-
- Neal Anderth
- Truck Series Driver (Pro II)
-
- Posts: 895
- Joined: 29 Dec 2010, 1:02 pm
21 Mar 2011, 10:26 pm
Snippets from the US Constitution:
"
(Congress): To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but
no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"
"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.' (A bill of attainder is an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without benefit of a judicial trial.)
"
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States,
when called into the actual Service of the United States"
"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."
http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/freedom-watch/index.html#/v/4599683/the-plain-truth-on-wars-of-intervention/?playlist_id=157991
-
- GMTom
- Administrator
-
- Posts: 11284
- Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am
22 Mar 2011, 6:11 am
Each is false and misrepresentive at best.
Your first claim, regarding the two year army:
appropriations are made in Congress every year, nothing states any sort of limit on service
Habeas Corpus
applies to US Citizens only,
also, no invasion, no rebellion
Bill of attainder
Applies to US Citizens not the entire world
President Commander in Chief
get the quote right:
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States"
He is in charge of the militia when they are called into service.
Breaking up pieces of a quote is not just misleading but rather a downright lie.
Treason
uhhh, he did in fact give aid to the enemy
as far as the two witnesses, that part happens in court and we await trial
it also has nothing to do with his claims
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
22 Mar 2011, 6:45 am
Neal Anderth wrote:Snippets from the US Constitution:
For the love of Peter (and all the saints, everywhere), can you please post an argument in your own words? Sure, if you want to support it with the Constitution, the Bible, some statistics, a quote from Biff the Wonderdog, feel free. But, seriously, can you not put a coherent thought together?
-
- Neal Anderth
- Truck Series Driver (Pro II)
-
- Posts: 895
- Joined: 29 Dec 2010, 1:02 pm
22 Mar 2011, 10:10 am
The POTUS has initiated a new war without any authorization from Congress, a clear violation of the Constitution according to his own words even. Ongoing violations may include but are not limited to: undeclared wars, unauthorized wars, unfunded wars, Americans on kill lists, warrantless wiretaps, disruption of peace protest organizations and other illegal COINTEL operations, torture, mock trials (POTUS declaring someone guilty and stating that he would rearrest someone in they were found not guilty), indefinite detention.
A domestic enemy of the Constitution violates its precepts and undermines its rule. Those violating the Constitution and those that support those violators are enemies of the Constitution.
-
- GMTom
- Administrator
-
- Posts: 11284
- Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am
22 Mar 2011, 10:47 am
Congress did authorize the war in Iraq and Afghanistan
The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[1] Pub.L. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing the Iraq War.
The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (Pub.L. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224, enacted September 18, 2001), one of two resolutions commonly known as "AUMF" (the other being "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002"), was a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizing the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The AUMF was signed by President George W. Bush on September 18, 2001.
Got any more nonsense to discuss?
According to your own wording, it was indeed authorized by Congress therefore is not illegal and no clear violation of the constitution. Freedom of speech is covered by the constitution allowing you to post such lies.
-
- Neal Anderth
- Truck Series Driver (Pro II)
-
- Posts: 895
- Joined: 29 Dec 2010, 1:02 pm
22 Mar 2011, 1:26 pm
GMTom wrote:Congress did authorize the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Congress didn't declare war in those cases. The Constitution provides for Congress to declare war. I did not say that they were unauthorized wars*. I said the action in Libya is unauthorized**. I said there were undeclared wars, unauthorized wars, and unfunded wars. A specific war may fall under one or more of those current categories.
___________
* The power to wage war without Congress declaring war is not a Constitutional power delegated by the People to the Government. The Congress has stepped outside its Constitutional power to authorize wars without a declaration of war. You've got an awfully messy history with undeclared wars. ** "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." - Presidential Candidate Barack Obama, 2007Last edited by
Neal Anderth on 22 Mar 2011, 2:02 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
- rickyp
- Statesman
-
- Posts: 11324
- Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am
22 Mar 2011, 1:41 pm
tom
So I say?
Explain to me how manning was defending the US Constitution. Go ahead, I explained how it simply can not be taken that way, evcen stretching things you simply can not say this....but you do. Simply saying "says you" while giving absolutely no reasons and no explanation? Go ahead and show me how any can twist this to be the case. I explained why, can you do the same?
Once again, Tom, you've entirely missed the point. I didn't say Manning was right.
I said that he may say he was doing his duty as a citizen because he apprehended a threat to the constitution.
You've argued elsewhere that he has an inherent right to this action.
-
- Neal Anderth
- Truck Series Driver (Pro II)
-
- Posts: 895
- Joined: 29 Dec 2010, 1:02 pm
22 Mar 2011, 2:13 pm
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
22 Mar 2011, 2:21 pm
rickyp wrote:Once again, Tom, you've entirely missed the point. I didn't say Manning was right.
I said that he may say he was doing his duty as a citizen because he apprehended a threat to the constitution.
You've argued elsewhere that he has an inherent right to this action.
Has Manning's alleged concern for the Constitution been chronicled? If so, was it noted before or after his arrest? Did he go into Military Intelligence with an agenda? If not, at what point did he become concerned about a Constitutional crisis?
Did Tom argue that espionage was Constitutionally-protected? I must have missed that post.
Manning is a real piece of work.
He was (clearly) a homosexual when he volunteered. He was "out" and yet not discharged. To express his "thanks," he committed treasonous acts.
I'm sure he read all 240K documents he allegedly released.
I have no idea why a few radicals are so in love with the guy. It could be they identify with his rabble-rousing, or maybe it's
something else altogether.Joseph Staples, Mr Manning's uncle by marriage, said: “It's one of those Catch 22 situations, because freedom of speech is great but if you do something that endangers other people's lives then I can understand why you're going to get flattened by the American military.
“Some people are saying that Bradley was a trouble-maker but he was anything but. He was just an introverted kid who loved computers and was fired up politically.”
Scott Lewis, a former classmate, said: "He was a bit hot-headed. If there was something he didn't agree with, he spoke up about it."
Other school contemporaries recalled him as a computer “nerd” who had a difficult relationship with his father.
Jenna Morris, a 23-year-old sales manager who went on holiday to Disney World in Florida with Bradley and his cousins, said: “He was a quiet lad and he’d had a tough upbringing.
“His parents had an acrimonious divorce. He didn’t get on well with his dad; they had quite a volatile relationship. His dad was very strict and shouted at him a lot.
“He had a tough time when he came back here with his mum because moving to another country after a break-up was hard. He was quite a loner and he didn’t really have a lot of friends. He had quite a bit of trouble at school and was picked on, but he didn’t care.”
James Kirkpatrick, who became friendly with him through their shared interest in computers, said: “I last contacted him about six months ago. He didn’t mention anything about what was happening, but at the same time he did seem a bit secretive, he was being a bit paranoid about what we spoke about on the net.
“He wouldn’t mention anything about what he was doing in the army and what he thought of it.”
Pictures on Mr Manning's Facebook page include photos of him on school trips during his time in Wales and at a gay rights rally, where he is holding up a placard demanding equality on "the battlefield".
-
- GMTom
- Administrator
-
- Posts: 11284
- Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am
22 Mar 2011, 7:12 pm
Ricky, if you are referring to the allow people the ability to revolt, this really stretches that point. But ok, I can play along... I also said that while people have the ability to revolt and must have that ability at their disposal, it is no "right" and if they fall on the losing side, they are most certainly prosecuted. Manning got caught, he's on the losing side, he should be prosecuted.
Having an option open does not mean one must take it or that he has the right to take it.
and Ricky, I stated he simply could not argue any sort of defense of the Constitution, not without laughing first anyways. He can say anything he likes, but to try and show proof he was doing so, well that's just impossible. NA is attempting to show how and has so far failed, can you point to any sort of way he could actually sell someone on this hypothesis? (again NA tried and failed) You can claim he thought so in his own mind I suppose, but that would be just the same as saying he thought he was protecting his carpet from getting stained in his mind.
-
- Archduke Russell John
- Dignitary
-
- Posts: 3239
- Joined: 29 Jan 2003, 9:54 am
22 Mar 2011, 8:58 pm
Neal Anderth wrote:[Congress didn't declare war in those cases. The Constitution provides for Congress to declare war. I did not say that they were unauthorized wars*.
And the Court has said since about 1801 in Talbot v. Seeman that a Congressional declaration of war does not require the actual words "Declaration of War" to appear in the legislation authorizing the use of military force for it to pass constitutional muster.
-
- rickyp
- Statesman
-
- Posts: 11324
- Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am
23 Mar 2011, 8:54 am
tom
I also said that while people have the ability to revolt and must have that ability at their disposal, it is no "right"
So there's no inherent right to revolt against oppression and tyranny?
But they have to have the ability to do so? Why, do they "have to have" the ability if its not a right?
-
- bbauska
- Administrator
-
- Posts: 7410
- Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm
23 Mar 2011, 9:13 am
You have the right to do ANYTHING. However, that right is metered by the fact that you have the responsibility to take account of your actions in court proceedings.
Since we have used the Revolutionary War as examples via the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, I will continue that.
If the "Founding Fathers" had declared independence and began fighting against the British rule in the colonies, but lost; what would the outcome be? They would have been tried, convicted, and executed for treason, no? However, because they used the right to fight against what they saw as tyranny and won; they were regarded as heroes.
Same with Private Manning... If he was successful with his supposed actions against the government he would have been regarded as a hero. However, that did not occur, the opposite did.
Will he take responsibility for his actions? That is yet to be seen.
-
- GMTom
- Administrator
-
- Posts: 11284
- Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am
23 Mar 2011, 9:28 am
Ricky, you have the ability to commit espionage against your country. To be given freedom of speech, freedom to move around and to travel, freedoms of many kinds, this ability at your disposal is a must, to act upon that is not a right now is it?
Same here, this must be at your disposal yet in no way is a right.
In America we have the right to bear arms, we must have the ability to shoot people dead
That is no "right" that requires me to go on a shooting rampage
In Canada you have a fundamental freedom
"freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication"
You must be given the ability to say anything you like
Yet you also have The Canadian Human Rights Act that prohibits discrimination on various grounds, and forbids the posting of hateful or contemptuous messages on the Internet.
Seems like you have the RIGHT to say what you want, it's there in your Fundamental Rights but here you have a law that tempers the ability to say what you want. Gee, why is it this is so clear for you but rebellion is so vastly different? Could it be you really do understand it but want to simply stir the pot and pretend you don't understand?
You seem to have no problem with these libyans who are revolting, They have weapons making it possible. Should Gaddafi win, these rebels will no doubt be executed. But should they win, they become heroes, such is the fate of a freedom fighter now isn't it?
Please do not confuse a "right" with something that must be available
-
- Neal Anderth
- Truck Series Driver (Pro II)
-
- Posts: 895
- Joined: 29 Dec 2010, 1:02 pm
23 Mar 2011, 12:54 pm
Archduke Russell John wrote:Neal Anderth wrote:[Congress didn't declare war in those cases. The Constitution provides for Congress to declare war. I did not say that they were unauthorized wars*.
And the Court has said since about 1801 in Talbot v. Seeman that a Congressional declaration of war does not require the actual words "Declaration of War" to appear in the legislation authorizing the use of military force for it to pass constitutional muster.
I know I'm arguing against a vast conspiracy of the majority, an empire drowning in debt. The court can be enemies of the Constitution just the same as anyone else. I'll just admit while we're at it that I don't abide the courts assumed authority to rule that black people were personal property as it did in 1857 in the Dred Scott decision.
I just don't buy into the might makes right argument. I know you have all the weapons and resources and will therefore get away with it, but still.
The other big problem is the false moral narratives used to sanctify nefarious actions. We had to invade Iraq because of the torture chambers, they said. Manning exposed the utter depravity of that lie with the
Frago 242 revelations. The NeoCons and liberal interventionists condemned anyone not supporting the invasion as being pro-Saddam. Manning exposed the false moral narrative of the government. The fact that they can't treat him decently in confinement is well, just more of the same.
