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.
"The information that I have received so far is that five of the US Military's highest-ranking Generals have met with Barack Obama and warned him that if he orders an attack on Syria he will be arrested and charged with Treason for attempting to provide aid and comfort to our enemies,..."
That's the problem with the internet. Normal people get to see the insanity that used to be confined to street corners (or mental hospitals) while they were at work.
What complete and utter nonsense. It is the President that determines the enemies of the US, and therefore can never be charged with treason. If the President decides to provide aid and comfort to al Qaeda, then he has made the decision that al Qaeda is not an enemy. You can disagree with the President's assessment, I certainly would, but that does not make him a traitor or guilty of treason.
That being said, if Congress does not give the President authorization to use military force in Syria, and the President decides to take military action in Syria anyway, then the military would be required to violate his unlawful order. The military is only suppose to obey lawful orders, even when given by their Commander-In-Chief.
I am not eating this up but do you think the writer brings up a interesting point of aiding and abetting our enemies? Neither side is a ally of the U S and the bombings would have favored the rebels that has members of AQ and other radical muslim groups. Thoughts?
I am not eating this up but do you think the writer brings up a interesting point of aiding and abetting our enemies? Neither side is a ally of the U S and the bombings would have favored the rebels that has members of AQ and other radical muslim groups. Thoughts?
As I previously pointed out, it is the President that determines who is or is not an enemy of the US. I agree with you that both Assad and al Qaeda are enemies of the US, however, the President may decide differently. That is his prerogative.
I am not eating this up but do you think the writer brings up a interesting point of aiding and abetting our enemies?
if he is or isn't would be a matter for congress, not the military. it always amazes me that birthers claim to be "constitutionalists" but get all excited over the fantasy prospect of a military coup.
As I previously pointed out, it is the President that determines who is or is not an enemy of the US. I agree with you that both Assad and al Qaeda are enemies of the US, however, the President may decide differently. That is his prerogative.
The Congress shall have Power: To declare War
Attacking Syria is an act of war and needs congress approval and in fact you will find in most cases of "bombings and or other actions" we should have had actions to protect the president from entering into wars. If someone was about to BOMB US or a nuke was on its way or they were about to invade us the president can act against those scrabble the jets and army and defeat the enemy but the last time that would have happened was probably ww2 and or the cuban missle crisis.
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.
