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

[Liability]

The person who commits an act of war should NOT get charged with a crime (or 8 million counts of a crime for that matter).

How does a person commit an act of war?

The US is now declaring war against individuals?

sure .. individuals ..on poverty.. on drugs ..on concepts and belifes...remember..you are with us...or you are with ...the terrorist

Question: What would you fucking assmunching liberoidal idiots BE without your mindless, meaningless talking-pointlesses?

Answer: silent.

Acts of war are frequently committed by individuals, you fucking libtards.

One of the concepts to which your libtarded pinheads are stubbornly impervious is that in the modern world, war can be waged by entities OTHER THAN just nation states.

But, oh NOSIES! This does not fit in your close-minded understanding of the word "war." Thus, it cannot BE!

You truly are insufferably stupid.

 

[QUENTIN]

I nominate Quentin as most "The Poster Most Likely to be on Obama's Payroll"

The individual in my "masturbatory fantasy" is NOT COMMITTING A CRIME! It is an act of War.

Holding up a Liquor Store = Crime

Detonating atomic bomb in US city = Act of War.

Clue: Get One Today

Not only am I not on his payroll, I can't stand Obama. He's a terrible president.

Can't stand the Democratic party either. This isn't about politics. It's about the rule of law and foundational principles our country was founded on.

You can't throw out a principle when it's inconvenient, otherwise it isn't a principle. Likewise, you can't throw out the Constitution in the face of terrorism just because you're oh so frightened.

If the Russian military detonates an atomic bomb in a US city, it's an act of war. If a wacko, or group of wackos, detonates an atomic bomb in a US city, it's a massive crime.

All definitions throughout modern history have defined acts of war as the the actions of one nation against another. You can't just make shit up as you go.

"You must spread some reputation around before giving it to CrusaderFrank again..."

You can go on patting each other on the back until your palms bleed, the fact is neither of you has a leg to stand on which is why you've stopped even attempting to refute all the evidence I provided that directly contradicts all of your premises and claims and switched to lame attempts at ad hominems.

Jihadists have no standing under the US Constitution. NONE.

We're in Bizzaroland where US Marines must shout out Miranda warning before returning fire or capturing someone planting an IED.

US Democrats and Jihadists all want the same things out of life: end of US Civil Society

A Jihadist who keeps to himself in Saudi Arabia, no he doesn't.

A Jihadist, or ANYONE who commits a crime against the US stands trial in the US (the same is true for all other countries) and in our justice system, the accused have the same rights as citizens (also true for all other countries). If you have a problem with that, you'll need to go back to at least 1215 to complain. It's not anything new, it's the nature of justice and sovereignty.

As I've documented in this very thread, and a handful of others on this subject, Miranda warnings have nothing to do with any of this and aren't necessary; the lack of them not a problem in any way. That's a strawman distraction tactic.

Actually, it would be in letting the terrorists win as you propose, rejecting our core principles and throwing out the law because we're just too afraid of them to have faith in our justice system that would be the end of a civil society.

 

[rightwinger]

The person who commits an act of war should NOT get charged with a crime (or 8 million counts of a crime for that matter).

How does a person commit an act of war?

The US is now declaring war against individuals?

Leave it to a retarded leftard to ask such a retarded question.

History -- even RECENT history -- is a complete impenetrable mystery to these liberoidal assmunchers.

We once fought a war against pirates, by the way.

Still waiting dimwit..

Show me the resolution where the US declared war on terrorists? Who is the entity we are at war with? How do we know when we have won?

A terrorist can live in any country, even the US...Who are we at war with?

Your replies so far have been pathetic...but that is what I expect from you

 

[The T]

How does a person commit an act of war?

The US is now declaring war against individuals?

Technically, only a few German Uboats attacked US shipping prior to our entry into WWII, so we should have arrested and tried the ship captains, end of story. Amiright?

You can't be serious.

The German Uboats were operated by the German military in an official capacity, taking their orders from the German government. Therefore the nation of Germany was at war with us.

Fundamentalist terrorists are not representative of any national government, not on orders from any nation. They are incapable of declaring war, but as we've seen, they're capable of committing heinous crimes when our government doesn't take them seriously.

Regardless. WE were at WAR with them...and they were DEALT with as ANY Terrorist should BE. 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.

Their acts would have the SAME OUTCOME if they succeeded. THIS is what you miss, and I cannot help but think that you miss it ON purpose for partisan gain.

Guess what that makes you?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How does a person commit an act of war?

The US is now declaring war against individuals?

Technically, only a few German Uboats attacked US shipping prior to our entry into WWII, so we should have arrested and tried the ship captains, end of story. Amiright?

You can't be serious.

The German Uboats were operated by the German military in an official capacity, taking their orders from the German government. Therefore the nation of Germany was at war with us.

Fundamentalist terrorists are not representative of any national government, not on orders from any nation. They are incapable of declaring war, but as we've seen, they're capable of committing heinous crimes when our government doesn't take them seriously.

Well we did arrest a few people after the first WTC attack in 1993 when "Fundamentalist terrorists are not representative of any national government, not on orders from any nation" placed a truck bomb in the basement of a WTC Tower and detonated it intending to topple a fully occupied WTC tower onto a bustling lower Manhattan at rush hour. Any of that sound familiar?

They killed 6 people that day, and should have been charged with 60,000 counts of attempted murder.

See, my pointy headed friend, that was NOT a Criminal Act, it was an act of War that was treated like a Criminal Act.

How'd that work out for us?

Oh, had they moved the truck about 10 feet they might have succeeded in cracking the foundation and toppling the Tower.

 

[QUENTIN]

So a Military Tribunal is only fit for mutts and misfits like US soldiers; Jihadists get US Criminal Court. Terrific.

A military tribunal is for the military (notice how it's right there in the name?), criminal court is for everyone else. One isn't better than the other, they're simply for totally different things.

Nevermind that these Jhiadists that the 9/11 commission told us that al-Queida was at WAR with us? I guess YOU missed that part? Wonder why this fact escapes you?

That they say "I declare holy war on the great satan" or whatever bullshit doesn't mean anything. They're a ragtag group of individuals, not a country. They cannot declare war.

A couple of jackasses can "declare war on Christmas" but that's not an actual fucking war.

Also, it's quite telling that when confronted with the definition of what a prisoner of war is and the recent history documenting we've tried and convicted 195 terrorists just like KSM in US criminal court, you ignore it and instead try to paint me as a Democrat. Why? Because you can't possibly have a response because the facts so irrefutably and obviously completely discredit your arguments.

Since the word gets bandied about so much and I've been repeatedly accused of it now, I want to ask about this "partisan" business. I don't support any political party. I have never voted for a Democrat or Republican. I have actively criticized and protested against Obama, and gave money and my vote to someone who ran against him, as I did Bush and Clinton. I am not a liberal or conservative, according to the modern and commonly accepted American definitions. I support the Constitution, what it actually says not what I imagine it to be, and the rule of law. What exactly am I a partisan of?

 

[Liability]

How does a person commit an act of war?

The US is now declaring war against individuals?

Leave it to a retarded leftard to ask such a retarded question.

History -- even RECENT history -- is a complete impenetrable mystery to these liberoidal assmunchers.

We once fought a war against pirates, by the way.

Still waiting dimwit..

Show me the resolution where the US declared war on terrorists? Who is the entity we are at war with? How do we know when we have won?

A terrorist can live in any country, even the US...Who are we at war with?

Your replies so far have been pathetic...but that is what I expect from you

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

Cripes. You assmunch liberoidals are fucking SLOW learners:

Authorization for Use of Military Force
September 18, 2001

Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]


107th CONGRESS



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


JOINT RESOLUTION
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'.

SEC. 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 supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.


Approved September 18, 2001.

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 war because it does not use the phrase "declaration of war."

Fucking stupidass liberoidals truly are too stupid to breathe.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So a Military Tribunal is only fit for mutts and misfits like US soldiers; Jihadists get US Criminal Court. Terrific.

A military tribunal is for the military (notice how it's right there in the name?), criminal court is for everyone else. One isn't better than the other, they're simply for totally different things.

You're delusional. You're putting KSM in a criminal court instead of before a military tribunal.

 

[QUENTIN]

Technically, only a few German Uboats attacked US shipping prior to our entry into WWII, so we should have arrested and tried the ship captains, end of story. Amiright?

You can't be serious.

The German Uboats were operated by the German military in an official capacity, taking their orders from the German government. Therefore the nation of Germany was at war with us.

Fundamentalist terrorists are not representative of any national government, not on orders from any nation. They are incapable of declaring war, but as we've seen, they're capable of committing heinous crimes when our government doesn't take them seriously.

Well we did arrest a few people after the first WTC attack in 1993 when "Fundamentalist terrorists are not representative of any national government, not on orders from any nation" placed a truck bomb in the basement of a WTC Tower and detonated it intending to topple a fully occupied WTC tower onto a bustling lower Manhattan at rush hour. Any of that sound familiar?

They killed 6 people that day, and should have been charged with 60,000 counts of attempted murder.

See, my pointy headed friend, that was NOT a Criminal Act, it was an act of War that was treated like a Criminal Act.

How'd that work out for us?

Oh, had they moved the truck about 10 feet they might have succeeded in cracking the foundation and toppling the Tower.

Christ on a crutch.

You're trying to blame the intelligence and security and government failure to prevent the 9/11 attack we knew was coming based on what the CIA was promoting but the Administration ignoring on the fact that we tried the blind Sheikh in criminal court instead of military tribunal? He committed a crime in the US, he gets tried in the US. That's how the system has always worked, it was designed that way.

What the hell kind of sense does that make?

"We went to the moon in 1969. How did that work out for us? The terrorists attacked the World Trade Center on 9/11! If only we hadn't gone to the moon because of that libtard Kennedy, none of this would have happened. No more space exploration."

One thing happening before another does not mean it caused another. That we didn't take the threat from AQ more seriously is definitely a problem. Not that we tried and convicted a couple of their minions. That's plainly absurd and irrational.

 

[QUENTIN]

Leave it to a retarded leftard to ask such a retarded question.

History -- even RECENT history -- is a complete impenetrable mystery to these liberoidal assmunchers.

We once fought a war against pirates, by the way.

Still waiting dimwit..

Show me the resolution where the US declared war on terrorists? Who is the entity we are at war with? How do we know when we have won?

A terrorist can live in any country, even the US...Who are we at war with?

Your replies so far have been pathetic...but that is what I expect from you

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

Cripes. You assmunch liberoidals are fucking SLOW learners:

Authorization for Use of Military Force
September 18, 2001

Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]


107th CONGRESS



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


JOINT RESOLUTION
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'.

SEC. 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 supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.


Approved September 18, 2001.

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.

 

[QUENTIN]

So a Military Tribunal is only fit for mutts and misfits like US soldiers; Jihadists get US Criminal Court. Terrific.

A military tribunal is for the military (notice how it's right there in the name?), criminal court is for everyone else. One isn't better than the other, they're simply for totally different things.

You're delusional. You're putting KSM in a criminal court instead of before a military tribunal.

Gee, our founding fathers sure must have been delusional, huh?

An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.

Trial by jury is the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.

The Supreme Court is delusional. The Constitution is delusional. The Geneva Convention is delusional. American laws are delusional. American courts are delusional. Apparently everything is delusional if it doesn't agree with CrusaderFrank and his disdain for the justice system.

 

[Liability]

A military tribunal is for the military (notice how it's right there in the name?), criminal court is for everyone else. One isn't better than the other, they're simply for totally different things.

You're delusional. You're putting KSM in a criminal court instead of before a military tribunal.

Gee, our founding fathers sure must have been delusional, huh?

An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.

Trial by jury is the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.

The Supreme Court is delusional. The Constitution is delusional. The Geneva Convention is delusional. American laws are delusional. American courts are delusional. Apparently everything is delusional if it doesn't agree with CrusaderFrank and his disdain for the justice system.

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.

 

[The T]

Leave it to a retarded leftard to ask such a retarded question.

History -- even RECENT history -- is a complete impenetrable mystery to these liberoidal assmunchers.

We once fought a war against pirates, by the way.

Still waiting dimwit..

Show me the resolution where the US declared war on terrorists? Who is the entity we are at war with? How do we know when we have won?

A terrorist can live in any country, even the US...Who are we at war with?

Your replies so far have been pathetic...but that is what I expect from you

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

Cripes. You assmunch liberoidals are fucking SLOW learners:

Authorization for Use of Military Force
September 18, 2001

Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]


107th CONGRESS



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


JOINT RESOLUTION
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'.

SEC. 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 supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.


Approved September 18, 2001.

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.

And these shitasses cite that there was "No consensus by the Congress" meaning "Advice and consent..."

Seems to me that there was...but political forces being what they are, many are in denial of what happened in fear of their jobs at our expense...

 

[The T]

You're delusional. You're putting KSM in a criminal court instead of before a military tribunal.

Gee, our founding fathers sure must have been delusional, huh?

Trial by jury is the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.

The Supreme Court is delusional. The Constitution is delusional. The Geneva Convention is delusional. American laws are delusional. American courts are delusional. Apparently everything is delusional if it doesn't agree with CrusaderFrank and his disdain for the justice system.

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.

When it comes right down to it? WHY would anyone confer rights upon foreigners whom have tried to deny Life, Liberty, and the Persuit of Happiness, upon people when the perpetrators weren't citizens themselves in the act of such a "crime"?

 

[Liability]

Still waiting dimwit..

Show me the resolution where the US declared war on terrorists? Who is the entity we are at war with? How do we know when we have won?

A terrorist can live in any country, even the US...Who are we at war with?

Your replies so far have been pathetic...but that is what I expect from you

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

Cripes. You assmunch liberoidals are fucking SLOW learners:

Authorization for Use of Military Force
September 18, 2001

Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]


107th CONGRESS



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


JOINT RESOLUTION
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'.

SEC. 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 supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.


Approved September 18, 2001.

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.

 

[GHook93]

Eric Holder would probably charge them with J-Walking, but the brave police and soldiers that bring them to justice will be charged with high treason!

Holder must go!

 

[Liability]

Eric Holder would probably charge them with J-Walking, but the brave police and soldiers that bring them to justice will be charged with high treason!

Holder must go!

I most fully concur!

It is time to PETITION our Government for the redress of grievances.

I have already argued, here at USMB, that the President OUGHT to fire Attorney General Holder.

Now, I think, we need to ratchet it up a tad.

Somehow we need to make this a national PETITION.

I propose we find a large enough Conservative-oriented public advocacy group to craft a nationwide petition drive seeking millions of American voters' signatures demanding that the disgraceful Attorney General, Eric Holder, be removed from Office.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Let's review: 1993 WTC attack treated as a criminal act instead of an act of war. Instead of enhanced interrogation, the Terrorists got their day in court, and more Americans died.

KSM captured and treated like a terrorist, enhanced interrogation yield high quality Intel that allows us to stop additional attacks. No more dead Americans.

Treating KSM and Jihadists as criminal will lead to more dead Americans

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Oh really?

Authorizing the use of our military does not constitute a declaration of WAR.

There is no way to declare WAR on an ideology. You have to have a specific entity or country to declare war against. You can't wage war against a concept.

Who won the War on Poverty? Who won the War on Drugs?

 

[The T]

Still waiting dimwit..

Show me the resolution where the US declared war on terrorists? Who is the entity we are at war with? How do we know when we have won?

A terrorist can live in any country, even the US...Who are we at war with?

Your replies so far have been pathetic...but that is what I expect from you

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

Cripes. You assmunch liberoidals are fucking SLOW learners:

Authorization for Use of Military Force
September 18, 2001

Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]


107th CONGRESS



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


JOINT RESOLUTION
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'.

SEC. 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 supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.


Approved September 18, 2001.

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.

What 'THINGS' are we at war with? Or more precisely? What 'Things were at WAR with us, when a certain Administration of the 1990's FAILED to recognize that we were being attacked from without...?

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.

But this wasn't a 'COUNTRY' but a Radical originization made up of elements (people) from MANY nations that had a BEEF with us, and would stoop to no end to use our LAWS/Customs against us as shown in the 9/11 attacks? (9/11 Commission bears this out).

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.

Yes...but even YOU has marginalised this by your OWN admission.

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).

WRONG. These were foreign nationals. FDR set the precident back in 1942. The foreigners got the CHAIR. Their collaborators (citizens) got LIFE INPRISONMENT.

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.

No it isn't FDR showed the WAY. it is just that YOU ignore it.

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

Poop. Unadultrated bullsqueeze. YOU are applying modern terms to an age-old problem that has been summarily DEALT WITH by I would summize you Libroidals see as your modern Hero (Only to be eclipsed by OBAMA, and one of his hechmen...HOLDER), 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.

But do plod on? THis is getting amusing for me to see your abject moronishness.

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.

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...but these individuals HAD BEEN at war with us and we NOT with them and I speak specifically of al-Queida as highlighted by the 9/11 Commission.

So I deem your stance to be one of partisan hackery by your agreement with Eric Holder the AG, whom couldn't answer Senator Graham's question either, as *I* highlighted unto you earlier in this thread.

Your ignorence of the topic is laughable. and as thick as your mind, but as shallow as your effort to research the topic. You haven't paid attention and are I would summize feeding from Talking partisan points for nefarious purposes like a good little Statist Jackboot Brownshirt should.