Posted on 02/22/2008 8:31:36 AM PST by processing please hold
KOSOVSKA MITROVICA, Kosovo (AP) — Serbs protesting Kosovo's independence for a fifth straight day Friday attacked U.N. police guarding a key bridge in northern Kosovo with stones, glass bottles and firecrackers on Friday.
Serbia's prime minister appealed for calm as the European Union condemned rioting in the capital Belgrade overnight when demonstrators attacked the U.S. embassy and other Western mission. The United States and EU heavyweights Britain, France and Germany have formally recognized Kosovo.
Serbian President Boris Tadic called an emergency meeting of the national security council, saying the riots that engulfed the capital overnight must "never happen again."
In Serb-dominated northern Kosovo, demonstrators waved Serbian flags and chanted "Kosovo is ours!" Police tried to keep protesters off the Kosovska Mitrovica bridge over the Ibar River. The bridge, which divides Kosovo Serbs from ethnic Albanians, has long been a flashpoint of tensions in Kosovo's restive north
(Excerpt) Read more at ap.google.com ...
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?
Thank you very much.
My best regards.
You’re welcome. Regards to you as well.
But they're under orders of the UN, so I doubt the Serbs are the least bit worried.
That you, AuntB?
Never though I'd see you writing anything of the sort.
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?
If any Serbs breach the perimeter for which KFOR MNTF-E is responsible for security, they will wish they had worried a lot more.
“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.
If you say so.
Animals !
Be perfectly happy to learn I’m wrong.
That is all.
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.
If only the same could be said of the church-desecrating Jihadist mobs.
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?
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.
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.
Oh crap!!!
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.