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
Go read the Constitution for yourself and see what it says. Take your time. Feel free to move your lips while you do it. I hear that helps.
Then you will know what it says about the circumstances under which the Bill of Rights can be suspended.
The purpose of waterboarding is to simply trigger the anti-drowning reflex. The purpose of drowning is to kill someone.
If your intent is to acquire information, waterboarding is vastly superior to drowning.
With respect to the attack by the irredentists of the former Islamic Caliphate called "The Ottoman Empire", they declared war on us. Until they surrender and sue for a peace treaty we are at war with them.
The Constitution clearly establishes the fact that the President has an open ended right to repel invaders. "W" bothered getting an authorization to use force though.
Again unless you can come up with some Constitutionally prescribed piece of wording that says "Declaration of War" you will have to live with what the Constitution says on the matter.
Now, regarding peace, presumably the President can make a treaty with just about anybody ~ country or otherwise ~ and with 2/3 concurrence of the Senators present and voting, that becomes law.
In short, the President can stop fighting a war if and only if he has the concurrence of the Senate with a super majority. To that degree the Constitution has a clear BIAS toward continuing war ~ once engaged ~ which is something you should really think about. Not only do we give the President the authority to defend the nation once he starts doing that he's on the hook until a super majority in the Senate says he can stop taking those actions.
Currently that would include making war against any forces of any kind in any part of the Former Islamic Caliphate!
I believe the British soldiers who repelled the Boston rioters (pre-Revolution) were found innocent in a civilian court. The Founders no doubt didn’t want that sort of thing going on ~
Good post.
It’s tribal war baby and the best we can hope for is to annihilate the Leftists. If zero is re-elected, a coup d’état is the best option with merciless reprisals for the Leftists.
***Isn’t that advocating violence and sedition?
A ‘bloodless’ coup of course. Much as happened with the Soviet Union. And annihilation means political annihilation.
A coup is much preferable to a Leftist dictatorship. A Leftist dictatorship under obama is the worst of all worlds, and as it evolves, the tyranny will harden making violence by the state on the people more prevalent. Of course, people will resist and that would mean conflict, and yes, armed conflict against the government. The problem is that as these power shifts occur, the likelihood of restoring the republic diminishes because reprisals will be irresistible.
Nothing will stop the demon obama in a second term.
I hope you’re not a ‘citizen spy’ and you send this report to the central authorities. If you see something, say something.....
Live free or die, my friend?
And just because a few hijackers "declared war on us," as you put it, that doesn't constitute a declaration of war by our government. It has to be bilateral, and it has to be a formal declaration.
The Constitution clearly establishes the fact that the President has an open ended right to repel invaders
Repelling invaders is not the same as declaring war on the country they came from.
Ready to take on all others via a keyboard. That's how revolutions are won.
Me, I'll be going to work while they're all demanding their ridiculous claims. Would someone explain to me what the hands in front of their chests, fingers pointed down and they're wriggling them? That and the crossed arms in front of their chests. What does that mean?
Is it some nutcase DU sign language angainst The Man?
That's what happens to you when you read the Leftwingtard MSM ~ you fail to appreciate the scale of the attack and the identity of the attackers.
And Osama Bin Ladin's own claim was that he wanted to re-establish the Islamic Caliphate ~ they attacked us ~ they identified themselves ~ and that's who they are whether you want to believe it or not.
Now, what did I say ~ "irredentists of the Islamic Caliphate" ~ look that term up someday then we can talk.
WAR does not wait on formal declarations.
When the US government gets serious about fighting the "irredentists of the Islamic Caliphate," so will I. Until then, their War on Terror is just a con game.
I don’t believe you understand the situation. THEY ATTACKED US. The war is on until there’s a surrender and a treaty.
We also don't have a specific provision in the Constitution to allow us to OCCUPY a defeated foe until he agrees to that treaty but we do that anyway.
At the moment we are preparing to pull out of both Iraq and Afghanistan WITHOUT such a treaty being approved in the Senate.
Probably grounds for impeachment.
Why would you need a treaty to end a war that was never declared in the first place?
Once you do that you only have one way to quit ~ you need a treaty approved with a 2/3 majority.
Not at all. What Congress authorizes, it can un-authorize (and, in any case, the President doesn’t have to make use of the authorization in the first place, or continue to use it indefinitely).
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.