A terrorist detonates an atomic bomb or releases weaponized Ebola in a US City

[Ravi]

Hmm lemme see, we caught a few guys after the first WTC attack and brought them to trial, how'd that work out for us, I mean putting aside that whole 9/11 thingy.

If you think 9/11 happened because we convicted a few terrorists, you're an asshole.

Oh, wait...

 

[QUENTIN]

Qwentin:

You are being intentionally dishonest and disingenuous.

We all believe in trials, not just you pontificating gasbag liberoidals.

We believe in trials for all persons accused of committing CRIMES.

Historically, until recently, we have never espoused the belief that enemy sabateours or spies deserve "trials" in our civilian criminal justice system for "crimes." For what THEY do is not a matter of criminal law. What they do is a matter of WAR.

You could NEVER get one of the Founders or Framers to accept YOUR stupid notion that terrorists deserve a criminal trial.

You go on pretending, though. I'm sure you can confuse a few newbie liberoidals along the way.

I'm not, I'm just familiar with precedent and law.* * * *

Wow. And you can even randomly highlight a letter in a correctly spelled word, too (albeit for no apparent reason).

I'm so very happy that you have what you consider some passing familiarity with precedent.

That's adorable.

Now, cite the precedent whereby the U.S. is somehow obligated to give terrorists a criminal trial.

(Wow. I can highlight all the letters of a correctly spelled word. This is fun!)

Oh, I'm not randomly highlighting the letter. See:

Then I will ask you same as Senator Graham did to Eric Holder, as to precident to confer US Constitutional Rights upon foreign Nationals/POW's in a time of WAR?

To figure precident? Look at what FDR did to 8 Nazi's during WWII.

There IS no precident conferring RIGHTS on POW'S.

And that herein is precident. They were NOT afforded "Constitutional RIGHTS" even though they MADE IT to our shores.

Learn from history, rather than try to rewrite it. FDR set the proper precident regardless of whether WE were at WAR with a party or NOT.

FDR set the precident back in 1942.

whom was asked this past week for precident...which HE couldn't answer.

Leave it to a Repubican named Lindsay Graham (R), S.C. which I could care less of, but APPLAUD for his delving into precident which YOU, and Holder failed to DO.

Your view is illogical by LAW of this land and established precident as I have highlighted. They do NOT have to wear the uniform of any country formally at war.

See, I'm hoping that the more he sees it written and the more it can be pointed out to him spelled correctly (hell, he's only had to see it used dozens of times reading this thread) the likelier it is he'll start spelling it right. It's really hard to take someone seriously as a citizen well-informed of the law when they can't spell basic concepts right.

Also note that every moving goal post attempt at argument he made -- that there is no precedent for giving foreign nationals Constitutional rights and trying them in US courts; that the Nazis FDR had before a military commission and executed were not soldiers from a country we were at war with, in uniform, engaged in a clear act of war, but somehow like these detainees; that these detainees meet the definition of a "prisoner of war"; again that the executed Nazis were not POWs; that there is no precedent for trying terrorists in US courts; that I didn't prove that; etc. -- were all refuted with legal definitions, case law, precedents, Supreme Court rulings, and history documented by official sources like the FBI. He's taken a dozen stabs at justifying his position, but none of them are based in anything but misinformation, ignorance, or fantasy.

Still WAITING to see the AUMF are you, you lying libtarded shitbird?

Cripes. You assmunch liberoidals are fucking SLOW learners:



I wonder what the over-under is on shitbrain leftwingshitflinger comprehending the import of the slightly highlighted words?

Oh wait. Let me guess. Like so many other libtards before him, shitbrain leftwingshitflinger will insist that a Congressional authorization for the President to use our nation's military force against THOSE enemies the resolution specifically cites somehow does not amount to a declaration of wr because it does not use the phrase "declaration of war."

Fucking stupidass liberoidals truly are too stupid to breathe.

Apparently much better than the chances of you understanding it since you so clearly don't.

That authorizes the president to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against nations, organizations, or people. It doesn't turn all three into things we're at war with.

The necessary and appropriate force against a country, if we found out it was responsible, is to declare war on them, fight them, topple their government, declare victory.

The necessary and appropriate force against an organization, if we found it was responsible, is to attempt to break up, defund, marginalize, or destroy the organization and its influence and power.

The necessary and appropriate force against a person, if we found they were responsible, is to capture or kill them. If captured, it is to try them to find out if they were responsible and if so sentence them accordingly (life in prison or death sentence).

No part of that, or anything else anyone is going to find, is going to formally declare a nation is at war with a barely organized group of people because that is literally impossible.

The rhetoric of "war on terror," "war on drugs," "war on poverty," etc is all metaphorical and ideological, not literal. We went to war with Iraq and Afghanistan, that's it.

Anyone captured who isn't a soldier of one of those two countries is not a prisoner of war, by definition. It's not my opinion, it's not a liberal point of view, it's what the fucking phrase does and always has meant.

Well, other than the fact that I obviously understand it much better than your limited mental faculties will ever permit, you might have a point.

Nah. You are incapable of making a coherent point.

The words mean exactly what they say.

When Congress (the body designated in our Constitution as the one capable of declaring war) AUTHORIZES the President (Commander in Chief) to use all necessary force -- that IS a declaration of war you imbecile.

Your retarded effort at spinning it into meaning something else has no chance of flying -- ever -- because the words clearly and plainly mean exactly what they say.

Too bad for you, you dishonest liberoidal shithead.

An authorization for the use of force is not a declaration of war. Declarations of war are very specific and can only be made by the Congress. A president cannot declare war. It is not within his Constitutionally enumerated powers. That's one of the key checks and balances in place, they did not trust one man with the decision or power to go to war but instead demanded it be agreed upon by a majority of the nation's representatives. Since all of them believe heedlessly jumping into foreign entanglements and wars was one of the most disastrous things a nation could do. So not only didn't the president and can't the president declare war, but for Congress to authorize the use of broad force at his discretion is an abdication of their responsibilities as the primary check on executive power and the only body with the authority to enter the country into a violent foreign entanglement.

But none of that matters to the person/country distinction. A war cannot be fought against an individual. A war, by definition, is between nations (or is a civil war fought within the nation but this does not apply to external threats like AQ).

This new notion Frank is pushing, that 9/11 happened because we tried the Blind Sheikh in court, not only doesn't make any sense but it invented out of whole cloth. No one and nothing has suggested this is the case, but when you have no concern for intellectual honesty and will just throw anything out there to try to make your case I guess it doesn't matter.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hmm lemme see, we caught a few guys after the first WTC attack and brought them to trial, how'd that work out for us, I mean putting aside that whole 9/11 thingy.

If you think 9/11 happened because we convicted a few terrorists, you're an asshole.

Oh, wait...

No, dickwad, 911 happened because we treated the first WTC attack as a criminal act instead of an act of war.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This is tough because I'm arguing against a political philosophy, I'm arguing against people who feel we deserved 911 so of course I make no headway when I say we fucked up because we failed to treat the 93 WTC attack as an act of war. I'm dealing with people who say, "Yeah? So what? America sucks and we had it coming, our chickens are coming home to roost"

 

[gautama]

Ahmadinejad isn't the boss in Iran. You and I both know that. If they do become nuclear capable and are actually dumb enough to try to use it they will hit Israel, not us. Either way, a nuclear attack from Iran guarantees their destruction.



I dunno ... several I would assume. Can you prove that without the Patriot Act they wouldn't have been thwarted?



I dunno. Nor do you.




I agree that we need to do our best to prevent these types of attacks from happening. Are you under the impression that I'm not?

All I did was call the fear mongering spade a fear mongering spade ...

All you're doing is proving my point. And that is: you and your type is clueless. You are an easy prey for a Political Charlatan. Every country has political morons like you.

Nothing has been proven. Where you walk cowering and afraid, I walk fearless and unaffected by those who wish to do us harm. When terror strikes, people like you are are the ones who give in to the terrorists. You are the ones calling for profiling, deportation, irrational wars, giving the gov't vast power in which to spy on their own people, and calling people who disagree with your policies traitors, anti-American, terrorist sympathizers, etc. The terrorists love to see that. For people like you the end always justifies the means no matter what they are. The worst part is that you can't win a war against terror no more you can win a war on poverty. So there is no end to justify your means. The threat is always there, it isn't going away. It's clear that you are the one who the terrorists feed on, not me. You are the one willing give up part of your way of life for some cozy feeling of security.

And as for me? When terror did strike and I wanted to do something about it, instead of hiding under my blankie and looking to the gov't to save me I went and signed a dotted line took a trip to the AOR and did my part.

With my two Purple Hearts I can match my military record with anyone.

Your own monicker "Article 15" certainly reveals your military credentials. Actually I am surprised that a libtard like you had the guts to even get into the military.....Hmmmmm.....betcha twas to escape the law. Not surprisingly you turned out to be a scumbag in the Military also. Probably in order to evade combat.

Let's face it, all you brainless Libtard pukes do and keep on doing is swallowing MusLame doo and begging for more.

 

[Liability]

* * * *
An authorization for the use of force is not a declaration of war.

It most certainly IS a declaration of war. Congress passed the resolution. They specifically AUTHORIZED the President to use ALL necessary force. Thus, the Constitutional requirement was COMPLETELY satisified. Check and balance. The President (some claim) could not do it on his own initiative. Well, whether or not that is completely true is moot because he was not doing ANYTHING on his own initiative AFTER that AUMF Resolution PASSED Congress.

Again, you can stand on your head, whistle "Dixie" and shoot nickles out of your asshole all day everyday for the rest of all time and none of anything you do or say can change what the AUMF specifically said and AUTHORIZED.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This is tough because I'm arguing against a political philosophy, I'm arguing against people who feel we deserved 911 so of course I make no headway when I say we fucked up because we failed to treat the 93 WTC attack as an act of war. I'm dealing with people who say, "Yeah? So what? America sucks and we had it coming, our chickens are coming home to roost"

What were we supposed to do after 93, treating it as an act of war, that would have prevented 9/11?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Hmm lemme see, we caught a few guys after the first WTC attack and brought them to trial, how'd that work out for us, I mean putting aside that whole 9/11 thingy.

If you think 9/11 happened because we convicted a few terrorists, you're an asshole.

Oh, wait...

No, dickwad, 911 happened because we treated the first WTC attack as a criminal act instead of an act of war.

9/11 happened because we had troops in Saudi Arabia. Our troops were there because we WERE at war in the ME, already.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
Your ignorence of the topic is laughable..

Moments like these never stop being funny.

 

[Ravi]

All you're doing is proving my point. And that is: you and your type is clueless. You are an easy prey for a Political Charlatan. Every country has political morons like you.

Nothing has been proven. Where you walk cowering and afraid, I walk fearless and unaffected by those who wish to do us harm. When terror strikes, people like you are are the ones who give in to the terrorists. You are the ones calling for profiling, deportation, irrational wars, giving the gov't vast power in which to spy on their own people, and calling people who disagree with your policies traitors, anti-American, terrorist sympathizers, etc. The terrorists love to see that. For people like you the end always justifies the means no matter what they are. The worst part is that you can't win a war against terror no more you can win a war on poverty. So there is no end to justify your means. The threat is always there, it isn't going away. It's clear that you are the one who the terrorists feed on, not me. You are the one willing give up part of your way of life for some cozy feeling of security.

And as for me? When terror did strike and I wanted to do something about it, instead of hiding under my blankie and looking to the gov't to save me I went and signed a dotted line took a trip to the AOR and did my part.

With my two Purple Hearts I can match my military record with anyone.

As for librul punks like you, all you brainless Libtard pukes do and keep on doing is swallow MusLame doo and beg for more.

Let me guess...they were for hits to your head.

 

[Ravi]

This is tough because I'm arguing against a political philosophy, I'm arguing against people who feel we deserved 911 so of course I make no headway when I say we fucked up because we failed to treat the 93 WTC attack as an act of war. I'm dealing with people who say, "Yeah? So what? America sucks and we had it coming, our chickens are coming home to roost"

What were we supposed to do after 93, treating it as an act of war, that would have prevented 9/11?

Invade Iraq.

 

[Liability]

3000/300,000,000 in a one time shot that took years to plan and execute ...

I'm quite comfortable with my point.

Be mindful? Of course.

Buy into the fear mongering hyperbole like the post I was responding to? Not so much.

I accept part of that distinction. The post to which you responded was graphic, perhaps, but I wonder if Daniel Pearl's wife would consider it unrealistic?

And the point of the 9/11/2001 example is not that the odds are 3,000 out of 300,000,000.

The enemies of the West ARE still planning. "Nations," like Iran, are still striving to acquire nuclear weapons. They ARE run by some of the same Islamofascist shitheads that thought the 9/11 atrocities were a good idea and ordained by Allah. If Iran obtains nuclear weapons capacity, is it truly that difficult to imagine a scenario whereby some of the folks who think like Ahmanazinutjob thinks might obtain nuclear weapons (from Iran) to take-on the Great Satan?

Ahmadinejad isn't the boss in Iran. You and I both know that. If they do become nuclear capable and are actually dumb enough to try to use it they will hit Israel, not us. Either way, a nuclear attack from Iran guarantees their destruction.



I dunno ... several I would assume. Can you prove that without the Patriot Act they wouldn't have been thwarted?

How many of those would-be attacks would have been what the Islamofuckers liked to call a "spectacular?"

I dunno. Nor do you.

We need to be MORE than just "mindful." We need to be very proactive in obtaining EXACTLY that kind of ongoing intel. For I don't know about others, but I for one would not feel content in knowing (if there is some new 9/11 type attack someday) that it was "only" a few thousand or a few tens of thosuands of my fellow Americans who got slaughtered. Not if we COULD have prevented the bastards from "succeeding" but lacked the WILL to try hard enough.

I agree that we need to do our best to prevent these types of attacks from happening. Are you under the impression that I'm not?

All I did was call the fear mongering spade a fear mongering spade ...

It is posts such as yours, by folks such as you, who give me some confort in discussing any of this with people who are either "liberals" or who are, at least, NOT "conservatives."

However one may classify you in political terms, I am pleased that your idea of debate is not to ALWAYS go for the cheesey ad hominem crap. In fact, I rarely see you cross that line. Me? I'm frequently guilty of it, but generally not with folks who are content to refrain from it themselves.

So, in that spirit, let me disagree with gautama. I see NO evidence that you are some unthinking liberal puke. I hope I haven't said anything that suggests that I hold in you in that kind of disreagrd.

We do disagree on some things, but I recognize that your position (even if ultimately "wrong" in my view) is generally reasonable and open-minded.

I do not place much stock in those who engage in fear mongering, either. HOWEVER, that said, not all clarion calls of warning about the nasty topic of terrorism constitutes "fear mongering."

As to your other qustion, basically asking if I can "prove" that the terrorists whom we HAVE managed to interdict would not have been caught but-for the PATRIOT Act. My short answer is : no. I tend not to be privvy to such intel. But that's not a good question anyway. Is there some reason you'd suggest that we might have successfully (and in a timely fashion) interdicted some of these attacks if we had NOT had the USA PATRIOT Act, the NSA surveillance program and FISA in place?

I guess my point is that I am NOT all that interested in TRYING the fuckers. So I don't really care too much about warrants or chain of custody for evidence and the like AS IT PERTAINS TO INTERDICTING TERRORIST ATTACKS. I do care FAR MORE about preventing them from ever succeeding in any more of these plots -- in the first place. And my view flows naturally from my firm belief that this is not now and never has been a criminal justice issue. This is a matter of national security in time of war.

 

[QUENTIN]

It most certainly IS a declaration of war. Congress passed the resolution. They specifically AUTHORIZED the President to use ALL necessary force. Thus, the Constitutional requirement was COMPLETELY satisified. Check and balance. The President (some claim) could not do it on his own initiative. Well, whether or not that is completely true is moot because he was not doing ANYTHING on his own initiative AFTER that AUMF Resolution PASSED Congress.

Again, you can stand on your head, whistle "Dixie" and shoot nickles out of your asshole all day everyday for the rest of all time and none of anything you do or say can change what the AUMF specifically said and AUTHORIZED.

This just isn't true, sorry. The use of military force is authorized, that's not the same as declaring war on a country which is a very specific thing (called a "Declaration of War") only Congress can do that has very specific ramifications.

There was not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It was an authorization to use military force. I only want to clarify that, because there are implications. Obviously, when you talk about a war declaration, you're possibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic relations. And so there is a distinction in law and in practice. And we're not talking about a war declaration. This is an authorization only to use military force.

--February 6, 2006, testimony of Alberto Gonzales to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Wartime Executive Power and the National Security Agency's Surveillance Authority

 

[Liability]

It most certainly IS a declaration of war. Congress passed the resolution. They specifically AUTHORIZED the President to use ALL necessary force. Thus, the Constitutional requirement was COMPLETELY satisified. Check and balance. The President (some claim) could not do it on his own initiative. Well, whether or not that is completely true is moot because he was not doing ANYTHING on his own initiative AFTER that AUMF Resolution PASSED Congress.

Again, you can stand on your head, whistle "Dixie" and shoot nickles out of your asshole all day everyday for the rest of all time and none of anything you do or say can change what the AUMF specifically said and AUTHORIZED.

This just isn't true, sorry. The use of military force is authorized, that's not the same as declaring war on a country which is a very specific thing (called a "Declaration of War") only Congress can do that has very specific ramifications.

Yes. You ARE sorry. But, sadly for you, you are also flatly wrong. What I said is clearly true and no amount of baseless denial by you can change it. A declaration of war is Congress giving the authority to the President, as the commander in chief of our nations military might, to USE that might. You really should go back and grab a few of the history books about the Constitution and the history of our Constitutional Republic. Congress was given the power and the authority to declare war so that the commander in chief might have some check on his use of our military might. The Congress is closer to the People and we made damn sure to jealously guard the use of any power by our Federal Government. But -- and this is the part that just fucks up your argument all to hell and back -- ONCE CONGRESS DOES grant the President the authority to use the military might against the enemies it names (and it did name such nations, organizations and individuals) then that IS a declaration of war.

YOU persist in trying (without authority, logic, support, factual cittation, reason, etc.) to argue that a Declaration of War can only be made against a Nation. But, saying it is not the same as it being true. Go ahead and repeat it. You're still wrong and the proof of that is that you will be unable to back it up. This probably accounts for why you never even try.

There was not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It was an authorization to use military force. I only want to clarify that, because there are implications. Obviously, when you talk about a war declaration, you're possibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic relations. And so there is a distinction in law and in practice. And we're not talking about a war declaration. This is an authorization only to use military force.

--February 6, 2006, testimony of Alberto Gonzales to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Wartime Executive Power and the National Security Agency's Surveillance Authority

Conzales is as entitled to make such pronuncements as the next guy. Odd that a guy like YOU would cite our former AG as "authority." But, your effort is a complete FAIL. Why>? Because his saying so doesn't MAKE it so. Your appeal to authority fails where the authority is simply wrong. That's one of the reasons that what you just tried to do is known as a "fallacy."

If I show you other citations of other folks who recognize (correctly) that it WAS a declaration of war, we could have a surrogate battle of the "experts." But none of that changes the actual substance.

Congress authorized the President to use our nation's military might. It directed our justified wrath down upon those who had attacked us. And THEY, by the way, had declared war on us and then WAGED war on us. Closing your eyes to that still doesn't change it.

BTW: The AUMF itself referenced the WAR POWERS ACT. If the AUMF wasn't a declaration of war, why would Congress do that?

 

[Liability]

* * * * I’m the guy that drafted the Use of Force proposal that we passed... I was the guy who finally drafted what we did pass. Under the Constitution, there is simply no distinction ... Louis Fisher(?) and others can tell you, there is no distinction between a formal declaration of war, and an authorization of use of force. There is none for Constitutional purposes. None whatsoever.

Who said that?

Why, my goodness. None other than the current Vice President of the United States of America. (REPLACEMENT LINK for a busted line: http://www.theamericanmind.com/mt-test/archives/2002_09.html )

And our Vice President has also maintained, as you see if you get the full quote from that link, that he's a professor of Constitutional Law. ! !!

So, I guess the Vice President trumps a mere Attorney General.

Ergo, I win the first round of surrogate quotes as an appeal to authority!

 

[gautama]

" if I can "prove" that the terrorists whom we HAVE managed to interdict would not have been caught but-for the PATRIOT Act"

The above is the typical, oft repeated question posed by the Libtard philosophers regarding the effectiveness of "waterboarding" in forestalling the MusLame Terrroist KSM attacks on several populated areas in America.

I don't remember which Libtard idiot asked that question on this Forum, but that's like asking the question about, let's say the Manson murders:

"Can you prove that by arresting Manson BEFORE those crazed vaginas committed their senseless slaughter would've prevented them from doing those murders anyway, with Manson in jail ????"

It's this type of BIZARRE Liboidal-hemorrhoidal logic that the Libtards revel in. And, CONSTANTLY get away with.

 

[Ravi]

" if I can "prove" that the terrorists whom we HAVE managed to interdict would not have been caught but-for the PATRIOT Act"

The above is the typical, oft repeated question posed by the Libtard philosophers regarding the effectiveness of "waterboarding" in forestalling the MusLame Terrroist KSM attacks on several populated areas in America.

I don't remember which Libtard idiot asked that question on this Forum, but that's like asking the question about, let's say the Manson murders:

"Can you prove that by arresting Manson BEFORE those crazed vaginas committed their senseless slaughter would've prevented them from doing those murders anyway, with Manson in jail ????"

It's this type of BIZARRE Liboidal-hemorrhoidal logic that the Libtards revel in. And, CONSTANTLY get away with.

Crazed vaginas? Is that you pubic?