quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro


The courts have long since allowed the exec. to take us to war without a declaration for 50 years. there hasn't been a formal congressional declaration of war since WWII.

I would like to see those court rulings..can I have the link?

Will we see a future memo allowing the use of drones on traitors ?
That would be interesting since the US Article III
Section 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Nosathro you completely miss the point. The executive and with a very supine congress...is acting as it wishes no matter what anybody says. The 'courts' have gone along with these wars simply by refusing (dismissing) any suit that alleges that without a declaration...other liabilities apply.

For Iraq, the congress authorized a 'use of force.' never declared war. Same with Afghan. Get a grip kinkroids, your govt., of, by and for the people is fucking history. I put my ass on the line for this country and yet come soc. sec. time...I am fucking leaving it.

If we can POINT OUT terrorists, then soon the exec. will be able to POINT OUT murderers, traitors and then the coup de grace...the political opposition. I'll watch from Canada, until the fascist virus attacks them too.

Does this mean you don't have the court rules?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

United States First Circuit Court of Appeals in Doe vs. Bush said: "The text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an 'authorization' of such a war."

In effect saying an authorization suffices for declaration and what some may view as a formal Congressional "Declaration of War" was not required by the Constitution.

Obviously, this would make Orwell proud.

quote:


Doe vs. Bush was dismissed "to raise a sufficiently clear constitutional issue." and failed to sight anything

An extreme case might arise, for example, if Congress gave absolute discretion to the President to start a war at his or her will... Plaintiffs' objection to the October Resolution does not, of course, involve any such claim. Nor does it involve a situation where the President acts without any apparent congressional authorization, or against congressional opposition... To the contrary, Congress has been deeply involved in significant debate, activity, and authorization connected to our relations with Iraq for over a decade, under three different presidents of both major political parties, and during periods when each party has controlled Congress.

However many in Congress who did vote for it later regreted it. As to Orwell, YOU obviously know nothing about him

"His work is marked by clarity, intelligence and wit, awareness of social injustice, opposition to totalitarianism, and belief in democratic socialism. Orwell wrote literary criticism, poetry, fiction and polemical journalism. He is best known for the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949) and the allegorical novella Animal Farm (1945)"

I do not think he would have anything to do with what you claim he would..

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Why the hell anyone would want to kill terrorists is beyond me. [8|]

Fine, let's turn the drones on murderers, robbers and rapists too, ok ?

Obviously, if we can just turn our drones on terrorists, we can now clean all manner of scum from the earth.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy

Until it happens, the future is all about what ifs and hypotheticals.

Are you really telling me the precedents the President is setting don't bother you?

Nice to see you have skipped my point about the difficulty of actually arresting terrorists based in hostile lands.

How would you sort that out......send them an email asking them to come back Stateside ?

No I didn't... I even said I am fine with using drones to blow up the HQ bunker in East Pigfuckastan. What I am extremely concerned about is the precedent that sets the stage for a "future" drone used to take out a cell of "suspected" terrorists in Eugene, Oregon.

quote:

Frankly, I have little issue with using a drone to blow up a bunker in East Pigfuckastan even if there are American citizens in it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

United States First Circuit Court of Appeals in Doe vs. Bush said: "The text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an 'authorization' of such a war."

In effect saying an authorization suffices for declaration and what some may view as a formal Congressional "Declaration of War" was not required by the Constitution.

Obviously, this would make Orwell proud.

quote:


Doe vs. Bush was dismissed "to raise a sufficiently clear constitutional issue." and failed to sight anything

An extreme case might arise, for example, if Congress gave absolute discretion to the President to start a war at his or her will... Plaintiffs' objection to the October Resolution does not, of course, involve any such claim. Nor does it involve a situation where the President acts without any apparent congressional authorization, or against congressional opposition... To the contrary, Congress has been deeply involved in significant debate, activity, and authorization connected to our relations with Iraq for over a decade, under three different presidents of both major political parties, and during periods when each party has controlled Congress.

However many in Congress who did vote for it later regreted it. As to Orwell, YOU obviously know nothing about him

"His work is marked by clarity, intelligence and wit, awareness of social injustice, opposition to totalitarianism, and belief in democratic socialism. Orwell wrote literary criticism, poetry, fiction and polemical journalism. He is best known for the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949) and the allegorical novella Animal Farm (1945)"

I do not think he would have anything to do with what you claim he would..

The courts ruled against Doe, using authorization of war over a formal declaration of war.

The whole crux of 1984 was the govt. changing the definition of words. The courts ruled that an authorization of war is now a formal declaration of war.

Prosecuting the leaks of our govt. and possible exposure of US war crimes, now means 'truth is treason.' That was another of Orwell's predictions in 1984. I don't need to 'know anything' about Orwell, I cite his book.

The new fascism and the coming of Big Brother as depicted in his book...must start somewhere.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

United States First Circuit Court of Appeals in Doe vs. Bush said: "The text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an 'authorization' of such a war."

In effect saying an authorization suffices for declaration and what some may view as a formal Congressional "Declaration of War" was not required by the Constitution.

Obviously, this would make Orwell proud.

quote:


Doe vs. Bush was dismissed "to raise a sufficiently clear constitutional issue." and failed to sight anything

An extreme case might arise, for example, if Congress gave absolute discretion to the President to start a war at his or her will... Plaintiffs' objection to the October Resolution does not, of course, involve any such claim. Nor does it involve a situation where the President acts without any apparent congressional authorization, or against congressional opposition... To the contrary, Congress has been deeply involved in significant debate, activity, and authorization connected to our relations with Iraq for over a decade, under three different presidents of both major political parties, and during periods when each party has controlled Congress.

However many in Congress who did vote for it later regreted it. As to Orwell, YOU obviously know nothing about him

"His work is marked by clarity, intelligence and wit, awareness of social injustice, opposition to totalitarianism, and belief in democratic socialism. Orwell wrote literary criticism, poetry, fiction and polemical journalism. He is best known for the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949) and the allegorical novella Animal Farm (1945)"

I do not think he would have anything to do with what you claim he would..

The courts ruled against Doe, using authorization of war over a formal declaration of war.

The whole crux of 1984 was the govt. changing the definition of words. The courts ruled that an authorization of war is now a formal declaration of war.

Prosecuting the leaks of our govt. and possible exposure of US war crimes, now means 'truth is treason.' That was another of Orwell's predictions in 1984. I don't need to 'know anything' about Orwell, I cite his book.

The new fascism and the coming of Big Brother as depicted in his book...must start somewhere.

Whatever your on..stop Bogarting it....

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

Fine, let's turn the drones on murderers, robbers and rapists too, ok ?

Obviously, if we can just turn our drones on terrorists, we can now clean all manner of scum from the earth.

quote:


They will have to first go thru bayonetings and lawings and tanks and planes and nukes before we get to droning them.

Lotta lotta hot air out here that sort of do not ape any realities.  

My whole point is and I'd hope...obviously so, if we can point out terrorists, then we can point out murderers etc. Soon we will have drones shooting American citizens here and w/o due process.

The latest def. auth. act allows just that and combined with W's modification of posse comitatus takes care of its 'legality.'

Must I continue in every OP on the subject remind people that everything Hitler did...WAS LEGAL.

This board seems to have a very short and selective memory.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

The battle field is no longer a single place with a defined front line and combat zones.


Just b/c a combatant draws far away to a remote place(and hides behind his kids) doesn`t mean they are not an active target.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

FR,

With the Dorner manhunt in CA, and the possibility of using drones to home in on him, how creepy would it be if a new video game came out where your job was to pilot drones, except it wasn't just a game?