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

rulemylife -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/25/2009 8:43:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xBullx It's just that your motives and talking points appear so, corrupted, slanted, bias and politically skewed it appears you don't look at subject matter objectively, even to the extent you try and discredit good ideas and views of the opposition, whether they'd be beneficial or not. You are always bringing negative attacks against Bush, Palin or anyone you politically dislike back into the center of conversation to serve as an excuse or distraction and it's growing old; old to the point that when you are justified in resurrecting past indiscretions against your politically contemptuous it rings repetitive, hollow and meaningless. You're absolutely right Bull. I am about as biased and partisan as they come, and you know what, that ain't gonna change. I was actually a Reagan supporter at one point and considered myself an independent. I even thought, and still do, that Bush Sr. did a decent job. Then I watched a Republican Congress waste eight years and millions of tax dollars trying to to dig up any dirt they could on Clinton, because they were unable to attack him on his policies, because his policies were working. Then I watched Bush & Co. spend eight years trampling all over the Constitution. So yeah, you are damn right that when I see new evidence of that come to light I'm going to be posting it and telling everyone who will listen about it. Because I don't want to see it happen again.

Starbuck09 -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/25/2009 8:45:33 AM)
Rulemylife is it not possible though that this was a legitimate and rational debate had by the president and his advisors for the reasons I have outlined?

TurboJugend -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/25/2009 8:49:44 AM)
quote: Using Army troops in a domestic situation! perhaps offtopic As a non USA citizen I find it weird to read that many find it normal to send the army to foreign countries for what ever reason....but complain when they protect your own country? Or do I misread?

rulemylife -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/25/2009 8:52:08 AM)
If I get arrested for something will I be able to go before a judge and say "Your honor, that's a really old law that I broke and surely you can make an exception for me because of the exceptional circumstances that forced me to break that law"?

Starbuck09 -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/25/2009 8:57:37 AM)
No that's not what i'm saying. Murder theft e.t.c. were things that those who wrote the constitution had to deal with and so they made provision for it. The conventional, chemical, biological and nuclear explosives of today are not something they had any knowledge of ans so correspondingly there is nothing in the constitution that covers situations in which their deployment [or the threat of such] needs to be dealt with. In this particular situation military e.o.d. teams are both better equipped and trained plus they will be for the most part vastly more experienced. In Britain there is some osmosis between AT operators and the metropolitan police [SO13] but it is still the military teams that are ideal.

xBullx -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/25/2009 9:02:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: xBullx It's just that your motives and talking points appear so, corrupted, slanted, bias and politically skewed it appears you don't look at subject matter objectively, even to the extent you try and discredit good ideas and views of the opposition, whether they'd be beneficial or not. You are always bringing negative attacks against Bush, Palin or anyone you politically dislike back into the center of conversation to serve as an excuse or distraction and it's growing old; old to the point that when you are justified in resurrecting past indiscretions against your politically contemptuous it rings repetitive, hollow and meaningless. You're absolutely right Bull. I am about as biased and partisan as they come, and you know what, that ain't gonna change. I was actually a Reagan supporter at one point and considered myself an independent. I even thought, and still do, that Bush Sr. did a decent job. Then I watched a Republican Congress waste eight years and millions of tax dollars trying to to dig up any dirt they could on Clinton, because they were unable to attack him on his policies, because his policies were working. Then I watched Bush & Co. spend eight years trampling all over the Constitution. So yeah, you are damn right that when I see new evidence of that come to light I'm going to be posting it and telling everyone who will listen about it. Because I don't want to see it happen again. ok then..........................

MarsBonfire -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/25/2009 9:02:45 AM)
The reason to keep uncovering this shit, and talking about it, is because with each passing election cycle, it's important to remember which party was willing to sell every single value of the US Constitution down the river. Which one used the terrorist attacks of 9-11-01 as an excuse for grabbing as much power into the fewest hands as possible. Which one wanted to turn the US into a defacto dictatorship. Pretty simple, really. And I'm sure this is going to be just one of hundreds of similar examples of the Cheany/Bush regime thinking about fucking us all over that will come to light in the coming years. Get used to it.

xBullx -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/25/2009 9:20:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MarsBonfire The reason to keep uncovering this shit, and talking about it, is because with each passing election cycle, it's important to remember which party was willing to sell every single value of the US Constitution down the river. Which one used the terrorist attacks of 9-11-01 as an excuse for grabbing as much power into the fewest hands as possible. Which one wanted to turn the US into a defacto dictatorship. Pretty simple, really. And I'm sure this is going to be just one of hundreds of similar examples of the Cheany/Bush regime thinking about fucking us all over that will come to light in the coming years. Get used to it. I don't speak for anyone but myself, but utilizing the bit of sense I possess, it bears saying that for those of us that don't trust or side with either of these corrupted parties, your commments and credibility have fallen to rest in league with those of Rule. But unlike Rule's comments that sometime have social pupose, I find virtually nothing but predjudicial, mean spirited and hateful badgering in your posts, no matter the subject. I would venture to say that it has been a lifetime since you met someone that was more informed or wiser on any given subject than you find yourself to be. But that's just a subjectively formed opinion. There now you got to be included.............Happy? By the way....You do know how to tell a politician is lying don't you? Yeah, his lips are moving.... Ahhhhhh, bi-partisanship

rulemylife -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/25/2009 9:22:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Starbuck09 Rulemylife is it not possible though that this was a legitimate and rational debate had by the president and his advisors for the reasons I have outlined? The section of the Constitution I linked to below is generally interpreted to mean that only the individual states can ask for the help of the U.S. military. The federal government cannot arbitrarily make the decision to send military forces into those states. The second link details the prohibition against using military forces in a law enforcement capacity. FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article IV Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence. Posse Comitatus Act - Definition of the Posse Comitatus Act The text of the Posse Comitatus Act, which is still in effect (as 18 U.S.C. Section 1385), reads:[Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. Today, the Posse Comitatus Act has taken on a very different meaning from the one that it had in 1878. No longer associated with Reconstruction, it is a useful way to prevent the U.S. armed forces from directing their efforts against U.S. dissident groups. Public sentiment in favor of the Posse Comitatus Act is so strong that a 2006 law permitting an exception to the Act in cases of public disasters (in response to Hurricane Katrina) was repealed a year later.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/25/2009 9:39:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TurboJugend quote: Using Army troops in a domestic situation! perhaps offtopic As a non USA citizen I find it weird to read that many find it normal to send the army to foreign countries for what ever reason....but complain when they protect your own country? Or do I misread? No, you're reading correctly. The way our government is set up, one of the most important principles is that there be a clear separation of powers between the 3 main branches of government. The theory is, this will make it difficult for any 1 branch to become more powerful than the other 2, because the separation of powers will act as a series of checks and balances between the 3 branches. One example of this separation is that the military (which is under the control of the executive branch of government) is not supposed to have any role in domestic law enforcement (which is the responsibility of the judicial branch). In this case, the debate comes down to whether fighting domestic terrorists is a criminal matter (falling under the jurisdiction of the Justice Department), or a military matter (thus the responsibility of the executive branch, or the President). Some of the President's advisors, including the Vice President, were urging him to declare it a military issue (at least, in this specific instance), which would have the effect of expanding the powers of the presidency. For some inexplicable reason, Bush did the right thing in this case, and decided that it was, indeed, a criminal matter rather than a military one.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/25/2009 9:45:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Starbuck09 Rulemylife is it not possible though that this was a legitimate and rational debate had by the president and his advisors for the reasons I have outlined? Of course it was. I knew as soon as I read the story who on this board would rant and rave about it. The fact is that all kinds of things are "considered" and their legality investigated. Its no different than the military having plans for invading every fucking country in the world, including Canada, if it became necessary. "Considering" doesnt mean jackshit.

DomKen -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/25/2009 9:47:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Starbuck09 Domken what if the situation was deemed too dangerous for law enforcement though? Surely in such a case a military response is justified if they have a better chance of saving lives? I would be interested to know what units the president was debating sending. Too dangerous for law enforcement? Our laws simply make no allowance that someone, short of rebellion or insurection, is too dangerous to arrest. Note that once the suspects were arrested the agencies involved could have brought in military bomb disposal units if that was called for. That isn't law enforcement. But special forces operators couldn't be the ones putting cuffs on the suspects. We simply do not allow the intermingling of our military and police in the way it is frequently seen elsewhere. It is a result of the events leading up to the Revolution reinforced by the experience of Reconstruction.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/25/2009 10:05:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Starbuck09 Surely those who drew up the constitution would have not wanted people to adhere to it simply because it was there. It has been a long time since the constitution was drafted and while much/most of it is still applicable to the every day lives of Americans there are now some situations that the creators of the constitution did not make provision for as they were not applicable in that time period. This appears to be a situation where the rulings of the constitution could end up doing far more harm than good. This was obviously an exceptional circumstance and for exceptional circumstances exceptions must be made. You're making very sensible arguments, but the Constitution is still the Constitution. I know it doesn't always seem rational, but for some of us (like me), the Constitution is almost literally a sacred document. The longterm survival and integrity of the Constitution is far more important to me than almost any short term crisis. Yes, certain exceptional circumstances (such as the genuine possibility of an imminent terrorist attack using nuclear weapons or large-scale bioweapons, for example), would have to be considered on a case by case basis, but generally speaking - as cold as this may sound - preserving the Constitution is more important to me than saving the lives of a few, or even a few hundred, citizens. Frankly, probably even a few thousand. And yes, before someone's knee jerks, I understand that I'm saying that as one of the people who's life is just as much at risk from a terrorist attack as anyone else's. Fortunately, though, this theoretical exercise rarely manifests itself as an actual practical matter. As it happens, the Constitution's framework has more than enough flexibility built into it to allow for almost any contingency. As was the case in this matter, because it really wasn't that exceptional a circumstance at all. And also, keep in mind that one of the flexibilities built into the Constitution is the option of amending the document itself as times change.

servantforuse -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/25/2009 10:07:42 AM)
They should done it. They would all be sitting in Gitmo with the rest of the terrorists...

Starbuck09 -> RE: HI ADD ME AT aliciadelacroix**yahoo.com (7/25/2009 10:15:38 AM)
DomKen I understand that no-one is deemed too dangerous for law enforcement to handle with the exceptions you've noted but in this case it is not the people that are dangerous but the equipment they may posess. In Britain there was a long history of similar situations with the I.R.A. where criminals had access to ordinance that the police were not fully trained to handle. In these situations [and these alone] jurisdiction was handed from law enforcement to the military, usually Felix. The reason is simply because in these very specific and exceptional cases the police were not as effective as the military and lives were on the line. If the house was booby trapped then sending in the police could lead to disastrous consequences both to the officers involved and the general public. I understand the desire to adhere to the constitution, really I do. However I am sure that those who wrote it would want people to think for themselves not simply follow the laws they laid down and if necessary make ammendments. These are difficult times and we need to fit them. I think there is a legitimate reason here for debate and I think president Bush was actually wise to have it. In this instance he decided it was not the right thing to do, but I think the debate itself is something healthy.

Starbuck09 -> RE: HI ADD ME AT aliciadelacroix**yahoo.com (7/25/2009 10:22:53 AM)
Well that's fair enough Panda more power to you, I think it's good to have strong beliefs and to recognize the down sides as well as the positives. I also understand that living in Britian it is harder to understand the utter sanctity of the constitution but I think it's a valid position whether I agree with it or not. I'm afraid I don't know a huge amount about how the constitution works with regards to being ammended. At the risk of sounding like a complete ignoramus is it at least conceivable that in a situation like this that an e.o.d. team could be deputised for the duration of the arrest to provide support and that it would still be only bona fide officers who placed the cuffs on the suspects?

DarkSteven -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/25/2009 10:25:12 AM)
Panda, your views mirror mine very well, and you express yourself well. I'll just kick back and let you represent me.

Starbuck09 -> RE: HI ADD ME AT aliciadelacroix**yahoo.com (7/25/2009 10:25:46 AM)
Rule I understand that use of the military is prohibited in the parts of the constitution you outlined for me but surely the debate itself is worth having even if nothing comes of it? If Bush had decided to use the military then he could have been judged by the public having given his reasons and either be applauded or ousted by the ballot box or impeachment.

rulemylife -> RE: HI ADD ME AT [email protected] (7/25/2009 10:26:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sweetalicia hi i am a cam girl help me plzz i am too horny right now plzz Can anyone please help this poor girl? Now I know we have our differences here, but surely someone is charitable enough to help her out with her problem.

rulemylife -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/25/2009 10:35:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Of course it was. I knew as soon as I read the story who on this board would rant and rave about it. The fact is that all kinds of things are "considered" and their legality investigated. Its no different than the military having plans for invading every fucking country in the world, including Canada, if it became necessary. "Considering" doesnt mean jackshit. The only problem is these types of legal discussions about things that were clearly illegal came up often in the Bush White House. And many of those discussions turned into contortions of the law that resulted in this country establishing policies that have eroded our standing in the international community.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.296875E-02