RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo

RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

FirmhandKY -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/29/2009 3:13:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife No, it's my post pointing out how ridiculous your argument is because it is an accepted legal term that any one with a JD after their name in the phone book can easily give you a definition of. DomKen is claiming that the rules about the use of Federal troops for domestic situations has changed twice in the last few years. This qualifies as "black letter law" in your definition, then? shrugs Take it up with DK, then. Firm

rulemylife -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/29/2009 3:17:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife OK, let's try things this way. I've given you numerous links and support for my position. What you have given me is telling me that I am wrong in my opinions and my sources are not credible. Yet, I have not seen you offer anything to substantiate your claims. Sure. Do you now recognize what "competent legal authority" means? And can we dispense with the AG example you provided, as - I said - those events were never sanctioned by the Bush Administration, and did not follow policy? Therefore, using that example is inappropriate? As for the link you gave about "preemptive war" (again, your term, not mine), was simply the opinion of Ann Fagan Ginger the Executive Director of the Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Institute. She talks about her interpretation of what the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the UN Charter mean. Unfortunately, she doesn't have ... are you ready? ... competent legal authority. She may be smart, and she may be right ... but she's not competent legal authority, which has jurisdiction and authority over the United States. There are other nuances (jurisdiction is a big one for the ICJ), but suffice it to say, neither of your examples on these two points are applicable. Firm [sm=rofl.gif] I'm really sitting here having a debate with myself on whether this is entertaining me or boring me. You have not offered even one substantial rebuttal to any point I've made. Yet you presume to ask me if I understand things now?

rulemylife -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/29/2009 3:22:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife And this claim is based on what? I've already provided a definition from a legal dictionary, and cited the source. What do you have to offer to counter that? Yes, other legal dictionaries. Google it. No Willbeur, it's high time you start backing up your bullshit. Again and again you throw this stuff out and then tell others to look it up. I've backed my claims with references, where are yours?

MarsBonfire -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/29/2009 3:31:51 PM)
Yeah, you conservatives are probably right... Bush just thought about sending federal troops into Buffalo... As Colbert pointed out, that just wouldn't have been Bush's style... His record is one of never deploying Federal troops into ANY American city... (No matter how badly it floods!) So, I guess we "Bush Haters" (I prefer to think of us as "Constitution Lovers") will just have to content ourselves with the 137 actionable crimes commited during the eight years we suffered under "Bad King George II."

Starbuck09 -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/29/2009 3:40:51 PM)
Okay I am really not understanding this has any court ruled that bush took any actions that were illegal. Not people's opinions on legality has any court ruled he contravened the law? Has any of the legislation that he introduced that many think is unconstitutional been repealed, or at least have moves been made to repeal it?

FirmhandKY -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/29/2009 3:44:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife OK, let's try things this way. I've given you numerous links and support for my position. What you have given me is telling me that I am wrong in my opinions and my sources are not credible. Yet, I have not seen you offer anything to substantiate your claims. Sure. Do you now recognize what "competent legal authority" means? And can we dispense with the AG example you provided, as - I said - those events were never sanctioned by the Bush Administration, and did not follow policy? Therefore, using that example is inappropriate? As for the link you gave about "preemptive war" (again, your term, not mine), was simply the opinion of Ann Fagan Ginger the Executive Director of the Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Institute. She talks about her interpretation of what the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the UN Charter mean. Unfortunately, she doesn't have ... are you ready? ... competent legal authority. She may be smart, and she may be right ... but she's not competent legal authority, which has jurisdiction and authority over the United States. There are other nuances (jurisdiction is a big one for the ICJ), but suffice it to say, neither of your examples on these two points are applicable. Firm [sm=rofl.gif] I'm really sitting here having a debate with myself on whether this is entertaining me or boring me. You have not offered even one substantial rebuttal to any point I've made. Yet you presume to ask me if I understand things now? It's clear to me that you do not understand, nor wish to understand what "jurisdiction" and "authority" mean, in the definition of "competent legal authority". If you did, then we wouldn't be having this circular conversation. You seem to think that "competent legal authority" means "a good lawyer". It doesn't. If you understood the term, and what they mean, the logic of my post become self-evident. Which is why I asked if you now understood "competent legal authority". Yes, it is a waste of time to discuss it, if you aren't willing to educate yourself on the meaning of the terms and words we are using. Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/29/2009 3:58:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen So you admit you repeatedly discussed the law. Ahh, you wish to play semantic games do you? Ok, I'm game. No. I definitely and definitively did not discuss the law "repeatedly": Repeatedly: several times. Several: of an indefinite number more than 2 or 3 but not many. So, since I mentioned it only twice before you accused me of using it "repeatedly", the correct answer to your accusation is: no. Go fish, DomKen. [:D] quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen As to proof the sections amending the Insurection Act were repealed http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-4986 section 1068 http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200801/013008b.html So in summary yes, you refered to the act repeatedly We've dealt with your "repeatedly" nonsense. The fact that it was repealed changes not a single one of my points. Go fish, DomKen. [:D] quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen and it was repealed and you claimed the Democrats controlled Congress in 2006. Yuppers, you are correct. The democrats took control of the Congress in late 2006, so they weren't responsible for it. You have fish!! [sm=biggrin.gif] However ... apparently it was Bush who signed the law revoking that particular session, now wasn't it? Your own link says so: The President signed the bill this week ... achieved repeal of the so-called “Insurrection Act Rider,” attached to the 2006 defense policy bill, which had made it easier for presidents to take control of the National Guard from governors and to use the U.S. military for domestic law enforcement. Interesting use of the word "easier" on Leahy's website propaganda, you think? I wonder what the law currently is? Firm

Starbuck09 -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/29/2009 4:09:24 PM)
Does anyone actually know the answer to my question? Is that why there is so much confusion?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/29/2009 4:33:09 PM)
broken link brb

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/29/2009 4:34:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Starbuck09 Okay I am really not understanding this has any court ruled that bush took any actions that were illegal. Not people's opinions on legality has any court ruled he contravened the law? Has any of the legislation that he introduced that many think is unconstitutional been repealed, or at least have moves been made to repeal it? No, and there have been no indictments except by some loonies in Europe that dont have jurisdiction to begin with.

Starbuck09 -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/29/2009 4:46:57 PM)
So then unless I am misreading the situation then no action bush has taken has in fact been declared illegal by ANY legal authority? Following on from that no steps have been taken by the new administration to repeal any of the legislation that has been deemed by many to be unconstitutional abuse by bush? Given these two facts is it not possible that Obama thinks these steps are just as necessary as bush did, and the reason he took them in the first place was not simply because he was power hungry?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/29/2009 4:47:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife And this claim is based on what? I've already provided a definition from a legal dictionary, and cited the source. What do you have to offer to counter that? Yes, other legal dictionaries. Google it. No Willbeur, it's high time you start backing up your bullshit. Again and again you throw this stuff out and then tell others to look it up. I've backed my claims with references, where are yours? When I do you ignore them anyway. majority rules principle of law "nearly synonymous with hornbook law which is primer level material for law students generally known and undisputed principles not found in most legal indices And so on. The number of references to tenets and principles of law, and not the laws themselves, are far more common. And now for more RML asinine semantic games.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/29/2009 6:16:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Starbuck09 So then unless I am misreading the situation then no action bush has taken has in fact been declared illegal by ANY legal authority? Following on from that no steps have been taken by the new administration to repeal any of the legislation that has been deemed by many to be unconstitutional abuse by bush? Given these two facts is it not possible that Obama thinks these steps are just as necessary as bush did, and the reason he took them in the first place was not simply because he was power hungry? That is exactly my perception, Starbuck. I supported Bush's efforts on the (then) War on Terror, and so far I support Obama on his (now) Overseas Contingency Operations. I didn't like a lot of things that Bush did. I don't like a lot of things that Obama is doing now. However, some (perhaps "many") on the left were rabid and blind with ideological hatred for anything and everything that Bush did, claiming he was destroying the Constitution, planning to become a dictator, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum. It became such a common affliction, that we even have a name for it: Bush Derangement Syndrome or BDS. Some of the posters here still apparently suffer from it. What I (and quite a few others) find extremely humorous is that even though Obama is taking or adopting most of the same exact programs, laws, and procedures - most of the "Bushitler" crowd are utterly silent on our current, Democratic President doing the exact same thing. No, not all, a few are speaking out, but the press, and the most rabid BDS posters here are utterly without shame in their hypocrisy. And it drives them to distraction, and by sheer habit, reflect and hatred, they continue to attack a President who is out of office, out of power, and out of the public eye. Firm

TreasureKY -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/29/2009 6:56:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife It's a common legal term. I didn't pull it out of my ass. sighs You may not have pulled the terminology, "black letter law", out of your ass, but I'd question the origin of your understanding and application. Aside from that, the entire question you raise in your op is relatively moot. From the Homeland Security Studies and Analysis Institute (a Federally funded research and development center established pursuant to Section 312 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002)... The Myth of Posse Comitatus But does the act present a major barrier at the National Command Authority level to use of military forces in the battle against terrorism? The numerous exceptions and policy shifts carried out over the past 20 years strongly indicate that it does not. Could anyone seriously suggest that it is appropriate to use the military to interdict drugs and illegal aliens but preclude the military from countering terrorist threats that employ weapons of mass destruction? For two decades the military has been increasingly used as an auxiliary to civilian law enforcement when the capabilities of the police have been exceeded. Under both the statutory and constitutional exceptions that have permitted the use of the military in law enforcement since 1980, the president has ample authority to employ the military in homeland defense against the threat of weapons of mass destruction in terrorist hands. I'd suggest you and DomKen leave the interpretation of law and application of legal terminology to those who are a bit more learned.

Arpig -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/29/2009 7:51:42 PM)
OK so martial law is not as cut and dried as I thought it was (should have known better, nothing ever is in the US[;)]) but still a possibility, and it would require an act of congress to authorize, so not likely to be useful in this situation. My reading of the last link you provided seems to me to be that federal troops can indeed in certain circumstances be used to "assist" local law enforcement when requested. I guess the gray area is in that word "assist", just how far does assisting go, if 1 local sheriff executes a warrant assisted by 200 troops, does that count as long as the sheriff is in charge of the operation? As far as the Posse Comitatus Act is concerned, the link you provided says it does not apply to the Navy or the Marines, so wouldn't it be possible to use the marines to make arrests without breaking that law?

FirmhandKY -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/29/2009 8:01:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig OK so martial law is not as cut and dried as I thought it was (should have known better, nothing ever is in the US[;)]) but still a possibility, and it would require an act of congress to authorize, so not likely to be useful in this situation. My reading of the last link you provided seems to me to be that federal troops can indeed in certain circumstances be used to "assist" local law enforcement when requested. I guess the gray area is in that word "assist", just how far does assisting go, if 1 local sheriff executes a warrant assisted by 200 troops, does that count as long as the sheriff is in charge of the operation? As far as the Posse Comitatus Act is concerned, the link you provided says it does not apply to the Navy or the Marines, so wouldn't it be possible to use the marines to make arrests without breaking that law? Just from memory, Arpig ... one of the changes to the PC law over the last few years was to bring all the military services under its restrictions (minus the Coast Guard). Firm

Arpig -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/29/2009 8:04:01 PM)
A good find Treasure, but not really applicable in this particular case I don't think. There is no mention of WMDs in the case in question, and I suspect that might just be why Bush turned the idea down.

Arpig -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/29/2009 8:17:22 PM)
quote: Just from memory, Arpig ... one of the changes to the PC law over the last few years was to bring all the military services under its restrictions (minus the Coast Guard). From what I can find, that is not legally the case, but it is only by DoD regulations quote: Furthermore, the Act only applies on its face to two military branches, the Army and the Air Force. It has been held to apply to the Navy and Marines by DOD regulation. It does not apply to the Coast Guard. http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Civil_Liberties/Posse_Comitatus_Law.html

DomKen -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/29/2009 8:38:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen So you admit you repeatedly discussed the law. Ahh, you wish to play semantic games do you? Ok, I'm game. No. I definitely and definitively did not discuss the law "repeatedly": Repeatedly: several times. Several: of an indefinite number more than 2 or 3 but not many. So, since I mentioned it only twice before you accused me of using it "repeatedly", the correct answer to your accusation is: no. Go fish, DomKen. [:D] Dueling dictionaries http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/repeatedly More than once http://www.freedictionary.org/?Query=repeatedly More than once So as per your own usual semantic argument I am correct in my usage. So yes you repeatedly brought up the act. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen As to proof the sections amending the Insurection Act were repealed http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-4986 section 1068 http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200801/013008b.html So in summary yes, you refered to the act repeatedly We've dealt with your "repeatedly" nonsense. The fact that it was repealed changes not a single one of my points. It doesn't? Changes this one quite a bit, as in totally untrue: quote: it would now be perfectly legal for Obama to do exactly what the Bush Admin is being castigated for even considering. So yes, you used the act repeatedly, it was repealed and the Democrats did not pass it.

rulemylife -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/29/2009 9:09:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife It's a common legal term. I didn't pull it out of my ass. sighs You may not have pulled the terminology, "black letter law", out of your ass, but I'd question the origin of your understanding and application. Hello Treasure. What a surprise to see you again so soon after we haven't talked in so long. And two times in one day! But I do understand the sighs. It must be difficult for you to have to come to Firm's rescue so often. As I challenged him, I'll challenge you. There is no mystery about the term. If you have a law school near you go in and ask any first-year law student to define black letter law for you. quote: Aside from that, the entire question you raise in your op is relatively moot. From the Homeland Security Studies and Analysis Institute (a Federally funded research and development center established pursuant to Section 312 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002)... The Myth of Posse Comitatus But does the act present a major barrier at the National Command Authority level to use of military forces in the battle against terrorism? The numerous exceptions and policy shifts carried out over the past 20 years strongly indicate that it does not. Could anyone seriously suggest that it is appropriate to use the military to interdict drugs and illegal aliens but preclude the military from countering terrorist threats that employ weapons of mass destruction? For two decades the military has been increasingly used as an auxiliary to civilian law enforcement when the capabilities of the police have been exceeded. Under both the statutory and constitutional exceptions that have permitted the use of the military in law enforcement since 1980, the president has ample authority to employ the military in homeland defense against the threat of weapons of mass destruction in terrorist hands. I'd suggest you and DomKen leave the interpretation of law and application of legal terminology to those who are a bit more learned. And do you define yourself and Firm as the "bit more learned" or is it this low-level JAG officer you find so authoritative? But wait? Wasn't it Firm who said that legal competency only rests with the judiciary and any other legal opinion, no matter the person's qualifications, was not a legally competent authority?

Page: << < prev 10 11 12 [13] 14 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875