Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not even close to being semantics. It is a critical and determinative detail of law.
Cite the law...
Wait, there is NO law. Only a memorandum stating the Executive branches legal position which they won't release...
Quote:
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
Enemy combatants are fair game at all times unless and until they have been physically captured and siarmed. Their citizensdhip status makes exactly no difference.
False. Any act of war by a citizen is by definition treason. Treason is a legal matter and the constitution specifically states they MUST be tried.
In fact, the statute states "levying war..."
That's old school for American enemy combatant.
But then his 16 year old son killed later wasn't a combatant either...
Or are you claiming a 16 year old is an enemy combatant???
Quote:
How could anybody "notice" that when it is egregiously untrue?
Not untrue at all.
Obama's position is that Americans can be assassinated.
Bush declared America as part if the combat zone.
These two assassinations were not cleared ahead if time. It was discussed in Obama's cabinet.
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
Section 1 - Short Title
This joint resolution may be cited as the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force'.
Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
Then go to Ex parte Quirin.
Next time do a freaking search of the forum, the subject has been addressed numerous times on numerous threads.
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
Section 1 - Short Title
This joint resolution may be cited as the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force'.
Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
Then go to Ex parte Quirin.
Next time do a freaking search of the forum, the subject has been addressed numerous times on numerous threads.
A joint resolution does NOT override the Constitution. Seriously...
[MOD CUT]
The resolution does NOT apply to American citizens...
The ONLY exception to the 5th amendment is by being a member of the military WHILE during war.
5th Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Last edited by Ibginnie; 02-10-2013 at 04:03 PM..
Reason: personal attack
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
Section 1 - Short Title
This joint resolution may be cited as the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force'.
Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
Then go to Ex parte Quirin.
Next time do a freaking search of the forum, the subject has been addressed numerous times on numerous threads.
Joint resolution to vitiate the Constitution is group treasonality.
Well if they start using drones then maybe innocent citizens won't be getting shot anymore by the LAPD.
Between that and the fact that they found his pickup burned up might leave the citizens with a bit of safety to drive in the streets now.
Kind of strange complaining about this since the man they're looking for killed 2 people. Police will use whatever means necessary to find him, and I doubt drones would be armed anyway. Drones can spend longer time in the air than helicopters anyway. In the event the ex-soldier decides to open fire on aircraft, pilots wouldn't be placed into that risk.
Actually, the 5th Amendment says "any person" not "a US citizen." It applies to anybody, citizen or not.
Now, try and apply that on the battlefield and you have just ended our ability to shoot at any enemy without first putting them on trial. This of course is so incredibly stupid that even you would probably not suggest it. Maybe.
Or would you?
That's the point.
Americans are now considered combatants AND the US has been made the battleground.
Drones can spend longer time in the air than helicopters anyway. In the event the ex-soldier decides to open fire on aircraft, pilots wouldn't be placed into that risk.
I dunno, the controller jockey piloting the drone might get a sprain in his wrist.
I called the drone use in the other thread. Now let's see if they'll use a drone strike. They are claiming that the drones over the US are unarmed, but even if that is true now I doubt it will last long. Now that this guy is a "terrorist" the use of the preemptive drone strike will be necessarily to keep people safe and, of course, for the children.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
