicated warriors. To dress them up in baby blue hats (of FRENCH derivation, no less) is a supreme insult and demeans their status as the worlds most fearsome fighting force.

It's also unforgivably bad fashion sense.

/tic


33 posted on 12/27/2004 12:17:59 AM PST by shibumi ("In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit." - John Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: JohnHuang2

I know I am going to get flamed on this, but... It appears he knew what he was doing and was going against the direct orders of his superiors. He took the risk that he would be punished for his actions, and that is what happened. I am in full agreement with him, but at the same time, he was disobeying orders.


41 posted on 12/29/2004 6:23:55 AM PST by killjoy (My kid is the bomb at Islam Elementary!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

.


51 posted on 12/29/2004 8:00:43 AM PST by firewalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: JohnHuang2

Who appointed this particular judge?


58 posted on 12/29/2004 8:40:43 AM PST by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only donate monthly, but Kerry's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: JohnHuang2

Of all the appropriate adjectives being thrown around on this thread the most powerful one to describe this is "unconstitutional".


62 posted on 12/29/2004 8:48:16 AM PST by SiliconValleyGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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