RE: Can Bush do this?

RE: Can Bush do this? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Owner59 -> RE: Can Bush do this? (1/2/2008 8:35:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 When you`re push`n 50,they all start look`n like kids. And when you are pushing 50, the fine young MEN who serve our country figure you are just a bitter old man. Bitter? About what?

Muttling -> RE: Can Bush do this? (1/2/2008 8:42:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 quote: ORIGINAL: Muttling quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee Bombs do not have ticking countdown detonators like the movies. hehe....You might want to research "clockwork fuses". The WWI and WWII aerial bombs and mortars could be equipped with a brass "clockwork" fuse. And the litterally did have a ticking countdown detonator, kind of like an egg timer. [:D] Meh,... She`s a military expert,foriegn affairs expert,an expert on Constitutional law and the USMJ,....and apparently,a bomb and explosives expert.<snicker> Can`t argue with experts,can you? LOL ,We are so fucked. hehe...I was a contractor for the military for 15 years doing environmental cleanup including hazardous waste, radioactive waste, munitions of explosive concer (e.g. "ordnance and explosives"), etc, etc, etc. This entire discussion is quite basic on the fundamental concepts of military law and VERY basics on ordnance. We haven't even started to venture into an area that any EOD "butter bar" wouldn't know.

Muttling -> RE: Can Bush do this? (1/2/2008 8:46:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: ORIGINAL: HaveRopeWillBind What is even scarier is that he effectively has control of the Supreme Court now and could simply have term limits declared unconstitutional and then steal another election as he did the last two. No he can't. Presidential term limits are via constitutional amendment. They are constitutional by definition, and not subject to judicial review. Torture is prohibited too, via the 5th and 14th Amendments. That hasn't stopped Bush and Gonzales from ordering it and CALLING IT legal... The administration has been extremely careful about skirting the laws. The interrogations have not been carried out on American soil for a reason. They're in a very grey area, the constitution obviously applies to American citizens and on American soil but the prisoners aren't on our soil nor are they Americans. (With 2 exceptions who were given increased legal considerations.) EDIT: To add a discussion on the events at Abu Graib, they were never authorized by the president and the gaurds/ commanders were charged for following an unlawful order. Specifically the one directing interrogators to "Gitmocize" the prisoners.

Owner59 -> RE: Can Bush do this? (1/2/2008 8:53:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf Because this question fits so well: quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Why is this childish stupidity,being inserted into the conversation? quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Reposted,b/c this thread fits so well.... Much has been said by the brave-heart, torture proponents.We`ve all heard the loaded question,"If you had a terrorist in custody,who had info about a bomb that would kill thousands,would you use torture to extract that vital info,in order to intervein and save American lives? The question is unfair,because what other answer to a question like, could you give?Of course someone would say yes. I have a question for the brave heroes, who say we need to torture people, in order to keep us safe. We all know that these terrorists are the most religiously brainwashed and devoted nuts on earth.They beleive the whole thing,there`s no atheists, in their ranks.They believe that being martyred, is a "get in heaven guaranteed card".They believe that each and every one of them, will somehow be presented with 72 virgins when they arrive in heaven,lol,plus a whole lot of other nonsense.The point is,the terrorists/jihadists believe this,to the point of death.They don`t get more crazy or committed,then that. However,they believe that if they do anything homosexual,they won`t go to heaven.No datenut bread with hot tea, served by the 72 virgins,no de-flowering of the 72,or any of the other heavenly blessings.If they go gay,they get zilch.Doesn`t matter if it`s a fairy tail,the terrorist believe that shit,and it can be used against them. The question now: If there was a ticking time bomb,and you had the actual terrorist who planted it,in your hands,would you do homosexual acts on him,to make him talk.All you need to do is pull his pants down while he`s bound,and give him head,and he`ll give up the goods,because,to a Muslim,nothing`s worse then going the hell. Would you brave ,heroic ,straight guys step up and suck cock for your country,if you knew it would save lives? Luckydog,Sanity,Fatdomdaddy,etc.,we know you`re torture crazed,with Jack Bauer/24 fantasies of saving the day and all.If you knew that sucking and licking the junk of a terrorist would save thousands of Americans,would you suck and lick? C`on tough guys,what would you do? Really? Where does some crazies from the lunatic fringe,claiming that bush was involved in 9/11,fit in this conversation? Why is that being inserted into this conversation? It was the mentioning of that non-subject ,that made me ask the question. No one mentioned that crap, that was criticizing bush.It was some bush defenders, who brought that up.And without cause,other than having nothing else to say,I guess. It was a stupid comment,about something that never happened,thrown out in a conversation about another subject.lol,whatever... So,.... How about you ,Orion. Would you go down on Omar,... or would you let Americans die? I don`t have much faith in you.

Muttling -> RE: Can Bush do this? (1/2/2008 8:58:56 PM)
quote: No one mentioned that crap, that was criticizing bush.It was some bush defenders, who brought that up.And without cause,other than having nothing else to say,I guess. For the record, I brought that up in explaining WHY the president has been given the authority to authorize the use of torture in very extreme circumstances. I was certainly NOT defending Bush. Instead, I was explaining why the interogators were following a lawful order when they used extreme methods on prisoners in Guantonimo.

farglebargle -> RE: Can Bush do this? (1/2/2008 9:01:00 PM)
quote: the constitution obviously applies to American citizens and on American soil The 5th and 14th Amendments don't say it only applies to American Citizens and on American soil. They say "ANY PERSON" The Constitution APPLIES to the Federal Government, it's Agents, Employees, Officers and Contractors WHEREVER THEY ARE. Generally, those who have taken an Oath of obedience to it. And those oaths do not evaporate in effectiveness when the oath-taker crosses a border.

farglebargle -> RE: Can Bush do this? (1/2/2008 9:03:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Muttling quote: No one mentioned that crap, that was criticizing bush.It was some bush defenders, who brought that up.And without cause,other than having nothing else to say,I guess. For the record, I brought that up in explaining WHY the president has been given the authority to authorize the use of torture in very extreme circumstances. I was certainly NOT defending Bush. Instead, I was explaining why the interogators were following a lawful order when they used extreme methods on prisoners in Guantonimo. We hanged Nazis at Nuremberg for "Just Following Orders". And we were right to do it. Torture is *ALWAYS* wrong. As it is a clear deprivation of the Due Process and Equal Protection guarantees of the 5th and 14th Amendments.

Muttling -> RE: Can Bush do this? (1/2/2008 9:14:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: the constitution obviously applies to American citizens and on American soil The 5th and 14th Amendments don't say it only applies to American Citizens and on American soil. They say "ANY PERSON" The Constitution APPLIES to the Federal Government, it's Agents, Employees, Officers and Contractors WHEREVER THEY ARE. Generally, those who have taken an Oath of obedience to it. And those oaths do not evaporate in effectiveness when the oath-taker crosses a border. The constitution does NOT hold jurisdiction abroad. Otherwise, we would be charging people in foreign contries with violating the Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speach, etc. Once you leave U.S. soil, the jurisdiction of the Constitution only applies to American citizens and it is EXTREMELY limited at that. Mostly it applies in the aspects of treason and sedition, which are RARELY applied. (Just look to Jane Fonda if you want a wonderful example of that.) All that said, the UCMJ (not the USMJ as some our colleagues seem to believe) applies to all military personnel and to SOME civilian employees of the government working in foreign lands (not all.) This whole jurisdiction question is at the heart of the administration's ability to skirt the laws and get away with things. Their first method is to avoid calling the prisoners POWs and avoid calling them criminals. If they call them one or the other, they have a very finite set of rules they have to follow under the UCMJ as well as treaties. Instead, they call them "enemy combatants" so they can pick and choose which individual rules they want to apply. IMO, they should just lable them as spies since they were engaged in combat while not wearing uniforms. This would open the door for us to do anything we wanted and do it legally (outside of U.S. territories), but we must first establish why they qualify as a spy under Geneva Conventions. (Shouldn't be too hard if you can prove they engaged in combat without wearing a uniform that clearly identifies what side they are on.) The other part of the administration's game is to use the CIA to interrogate the high end targets since CIA operatives do not fall under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ. A U.S. Army interrogator at a Polish prison still has to comply with the rules of the UCMJ. A CIA interrogator at a Polish prison only has to worry about Polish laws and will be completely off the hook once out of country because they sure as heck won't extradite him over this. EDIT: A great example just occurred to me....... If the constitution applied to everyone world wide, the Blackwater team who shot the civilians a few months ago would be on trial here in a U.S. court. As it turns out, they are NOT under the jurisdiction of U.S. laws because they are in another country and the Iraqi government awarded immunity to security contractors in 2004.

dcnovice -> RE: Can Bush do this? (1/2/2008 9:17:02 PM)
quote: Their first method is to avoid calling the prisoners POWs and avoid calling them criminals. If they call them one or the other, they have a very finite set of rules they have to follow under the UCMJ as well as treaties. Instead, they call them "enemy combatants" so they can pick and choose which individual rules they want to apply. As John McCain once pointed out, I believe, the real question in all this isn't what kind of people the prisoners are. It's what kind of people we are.

farglebargle -> RE: Can Bush do this? (1/2/2008 9:22:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Muttling quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: the constitution obviously applies to American citizens and on American soil The 5th and 14th Amendments don't say it only applies to American Citizens and on American soil. They say "ANY PERSON" The Constitution APPLIES to the Federal Government, it's Agents, Employees, Officers and Contractors WHEREVER THEY ARE. Generally, those who have taken an Oath of obedience to it. And those oaths do not evaporate in effectiveness when the oath-taker crosses a border. The constitution does NOT hold jurisdiction abroad. Otherwise, we would be charging people in foreign contries with violating the Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speach, etc. Again... It applies to the US GOVERNMENT... The US GOVERNMENT CANNOT DISOBEY THE CONSTITUTION. A US OFFICER CANNOT DISOBEY THE CONSTITUTION. A US AGENT CANNOT DISOBEY THE CONSTITUTION. A US SOLDIER CANNOT DISOBEY THE CONSTITUTION. A US EMPLOYEE CANNOT DISOBEY THE CONSTITUTION. A US CONTRACTOR CANNOT DISOBEY THE CONSTITUTION. **WHEREVER THOSE PEOPLE MAY TRAVEL, THEY REMAIN BOUND BY THEIR OATH** quote: Once you leave U.S. soil, This isn't about YOU. This isn't about FOREIGN NATIONALS OR FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS. This is about those who have SWORN to obey the Constitution and Laws of the US. quote: A U.S. Army interrogator at a Polish prison still has to comply with the rules of the UCMJ. A CIA interrogator at a Polish prison only has to worry about Polish laws and will be completely off the hook once out of country because they sure as heck won't extradite him over this. That CIA Interrogator SWORE to obey the Constitution. That oath didn't lose status when he got on the plane to Poland. Get It?

Muttling -> RE: Can Bush do this? (1/2/2008 9:25:57 PM)
Unfortunately, an oath of office is NOT enforcable under criminal statutes. It is just a promise, not even a legally binding contract that can be pursued in civil court. We're not talking about right and wrong, we're talking about criminal or non-criminal activities. EIDT: U.S. Contractors and the VAST majority of government employees do not take oaths to uphold the constitution as part of their employment. I never worked with any CIA folks so I have no idea what they do. Military, of course, do take such oaths.

luckydog1 -> RE: Can Bush do this? (1/2/2008 9:27:50 PM)
owner, the entire premise of the thread is that Bush is going to cause an emergency, kill lots of people, and implement the cited continuity plan and declare Martial (Marshall) Law. It is indeed just as stupid as thinking that Bush orchestrated 911, to gather power. It seems very related to me. Let me rephrase my question, not a single life would be saved or lost...the conditions on the ground are however such that huge numbers of people would not be able to vote. Would you delay the election? This thread is about a paranoid presumption based on a very reasonable contingency plan.

farglebargle -> RE: Can Bush do this? (1/2/2008 9:42:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Muttling Unfortunately, an oath of office is NOT enforcable under criminal statutes. It is just a promise, not even a legally binding contract that can be pursued in civil court. We're not talking about right and wrong, we're talking about criminal or non-criminal activities. You're right. OATHS are superior to criminal statutes. OATHS are promises between YOU and THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. They go beyond your mere obedience to the law. The reflect your HONOR, INTEGRITY and CHARACTER. And if you break your oath, you have no Honor, Integrity or Character. "I (state your name) do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same..." Those who would break that oath, ARE the enemies.... This isn't fucking brain surgery, this is "Don't Torture Prisoners", and doesn't require a shitload of analysis.

Muttling -> RE: Can Bush do this? (1/2/2008 9:52:51 PM)
Pakistan has the "Ministry of Virtue" Under Taliban rule, Afghanistan had the "Ministry of Vice and Virtue" I'm certain these organizations would be FAR more supportive of your views than I am. Criminal law needs to be very black n white so that it is clear when a law is broken. Not grey so that it is left to the opnions of others whether or not your actions were right or wrong. This concept is the very foundation of our criminal justice system. You might get that, but your statements don't seem to suggest it as you seek to label people "enemies of the state" for not complying with a rather vaugely worded oath.

farglebargle -> RE: Can Bush do this? (1/2/2008 9:56:38 PM)
1) When did you take YOUR OATH to Protect and Defend the Constitution? 2) Isn't publicly advocating Torturing Prisoners, in violation of US Law, State Law, and the 5th and 14th Amendments of the Constitution a lack of Fidelity to that Oath and this Nation?

Muttling -> RE: Can Bush do this? (1/2/2008 10:00:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle 1) When did you take YOUR OATH to Protect and Defend the Constitution? April, 1993 quote: 2) Isn't publicly advocating Torturing Prisoners, in violation of US Law, State Law, and the 5th and 14th Amendments of the Constitution a lack of Fidelity to that Oath and this Nation? First off, I have not advocated such things. Second off, advocation of them is protected under freedom of speach. It would only be considered a crime I were coaching U.S. soldiers to torture them despite laws to the contrary. Third off, can you name the crime that I would be committing? Bonus points, why would it be impossible for them to achieve a conviction under those statutes? No, I am not currently under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ as that would change everything above.

farglebargle -> RE: Can Bush do this? (1/2/2008 10:05:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Muttling quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle 1) When did you take YOUR OATH to Protect and Defend the Constitution? April, 1993 quote: 2) Isn't publicly advocating Torturing Prisoners, in violation of US Law, State Law, and the 5th and 14th Amendments of the Constitution a lack of Fidelity to that Oath and this Nation? First off, I have not advocating such things. Second off, advocation of them is protected under freedom of speach. I would only be if I were coaching U.S. soldiers to torture them despite laws to the contrary that I MIGHT be considered to be committing a crime. I didn't SAY it was a crime... I asked if it constituted a LACK OF FIDELITY TO THE OATH. As in "Semper Fidelis" There's no "LAW" regulating a Marine's Honor. You don't seem to understand this simple fact: Oaths are SUPERIOR to Laws. Laws are about punishing people for their wrong choices... Oaths ar promises predicated on your Personal Character, Honor, and Integrity. If someone will violate an oath, they show they HAVE NO Honor, Integrity or Character. They are less than a crack-whores cum-soaked festering diarheaa...

Muttling -> RE: Can Bush do this? (1/2/2008 10:17:29 PM)
Do I take it that you do not know of the crime which I speak or why I could not be succesffully prosecuted? There is no loss of face or shame in not knowing, many active duty don't know the answer here. The answer, howerver, is a very important point to the conversation at hand. On the subject of oath and duty, I do my best to avoid passing judgement on others whenever possible as I do not know they situation they have been put in. There is much that has happened that I don't approve of, but I question the judgement of those who wish to claim the actions of others are "beyond criminal" when they are within the limits that our laws have established for them. EDIT: Who would you rather fight beside, the soldier who is so afraid of breaking the rules that he fights 3 steps behind of the hard charger to plays as aggressively as he is allowed to by law? Who do you think is more likely to keep you alive?

farglebargle -> RE: Can Bush do this? (1/2/2008 10:26:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Muttling Do I take it that you do not know of the crime which I speak or why I could not be succesffully prosecuted? There is no loss of face or shame in not knowing, many active duty don't know the answer here. The answer, howerver, is a very important point to the conversation at hand. Why do you keep discussing crimes? I am not discussing Criminal Acts. I am discussing Acts of Honor and Integrity. quote: On the subject of oath and duty, I do my best to avoid passing judgement on others whenever possible as I do not know they situation they have been put in. There is much that has happened that I don't approve of, but I question the judgement of those who wish to claim the actions of others are "beyond criminal" when they are within the limits that our laws have established for them. Well, I don't rightly know what I'd call a person who isn't willing to make a judgment call on another person's actions. A "Juror" certainly wouldn't be it. We hanged Nazis for following what they thought was legal at the time. They were wrong to be obedient to "The Law", when they should have acted with Honor, Integrity and Character. "Following Orders" don't cut it. quote: EDIT: Who would you rather fight beside, the soldier who is so afraid of breaking the rules that he fights 3 steps behind of the hard charger to plays as aggressively as he is allowed to by law? Who do you think is more likely to keep you alive? You could trust a "man" who would break their Oath to God beside you in battle? A piece-of-shit, who is unworthy to be called "American", you would seek to call "Comrade"? That says much about you. I don't believe I have the stomach to continue this discussion after that revelation. Good Night and Good Luck.

Muttling -> RE: Can Bush do this? (1/2/2008 10:36:47 PM)
Good night and sleep well. For what it's worth, here is my response. Black n white answers are a path to the dark side. All I hear from you is a very black and white understanding of things that are fully shades of grey. I served with GREAT men of honor and integrity who would quickly break the rules to make a bad situation right, but they would not do so just to make things a little easier. Black n white thinkers allways made me nervous becuase they struggle to deal with something that doesn't work with the school solution. -Any guesses as to where that line come's from?) -Bonus points if you can tell me who the first casualty of contact is. On the subject of the crime, I would have been guilty of sedition for attempting to interfere with the lawful operations of our military. It would not have been prosecutable as the courts have consistently held that freedom of speech takes precedence and you have to rise to a very very high level for speech to result in an act of sedition. Again, see the Jane Fonda story and ask yourself why she was never charged or had her citizenship revoked. Another good story would be the individuals who encouraged the burning of draft cards.

Page: << < prev 9 10 [11] 12 13 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.699707E-02