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

Skip to comments.

Serbs protesters attack UN police
The Associated Press ^ | February 22, 2008

Posted on 02/22/2008 8:31:36 AM PST by processing please hold

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-138 next last
To: FormerLib; wideawake
"But they aren't, instead they're being handed a province of Serbia where they'll have free reign to commit more such crimes."

Yea, it's almost the same as giving the Palistinians their own terror-tory.

Why, the idea!

Next thing you know, an American President will try to broker a "piece" over there at the expense of Israel.

Will wideawake and all the other "appeasers" please refrain from any further stupidity?

101 posted on 02/22/2008 10:45:18 AM PST by Designer (/rant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: processing please hold

Thank you very much.

My best regards.


102 posted on 02/22/2008 10:45:41 AM PST by Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
Here's how it stands as of Jan. '08

http://www.mikenew.com/

103 posted on 02/22/2008 10:46:34 AM PST by processing please hold ( "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)

You’re welcome. Regards to you as well.


104 posted on 02/22/2008 10:47:31 AM PST by processing please hold ( "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
3,000 of those Blue Helmets are US soldiers.

But they're under orders of the UN, so I doubt the Serbs are the least bit worried.

105 posted on 02/22/2008 10:48:04 AM PST by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: AuntB
"The Serbs at least have a reason to hate us.."

That you, AuntB?

Never though I'd see you writing anything of the sort.

106 posted on 02/22/2008 10:49:01 AM PST by Designer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: processing please hold
the president may not send American troops into possible combat under U.N. command without express authorization from Congress.

That's actually the opposite of what the Act says.

The attorneys also said that under the Constitution, no American soldier was obliged to answer to a military officer who was not appointed by the president and confirmed by the Congress.

Congress does not have a Constitutional prerogative of confirming military officers in their command.

The President, as Commander-In-Chief, and pursuant to the Act, may place US military personnel under any UN command - since all US military personnel are ultimately responsible to the President, who may withdraw them from UN action at any time.

forcing him to serve under an international army he never signed up with abridged the ex-soldier's rights against "involuntary servitude" under the 13th Amendment

When he volunteered for military service, the laws governing US participation in UN missions were in full effect. This is perhaps New's most laughable argument.

Their final claim was that American soldiers could not accept the U.N. caps and shoulder patches under a constitutional provision that prohibits federal officials from taking "emoluments" from a foreign government.

This is the second most laughable. A UN cover or shoulder patch is not an "emolument" any more than a US soldier in WWII eating in a British mess was receiving a foreign "emolument" in the form of beans and toast.

Did clinton get authorization from congress?

Indeed he did.

Before he was born.

BTW, what Constitutional arguments did New's attorneys make when he was convicted of stealing a doctor's prescription pads and forging prescriptions for narcotics?

Does the Constitution recognize special rights for junkies?

107 posted on 02/22/2008 10:59:56 AM PST by wideawake (Why is it that those who call themselves Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
But they're under orders of the UN, so I doubt the Serbs are the least bit worried.

If any Serbs breach the perimeter for which KFOR MNTF-E is responsible for security, they will wish they had worried a lot more.

108 posted on 02/22/2008 11:01:45 AM PST by wideawake (Why is it that those who call themselves Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: processing please hold

“Here’s how it stands as of Jan. ‘08 http://www.mikenew.com/";

Thank you again for your time.

“the US Supreme Court refused to touch it.”

It doesn’t sound good. Does he have any other recourse? It sounds pretty depressing.


109 posted on 02/22/2008 11:01:57 AM PST by Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: fire and forget

If you say so.


110 posted on 02/22/2008 11:14:36 AM PST by Constitution Day
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: FormerLib

Animals !


111 posted on 02/22/2008 11:22:48 AM PST by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Constitution Day

Be perfectly happy to learn I’m wrong.


112 posted on 02/22/2008 11:23:51 AM PST by fire and forget
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: fire and forget
I don't care who's right or wrong, but I will concede the position of the Serbs is the correct one.
However, I'll not condone anarchy in any form, or the destruction of a United States Embassy.

That is all.

113 posted on 02/22/2008 11:25:45 AM PST by Constitution Day
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Constitution Day

I respect your position. My point was merely that given the magnitude of the crime being committed, a bloodless attack on our embassy shrinks to insignificance. The Serbs are powerless to do what we would do if roles were reversed. It’s like the UN, with our troops ordered to participate, standing on the head of helpless Serbia while it’s being raped by Muslims. If they’re going to be involved, our guys should at least be deployed on the right side of the conflict.


114 posted on 02/22/2008 11:39:54 AM PST by fire and forget
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
If any Serbs breach the perimeter for which KFOR MNTF-E is responsible for security, they will wish they had worried a lot more.

If only the same could be said of the church-desecrating Jihadist mobs.

115 posted on 02/22/2008 11:44:16 AM PST by FormerLib (Sacrificing our land and our blood cannot buy protection from jihad.-Bishop Artemije of Kosovo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Asleep at the wheel—this should be make your day

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkgHkxIfgBc


116 posted on 02/22/2008 12:37:35 PM PST by eleni121 (+ En Touto Nika! By this sign conquer! + Constantine the Great)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
That's actually the opposite of what the Act says.

Then what exactly does the act say?

Congress does not have a Constitutional prerogative of confirming military officers in their command.

So you're saying that if the un force was commanded under Kim Jong Il, our soldiers would under obligation to follow his orders?

When he volunteered for military service, the laws governing US participation in UN missions were in full effect. This is perhaps New's most laughable argument.

Is that pointed out when they hand out the 'you joined the military' handbook. I wasn't aware of it but ignorance of the law is no excuse. I wonder how many soldiers aren't aware of that?

I think I understand you now. You defend jihadist bullies, you support the un, you support American soldiers taking orders from non US military leaders. Is that all? Are you an American or are you posting from another country?

117 posted on 02/22/2008 12:39:48 PM PST by processing please hold ( "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)

http://www.civpol.org/unmik/balans.htm

Not good news when there is a large contingent of US Police Officers in Kosovo as part of that force.


118 posted on 02/22/2008 12:58:36 PM PST by Tommyjo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: processing please hold
(The Warriors - The NYC Board of Tourism must hate that one with a passion!).

It says (

"The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter [article 42 is the part authorizing military force - wideawake's note] and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed as an authorization to the President by the Congress to make available to the Security Council for such purpose armed forces, facilities, or assistance in addition to the forces, facilities, and assistance provided for in such special agreement or agreements."

It basically says that the president has unilateral authority to deploy US forces in pursuance of UN military objectives, but does not authorize the President to increase the scope of the deployment beyond the UN request unless he consults Congress.

So you're saying that if the un force was commanded under Kim Jong Il, our soldiers would under obligation to follow his orders?

They cannot be commanded by anyone the US does not approve of, or the US can simply pull its forces.

Is that pointed out when they hand out the 'you joined the military' handbook. I wasn't aware of it but ignorance of the law is no excuse. I wonder how many soldiers aren't aware of that?

I think an intelligent, rational actor - as opposed to a shirking junkie like New - would probably consult someone who had knowledge of military law before refusing a direct order.

I think I understand you now.

And then you proceed to demosntrate that you do not.

You defend jihadist bullies,

Demonstrably false.

you support the un,

Demonstrably false.

you support American soldiers taking orders from non US military leaders.

Demonstrably false.

Is that all? Are you an American or are you posting from another country?

I'm one of the few on this thread who realizes that arson against a US embassy is an horrific act which should outrage any American patriot, and one of the few on this thread who has registered disgust at the the thought that America could possibly "deserve" such a vile act against it.

I actually love my country without waiting to see if a gang of Serb arsonists give me permission to love it, like the lickspittles on this thread.

119 posted on 02/22/2008 1:09:03 PM PST by wideawake (Why is it that those who call themselves Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Tommyjo

Oh crap!!!


120 posted on 02/22/2008 1:55:44 PM PST by Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-138 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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