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

[Liability]

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?

You are stultifying in your mindless robotic use of empty rhetoric.

One does not fight a war on drugs or a war on crime with military might, you fucking moron. The misnomer "war on crime" was never intended to connote a real war. So your relaince on the term is meaningless.

By contrast, a war against fucking terrorists who DID attack us IS a military thing.

And authroizxing the use of our military against that enemy is absolutely a declaration of war.

Congress didn't declare war on "terrorism." Again, the actual language of the AUMF Resolution which I quoted in full would assist you if you had the capacity to stop relying on your dishonest talking pointlesses for a moment. Instead, Congress specifically authorized the President to use all necessary force against the nations, organizations and individuals whom the PRESIDENT determined ". . . 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."

Your denial is based on -- NOTHING. You are reduced to just making shit up.

You suck at this whole "debate" thang. And it shows!

 

[skookerasbil]

If a terror strike like that ever happens again in NYC, Im coming and being part of a group that comes and air lifts all the limpwristed lefties from all over America for a fcukking airdrop right into the hot zone to do the cleanup.................

fcukking limpwristed Mary's..........many of whom can be found trolling their fringe idea's on this forum.........those hailing from Bumfook USA and Irrlevantsville USA who post up their k00k idea's on how best to deal with bad guys........idea's that havent worked for thousands of years of world conflicts............

you fcukking panty waist fairy lefties can come clean up my city next time....................

 

[skookerasbil]

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 War on Poverty!!! LMAO........a phrase coined by mental cases like Rightwinger back in the 60's and 11 trillion dollars later, its still their k00k mantra!!!
Maybe if we spend 22 trillion in the next ten years huh???!!!!!

 

[The T]

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?

You are stultifying in your mindless robotic use of empty rhetoric.

One does not fight a war on drugs or a war on crime with military might, you fucking moron. The misnomber "war on crime" was never intended to connote a real war. So your relaince on the term is meaningless.

By contrast, a war against fucking terrorists who DID attack us IS a military thing.

And authroizxing the use of our military against that enemy is absolutely a declaration of war.

Congress didn't declare war on "terrorism." Again, the actual language of the AUMF Resolution which I quoted in full would assist you if you had the capacity to stop relying on your dishonest talking pointlesses for a moment. Instead, Congress specifically authorized the President to use all necessary force against the nations, organizations and individuals whom the PRESIDENT determined ". . . 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."

Your denial is based on -- NOTHING. You are reduced to just making shit up.

You suck at this whole "debate" thang. And it shows!

Repeat and RINSE as needed. Good Form. These people will NEVER research it because they know the outcome...and it doesn't suit their political foddery...

 

[The T]

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 War on Poverty!!! LMAO........a phrase coined by mental cases like Rightwinger back in the 60's and 11 trillion dollars later, its still their k00k mantra!!!
Maybe if we spend 22 trillion in the next ten years huh???!!!!!

LOL...Isn't it interesting that they decry failure of one of their own? I guess it was the only thing availble in their brain at the time of posting?

 

[Liability]

If a terror strike like that ever happens again in NYC, Im coming and being part of a group that comes and air lifts all the limpwristed lefties from all over America for a fcukking airdrop right into the hot zone to do the cleanup.................

fcukking limpwristed Mary's..........many of whom can be found trolling their fringe idea's on this forum.........those hailing from Bumfook USA and Irrlevantsville USA who post up their k00k idea's on how best to deal with bad guys........idea's that havent worked for thousands of years of world conflicts............

you fcukking panty waist fairy lefties can come clean up my city next time....................

Ya can't spell worth a shit, but you just made me laugh right the hell out loud!

Some pos REP is coming your way!

 

[midcan5]

He should be charged with spending the rest of his life with CrusaderFrank, hell as Sartre so knowingly observed is other people. Imagine the excruciating boredom, the repetitive crap, the same negative speculative nonsense over and over and over again - and then to make the punishment worst than hell, the perpetrator would have no way of killing themselves to rid them of Crusader's presence.


"There are certain situations so monstrous that the idea that the processes of moral rationality could yield an answer in them is insane, to spend time thinking what one would decide if one were in such a situation is also insane, if not merely frivolous." Bernard Williams

 

[Liability]

He should be charged with spending the rest of his life with CrusaderFrank, hell as Sartre so knowingly observed is other people. Imagine the excruciating boredom, the repetitive crap, the same negative speculative nonsense over and over and over again - and then to make the punishment worst than hell, the perpetrator would have no way of killing themselves to rid them of Crusader's presence.


"There are certain situations so monstrous that the idea that the processes of moral rationality could yield an answer in them is insane, to spend time thinking what one would decide if one were in such a situation is also insane, if not merely frivolous." Bernard Williams

As mindless idiot libtard rants go, that was up there.

midcan, you are ven lame by typical liberoidal standards.

Pardon the oxymoron.

 

[Gunny]

Trying to agrivate the right wingers fear response system?

And murder a bunch of dumbass lefties who think bad guys only exist in the GOP. Oh, and did leave out hypocrites? You knuckleheads play the same damned game so DO get over yourself.

 

[The T]

Trying to agrivate the right wingers fear response system?

And murder a bunch of dumbass lefties who think bad guys only exist in the GOP. Oh, and did leave out hypocrites? You knuckleheads play the same damned game so DO get over yourself.

And what is the right winger's "fear response system"? Is that Like the "Emergency Broadcast System"?

Inquiring minds wanna know.

 

[Father Time]

A terrorist detonates an atomic bomb or releases weaponized Ebola in a US City
What should he be charged with?

I know this might be a special situation, but do we usually charge a dead person with a crime?

He used a cell phone to detonate the weapon or release the virus into Penn Station.

You watch too much 24.

I'm no lawyer but with thousands of counts of murder my guess is there's no way he'd get anything less than life without parole (or the death penalty if the state has it). So why care about the specifics, or is this going to be on your bar exam?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

He should be charged with spending the rest of his life with CrusaderFrank, hell as Sartre so knowingly observed is other people. Imagine the excruciating boredom, the repetitive crap, the same negative speculative nonsense over and over and over again - and then to make the punishment worst than hell, the perpetrator would have no way of killing themselves to rid them of Crusader's presence.


"There are certain situations so monstrous that the idea that the processes of moral rationality could yield an answer in them is insane, to spend time thinking what one would decide if one were in such a situation is also insane, if not merely frivolous." Bernard Williams

Go suck on a 155mm howitzer.

You could not respond with anything of substance because you're waiting for Jon Steward or Pinch Sulzberger to regurgitate your "ideas" for you.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I know this might be a special situation, but do we usually charge a dead person with a crime?

He used a cell phone to detonate the weapon or release the virus into Penn Station.

You watch too much 24.

I'm no lawyer but with thousands of counts of murder my guess is there's no way he'd get anything less than life without parole (or the death penalty if the state has it). So why care about the specifics, or is this going to be on your bar exam?

No, this is the Bizzaroland that Librul "logic" and "ideas" that lies ahead for us.

 

[concept]

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.

If there was an award for delusional spin you would certainly win for this pile of garbage.

 

[concept]

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?

Well libtard, that's too bad because they are at war with us.

Whether or not you thumbsucking liberals want to acknowledge it or not.

 

[AllieBaba]

What should he be charged with?

Good question...what do you think?

Crime against humanity.

And hanging afterwards. If anyone is left. And Ebola does have a survival ratio.

 

[eots]

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?

Well libtard, that's too bad because they are at war with us.

Whether or not you thumbsucking liberals want to acknowledge it or not.

they,,,who is...they ? a shadowy boogie man that could be anyone anywhere...after all if you are not with us ...you are with the terrorist...perhaps we could use sanctions on they like refuse them medical treatment ..groceries and gas for their car before we declare war on the theys

 

[gautama]

He should be charged with spending the rest of his life with CrusaderFrank, hell as Sartre so knowingly observed is other people. Imagine the excruciating boredom, the repetitive crap, the same negative speculative nonsense over and over and over again - and then to make the punishment worst than hell, the perpetrator would have no way of killing themselves to rid them of Crusader's presence.


"There are certain situations so monstrous that the idea that the processes of moral rationality could yield an answer in them is insane, to spend time thinking what one would decide if one were in such a situation is also insane, if not merely frivolous." Bernard Williams

Midcan, apparently you're the typical muddle-thinking doo-eating Libtard that can't put a thought together without fucking it up.

Now, everyone can make a typo.....but what about a shitty sentence like this non sequitor. And I quote you:

"He should be charged with spending the rest of his life with CrusaderFrank, hell as Sartre so knowingly observed is other people."

 

[gautama]

I know this might be a special situation, but do we usually charge a dead person with a crime?

He used a cell phone to detonate the weapon or release the virus into Penn Station.

You watch too much 24.

I'm no lawyer but with thousands of counts of murder my guess is there's no way he'd get anything less than life without parole (or the death penalty if the state has it). So why care about the specifics, or is this going to be on your bar exam?

Where were you ???? Did you just land on this planet from La La Land ????

Read the various posts on the Marxist and Muslim doo-eating Eric Holder/Obami Salami and their Political Theatrics agenda to expose the World to put the Muslim Terrorist and THEIR SPIN on the Bush Adm, and CIA.

 

[JW Frogen]

Terrorists are just man-boys trapped in arrested development who still want to teach Mom and Dad who the boss is.

I find terrorists as frightening as my long lost ranting big sister.