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 9:09:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig 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 Good catch. Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/29/2009 9:13:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig 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. She's in bed right now, so I'll answer for her. I think she was specifically addressing rulemylife's assertion that PC is a "black letter law". Obviously, based on Home Land Security's own website, there are a lot of grey in that black. Firm

rulemylife -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/29/2009 9:15:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY 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 I would be thrilled to educate myself in what the hell you just said, but I doubt you understand it yourself. And the only reason we are having a circular argument is you keep throwing out this nonsense that you believe sounds impressive, but does not address any of the facts. So I'll ask you yet one more time. How were any of the sources I cited not competent legal authorities? And as long as I'm asking that, how exactly were the convictions in the Abu Ghraib case not an indictment of Bush's policies, or were the soldiers convicted the "rogue elements" Rumsfeld spoke of?

rulemylife -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/29/2009 9:39:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy 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. s No, I'm not ignoring them, in fact I looked at them before posting the link I did. Do you see something I don't, because they all appear to be in agreement. And I don't understand the point you are trying to make with your last comment. This is not an abstract theory if that is what you are suggesting. There are certain basic legal fundamentals, like the difference between first and second degree murder. That is black letter law. Can it be changed? Yes. Is it subject to interpretation? No. Are the facts of a particular case subject to where they fall under that law? Yes, as in every legal case.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/29/2009 9:48:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY 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 I would be thrilled to educate myself in what the hell you just said, but I doubt you understand it yourself. And the only reason we are having a circular argument is you keep throwing out this nonsense that you believe sounds impressive, but does not address any of the facts. So I'll ask you yet one more time. How were any of the sources I cited not competent legal authorities? And as long as I'm asking that, how exactly were the convictions in the Abu Ghraib case not an indictment of Bush's policies, or were the soldiers convicted the "rogue elements" Rumsfeld spoke of? Until you can understand that "competent legal authority" does NOT equal "a good lawyer", then we'll go nowhere and you'll learn nothing. Until you can understand that "competent legal authority" equals an authority (court, political figure, law enforcement officer, officer of the court, etc) who has jurisdiction or the legal right to make binding decisions, rulings or pronouncements on the subject or the issue within the legal framework set up to do so - then we'll go nowhere and you'll learn nothing. Firm

Arpig -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/29/2009 9:55:50 PM)
Regardless of the proper definition of "black letter law", from the reading I have been doing on the Posse Comitatus act, it is most certainly subject to interpretation. Exceptions have been made to it pretty much from the get go. In fact, by the actual wording the act wouldn't prevent the president from using federal troops in a law enforcement capacity any time he wants to. The law makes it a punishable offense to conscript a member of the Army or Air Force to assist a county sheriff keep the peace or pursue and arrest a felon. It has, however, been interpreted to have a much broader application. It is not fundamental law, it has been interpreted to enforce a fundamental principle of US politics.

rulemylife -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/29/2009 10:14:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Until you can understand that "competent legal authority" does NOT equal "a good lawyer", then we'll go nowhere and you'll learn nothing. [sm=lol.gif] I have to admit being impressed Firm. The ego and arrogance you display is astonishing. quote: Until you can understand that "competent legal authority" equals an authority (court, political figure, law enforcement officer, officer of the court, etc) who has jurisdiction or the legal right to make binding decisions, rulings or pronouncements on the subject or the issue within the legal framework set up to do so - then we'll go nowhere and you'll learn nothing. I don't know Firm. Seems there was this woman on here recently. Ohhhhh what was her name? Terry? Theresa? No wait, Treasure. I believe you two are acquainted, and she seems to find a certain JAG major as an extremely competent legal authority. (I'll leave you two alone to talk now)

FirmhandKY -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/29/2009 10:14:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen 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. Ok, DK. I withdraw from continuing the semantic battle. You win an argument on the internet! [sm=biggrin.gif] quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen 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. Actually, what I said was: quote: ... it appears (at least on first glance), that it would now be perfectly legal for Obama to do exactly what the Bush Admin is being castigated for even considering. Quite bit different with the leading phrase, now doesn't it? I consider this unethical conduct in a debate on your part. Firm

rulemylife -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/29/2009 10:26:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig Regardless of the proper definition of "black letter law", from the reading I have been doing on the Posse Comitatus act, it is most certainly subject to interpretation. Exceptions have been made to it pretty much from the get go. In fact, by the actual wording the act wouldn't prevent the president from using federal troops in a law enforcement capacity any time he wants to. The law makes it a punishable offense to conscript a member of the Army or Air Force to assist a county sheriff keep the peace or pursue and arrest a felon. It has, however, been interpreted to have a much broader application. It is not fundamental law, it has been interpreted to enforce a fundamental principle of US politics. The basic tenet of the law is the military does not have the authority to arrest American citizens. What exceptions have you found to that basic tenet and what broader applications? As far as this whole sidetrack into black letter law, that doesn't equate to whatever you mean by fundamental law, it only equates to codified and, sometimes, common law.

DomKen -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/29/2009 10:27:03 PM)
So your defence is you're incompetent at basic research? In the future unless you wish me to start posting all the unethical things you've done around here I recommend you not make such accusations in the future.

Arpig -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/29/2009 11:25:21 PM)
quote: What exceptions have you found to that basic tenet and what broader applications? as for the exceptions read the link I posted earlier. As for the broader applications, that was due to my forgetting the phrase "or otherwise to execute the laws" after looking up just what "Posse Comitatus" implied. My bad. quote: The basic tenet of the law is the military does not have the authority to arrest American citizens. No, not exactly. That is how the law has been interpreted. What the law does is make it punishable to use the Army and Air Force (only) in such a manner "except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress". Congress can pass a law authorizing such use under whatever circumstances it wishes any time it wishes. The Constitution doesn't prohibit such use, so there really is nothing from stopping Congress from passing a new law that allows the President to use the military in a law enforcement capacity at will. Or simply repealing the Act, which would put such use into a sort of legal limbo. as well, the President is free to use the Navy and the Marines in such a manner whenever he pleases (at least in so far as the Posse Comitatus Act is concerned). I was not intending to get into the "black letter law" debate, never having encountered the term before this thread, it was just the idea that this particular law was not subject to interpretation. The link I provided as well as the one you provided contain examples of how the law has been interpreted over the years.

TreasureKY -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/30/2009 7:09:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig 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. While Firm is correct that my purpose for posting the link I did was to address rulemylife's assertion that PC is a "black letter law", it was to also to illustrate the breadth of conditions under which the Posse Comitatus Act can be considered non-barring. You point out that the Times article did not mention WMDs. Yes, there was no specific use of that term in the article. However, at the time of the arrest of the Lackawanna Six, the FBI felt there was reason to believe that they were involved in the planning of a terrorist act which would result in the suicide of at least one of the suspects. The scope of those suspected plans were not known, but as it was fast approaching the first anniversary of the events of September 11th, 2001, tensions were running a bit high. I agree that in hindsight there is still sufficient reason to question just how dangerous the Lackawanna Six were, but at that time, with the World Trade Center events so fresh on their minds... well, who would have ever thought that a hijacked plane could be considered a weapon of mass destruction? I can easily see where there might have been those who believed that the circumstances (not only the intelligence but the state of alertness of that time) warranted an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act. Whether that opinion would have ever been justified had no action been taken, we'll never know. As it is, we can be thankful that our President at that time had the foresight and good sense (or dumb luck) to take less drastic action.

TreasureKY -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/30/2009 7:45:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife 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! Just don't get your hopes up. [;)] quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife But I do understand the sighs. It must be difficult for you to have to come to Firm's rescue so often. While I can understand your desire to marginalize my comments by attributing them as merely support for Firm due to our relationship, I assure you that my opinions would stand exactly as they are, regardless. I doubt you would show any more sense if Firm and I had never met. quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife If you have a law school near you go in and ask any first-year law student to define black letter law for you. I have no need to do so, thank you very much, but you might consider taking your own advice. quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife And do you define yourself and Firm as the "bit more learned" or is it this low-level JAG officer you find so authoritative? lol... Based on your comments... it's entirely possible. But I tell you what... when your opinion is sought after and published by an organization funded by the Federal government whose purpose is to assist the Secretary of Homeland Security in addressing important homeland security issues, particularly those requiring scientific, technical, and analytical expertise... then I might consider you authoritative. quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife 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? If you can't understand what Firm says here on your own, then I'm afraid I can't help you.

TreasureKY -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/30/2009 8:13:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife Seems there was this woman on here recently. Ohhhhh what was her name? Terry? Theresa? No wait, Treasure. I believe you two are acquainted, and she seems to find a certain JAG major as an extremely competent legal authority. I put no one forth as a "competent legal authority"... let alone "extremely". I'm afraid you added that part all on your own. What I did do was offer up an opinion endorsed by an organization that advises the Secretary of Homeland Security. And no... they are not, by definition, a competent legal authority. But they are most likely more learned on the area of law in question and the legal opinions given by competent legal authorities with regard to that area... otherwise they wouldn't be in the position that they are in. I'd hope, anyway. But with the US Federal Government... you never know.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/30/2009 8:58:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY 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 Its more than habit and hatred. The longer it goes on, the easier it is for Obama to shift blame to the prior administration and to not take ownership for his own failed promises.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/30/2009 9:02:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY I consider this unethical conduct in a debate on your part. Firm why should this thread be any different from every other one?

DomImus -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (8/2/2009 7:59:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xBullx Rule your credibility for reasonable debate is slipping fast. Someone has to carry the torch in O59's absence.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875