"Freedom Watch" calls the President a criminal for killing Bin Laden

That was a congressional joint resolution, so, no, he did not step over his authority.

He simply used the authority given to him by congress.

The fact that he used that authority stupidly is besides the point.

Actually no declaration of war was issued by Congress they gave Bush broad discretion to wage war on Terrorism. Even though Congress authorized this it's still not within the boundaries of Constitutional limits of Presidential powers.

I disagree.

The last declaration of war approved by Congress was World War II Anything after that was a Military engagements authorized by Congress

Declaration of war by the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Imperial Presidency and the War onTerror
Bush was given broad discretion of the presidental war powers to wage war on Terrorism
http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v28n2/cpr-28n2-1.pdf
 
We have a war going on and Osama is the leader and now he is a casualty of the way, couldn't have to a nicer guy and I don't care who did it. Blowing up Innocent people to prove your ideology is just plant wrong.

The ones who flew the planes are dead, the one who mastermind the attack plan is caught the one that financed to attack is deadmost anyone that had any connection with the attack was kille or captured while Bush was president. nothing was linked to Bin Laden. We were given the battle cry and we followed.

PigReb...I've gotta hand it to you. You make me laugh. Thanks... a good chuckle is always appreciated!

As for the link to Osams Bin Ladin you need to watch the video he made where he discusses how he was involved in the engineering aspects of 9/11 and actually helped pick out which floors the hijackers were supposed to crash into.

Who links Bin Ladin to 9/11??..HE DOES!!! Christ! You are a very funny guy!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

That video was dismissed as a fraud. in 2006 by dick cheney.
 
Last edited:
Horseshit most everybody was lined up behind the actions after 9/11 we did as the government told us to do.

And how does that disprove my point?


It wasn't partisan then Your postvvvvvvvvvvvv
It's partisan because you and every other Republican lined up behind the idea 110%... right up to the point that Obama stood a chance at gaining politically from it.

It was at that point that you suddenly changed your mind.

Considering the subject, that's about as partisan as you can get.
 
The ones who flew the planes are dead, the one who mastermind the attack plan is caught the one that financed to attack is deadmost anyone that had any connection with the attack was kille or captured while Bush was president. nothing was linked to Bin Laden. We were given the battle cry and we followed.

Osama was the LEADER of Al Qaeda. He was the man that ordered the act be done.

Hitler didn't "mastermind" all his battles either. That's what generals are for.
 
It wasn't partisan then Your postvvvvvvvvvvvv
It's partisan because you and every other Republican lined up behind the idea 110%... right up to the point that Obama stood a chance at gaining politically from it.

It was at that point that you suddenly changed your mind.

Considering the subject, that's about as partisan as you can get.

And when exactly did I, for instance, change my mind about whether getting Osama Bin Laden was a good idea?

I thought it was a good idea throughout the Bush presidency.

Now, I'm not even saying I'm "Mr Neutral" or anything here, because admittedly I have my partisan moments, but it takes an ultra-partisan to change their mind about a very serious matter like this simply because it's politically expedient to do so.
 
The ones who flew the planes are dead, the one who mastermind the attack plan is caught the one that financed to attack is deadmost anyone that had any connection with the attack was kille or captured while Bush was president. nothing was linked to Bin Laden. We were given the battle cry and we followed.

Osama was the LEADER of Al Qaeda. He was the man that ordered the act be done.

Hitler didn't "mastermind" all his battles either. That's what generals are for.

All I have to say is take it up with the FBI and Dick Cheney. If the FBI had thought he had any contaction with 9/11 his FBI wanted poster would have stated that. If he was contacted with 9/11 Dick Cheney of all peole would not have said they had no evidence to support any claim that he was contacted with 9/11. And a CEO of a company is not going to get blamed if someone in his company violated the law and steals company funds.
 
The last declaration of war approved by Congress was World War II Anything after that was a Military engagements authorized by Congress

Declaration of war by the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Imperial Presidency and the War onTerror
Bush was given broad discretion of the presidental war powers to wage war on Terrorism
http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v28n2/cpr-28n2-1.pdf

The Constitution not only gives Congress the power to specifically Declare War, it also mentions "letters of marque and reprisal".

Essentially, this was a government licence authorizing a private vessel to attack and capture enemy vessels... HOWEVER, and this is important, a "letter of marque and reprisal" would involve permission to cross an international border to effect a reprisal (take some action against an attack or injury) authorized by an issuing jurisdiction to conduct reprisal operations outside its borders.

So there is in fact precedent IN THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF for such an authorization.
 
The last declaration of war approved by Congress was World War II Anything after that was a Military engagements authorized by Congress

Declaration of war by the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Imperial Presidency and the War onTerror
Bush was given broad discretion of the presidental war powers to wage war on Terrorism
http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v28n2/cpr-28n2-1.pdf

The Constitution not only gives Congress the power to specifically Declare War, it also mentions "letters of marque and reprisal".

Essentially, this was a government licence authorizing a private vessel to attack and capture enemy vessels... HOWEVER, and this is important, a "letter of marque and reprisal" would involve permission to cross an international border to effect a reprisal (take some action against an attack or injury) authorized by an issuing jurisdiction to conduct reprisal operations outside its borders.

So there is in fact precedent IN THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF for such an authorization.

The war onTerror wasn't for a specific place it's was where ever the president deemed a need to send troops. As I said the congress gave the President broad discretion of the presidental war powers.
 

Forum List

Back
Top