Calls To Ban Muslims From Entering the U.S. Are Offensive And Unconstitutional

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Saddam, involved in UN resolutions and weapon inspectors, was a dictator for the nation of Iraq NOT Iran. Either learn your geography or get your "invading" stories straight with actual history.

I repeat, name one country that Iran has occupied or even invaded in your lifetime. Iran is no danger to the USA. The USA, however, is getting very hostile with Iran.

Iraq. You lose! Their war caused massive problems in the Persian Gulf.

Iran never invaded Iraq, even when attacked with American aid when Saddam was a friend of the USA.

My God, you are stupid!

Read up on the Iran-Iraq War and educate yourself!

At the end of the war, Iran took months to evacuate territory it had seized in Iraq. (BTW, that came as a result of them INVADING Iraq.)

There is ignorance and there is intentional stupidity. You are guilty of the latter.

Words have meaning. I suggest re enrolling in a school to teach you some.

No one believes that Iran invaded Iraq. For some reason they think it was the USA that caused Shock and Awe.

You don't take advice too well. What I gave you were the facts. I realize that what actually happened doesn't fit with your contrived fantasies, but you need to suck it up, buttercup!

 

[SYTFE]

Why is this thread still going? Did a bunch of conservative scumbags not get the memo that this EO is illegal and unconstitutional? I realize you scumbags HATE the constitution and everything America stands for, but could you drooling imbeciles try paying attention to the news once in a while?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

He is doing exactly what he said he would do during the campaign and exactly what the people elected him to do. Mexico was not insulted, they were called up on their one sided border and trade policy. WE are paying most of the bill for NATO, if they other nations want our protection then they need to pay their share. That's all trump has said.

The people have no authority to elect someone to violate the Constitution. If the prime minister of Canada said he was going to build a wall between his country and the USA and that Americans would pay for it, I know Americans would find that insulting. Mexico is also trading with the USA and Canada according to the terms of NAFTA, a treaty signed by the USA. By saying that the USA will not protect Poland from a Russian invasion because they are behind on their payment to NATO violates the treaty.

Not paying your payment also violates the treaty, but you either knew that and ignored it or you are simply ignorant.

Countries cannot always pay money when it is due. If the USA considers that a good reason for allowing the Russians to invade an ally, fair enough. We now know what the Americans think is important.

How many years are they behind in their payments?

All but four countries are behind in payments to NATO (Greece, UK, Estonia, and Poland).
Some member countries cannot afford to earmark 2% of their GDP for defense because they have pressing expenditures on caring for their aging populations. The baby boomers are entering the retirement now with insufficient young people and immigrants entering the work force. This cannot be helped overnight. European countries also have burdens on their tax revenues for medical care where everyone has coverage.

A problem is also the decision of NATO to benchmark the contributions to 2% of GDP because that figure fluctuates annually and some members who have factored for this percentage find themselves under the latest calculations for their economic performances. Some have paid the 2% previously but that contribution in real terms has since gone up. The contributions of 2% last year are under that mark this year even with no change in the actual amount paid.

Some countries may be small but strategically placed, such as Latvia and Lithuania which border Russia and these strategic locations are not factored into their contributions which undervalue their importance. Through NATO, the Americans can have strategically placed personnel and materiel right up against President Trump's friend, Vladimir Putin. These countries are a buffer against Russian aggression and benefit the USA which would have to pay a lot more if they disengage as Trump threatened and later find themselves with a bigger mess to repair in the future. The Americans currently have free bases all over Europe that money could not buy.

U.S. Naval Station in Rota, Spain

Nice picture. Too bad it is ancient and the US base in Rota belongs to the Spanish Navy. Been there. How about you?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Key members of the United Nations were making a profit off of Saddam. They have not enforced one single resolution, when certain nations had their hand in Iraq's pocket. instead the UN chose to pass additional resolutions on top of what they already agreed upon, giving Iraq chance... after chance... after chance... after chance... after chance. The United Nations has no teeth behind any of their proposed "conditions" placed on Saddam, conditions that have proven to carry no more weight than a simple sheet of paper. EIGHT YEARS, we have seen a complete U.S. administration pass through after Iraq's cease fire conditions, and the United Nations were no further along in getting Iraq to comply with the UN than year one. The United Nations is a bureaucracy of red tape with no real enforcement, they are a road block with no proven historical significance in standing up to rogue Nations that don't comply.

The United States did not have a recommendation from the UN Security Council to invade and destroy Iraq. This means that the invasion was illegal.

Wrong the charter is clear one can invade for almost any reason as long as one has cause. There is NO requirement that the UN sanction it AT ALL.

After WWII one of the crimes recognized by the Nürnberg Court was "Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace".
Nuremberg trials - Wikipedia

There was also no cases of German or Japanese immigrants coming from an recognized nation we were at war with (labeled as a part of the axis of evil), that were allowed to enter the United States during World War II. Such facts and links that prove otherwise I would so love to see if you can provide. However, I'm sure (in likewise fashion) we would find the usual liberals, who claim to "know" the United States Constitution, try and conclude the argument that such acts were deemed unconstitutional as it unfairly focus on a particular group of people and prohibits a perceived entitled "requirement" to allow them equal entry. There is no clause or amendment regarding immigration, that even states that it's the duty of the United States to allow equal opportunity to all immigrants ... especially ... those hostile threats and regions that are proven to be aggressive against the United States and its citizens. Let's see if these liberals can actually provide such a clearly written article or clause under our Constitution.

Although the United States is planning to attack and pulverize Iran on behalf of the Israelis, it has not yet done so. This means that there are no grounds for discriminating against Iranian Muslims wanting to visit the USA.

Iran is the world's biggest state sponsor of terrorism. FACT!

Suck it up buttercup! Your lies are getting tiresome.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Why is this thread still going? Did a bunch of conservative scumbags not get the memo that this EO is illegal and unconstitutional? I realize you scumbags HATE the constitution and everything America stands for, but could you drooling imbeciles try paying attention to the news once in a while?

One of these days you will wake from this dream state you occupy and realize what an ignorant putz you have been.

 

[Tom Horn]

If a single ONE of those allowed in since the judge ordered the pause ended, stages a terrorist attack, the left is HERSTORY in this country....just ONE of them....better keep your fingers crossed, pinheads.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

"international law" ? Could you please tell us where we can find a book of "international law"? Then tell us what court has international jurisdiction to enforce "international law".

With every new post, you confirm your ignorance.

Please quit accusing me of ignorance. Insulting is easy to do. For example, I could accuse you of being ignorant of international law but I will not.
International law is found in many international treaties.
The UN Security Council clarifies what law applies in given circumstances. When George W Bush invaded and destroyed Iraq, he did so without the consent of the Security Council. This is illegal. The International Court in The Hague deals with violations but the USA is too big that it gets away with starting wars.

Key members of the United Nations were making a profit off of Saddam. They have not enforced one single resolution, when certain nations had their hand in Iraq's pocket. instead the UN chose to pass additional resolutions on top of what they already agreed upon, giving Iraq chance... after chance... after chance... after chance... after chance. The United Nations has no teeth behind any of their proposed "conditions" placed on Saddam, conditions that have proven to carry no more weight than a simple sheet of paper. EIGHT YEARS, we have seen a complete U.S. administration pass through after Iraq's cease fire conditions, and the United Nations were no further along in getting Iraq to comply with the UN than year one. The United Nations is a bureaucracy of red tape with no real enforcement, they are a road block with no proven historical significance in standing up to rogue Nations that don't comply.

The United States did not have a recommendation from the UN Security Council to invade and destroy Iraq. This means that the invasion was illegal.

Damn, boy. wake up. The UN is not a body of law, it is not a court, it has no legal enforcement ability. Legal vs illegal via the UN is ridiculous.

Your ignorance is quite amazing. Did you finish grade school?

The UN Security Council does make law and can decide if a country has violated that law. Remember that international treaties have the force of law.

Oh my God! You are the dumbest POS on this forum! When you finally get to high school and get an education, you will regret your ways.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Key members of the United Nations were making a profit off of Saddam. They have not enforced one single resolution, when certain nations had their hand in Iraq's pocket. instead the UN chose to pass additional resolutions on top of what they already agreed upon, giving Iraq chance... after chance... after chance... after chance... after chance. The United Nations has no teeth behind any of their proposed "conditions" placed on Saddam, conditions that have proven to carry no more weight than a simple sheet of paper. EIGHT YEARS, we have seen a complete U.S. administration pass through after Iraq's cease fire conditions, and the United Nations were no further along in getting Iraq to comply with the UN than year one. The United Nations is a bureaucracy of red tape with no real enforcement, they are a road block with no proven historical significance in standing up to rogue Nations that don't comply.

The United States did not have a recommendation from the UN Security Council to invade and destroy Iraq. This means that the invasion was illegal.

Damn, boy. wake up. The UN is not a body of law, it is not a court, it has no legal enforcement ability. Legal vs illegal via the UN is ridiculous.

Your ignorance is quite amazing. Did you finish grade school?

The UN Security Council does make law and can decide if a country has violated that law. Remember that international treaties have the force of law.

In order for a body to make law, that body must have judicial and enforcement powers. The UN has neither. There is no such thing as "international law".

International treaties are only binding if both countries have recourse if the other violates the treaty. The Iranians have violated the nuke treaty that Obama made with them, what court do you think we should take them to in order to make them comply? There is no court that would enforce such violations of treaties.

I am beginning to feel sorry for you since you obviously got a terrible education.

The UN does indeed make law and enforces it too. It was the UN which intervened in Bosnia to stop ethnic cleansing of Muslims by the Orthodox Serbs.

Violations of international law, such as treaties, can be adjudicated by the UN and the International Criminal Court.
ICC- Welcome to the International Criminal Court

Guess what nimrod? We do not recognize the ICC! Never have, never will!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

...Says Mike Pence.

We all agree. Muslim bans are offensive. "Muslim Ban" means if you are Muslim, regardless, you are banned. That is a radical departure and differentiation from a temporary ban on countries are banned. Christians from Syria are temporarily banned from entering the US due to the state of the country's strife and violence. Can you stand with Christians from Syria?

The Ban on Muslims is judged to be illegal now so it really doesn't matter at all.

Wait a few minutes and it will be overturned. Than what will you say?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

...Says Mike Pence.

No words in the ban, as far as I have read, mentions Muslims.

The ban exempts people who have a minority religion (Christians) and implies that the majority religion (Muslims) are not exempt.

The ban does no such thing or perhaps you can cite for us where it says that or does that?

You can read it in the executive order.

Quote it!

Never mind! You can't! It doesn't exist and you damn well know that!

 

[Maryland Patriot]

...Says Mike Pence.

which is more offensive. Banning some goat humper that wants to come here and change our laws and commit acts of terrorism, or is it more offensive to watch an american family get blown up while on a shopping trip to the mall.

 

[Kondor3]

...Are those problem countries causing any problems in the US?

No point in guiding the assassin's blade to your throat and withholding your objections until he starts to draw it across your carotid, eh?

When in doubt, don't let 'em in, in the first place.

Preventive Medicine.

 

[Redfish]

Key members of the United Nations were making a profit off of Saddam. They have not enforced one single resolution, when certain nations had their hand in Iraq's pocket. instead the UN chose to pass additional resolutions on top of what they already agreed upon, giving Iraq chance... after chance... after chance... after chance... after chance. The United Nations has no teeth behind any of their proposed "conditions" placed on Saddam, conditions that have proven to carry no more weight than a simple sheet of paper. EIGHT YEARS, we have seen a complete U.S. administration pass through after Iraq's cease fire conditions, and the United Nations were no further along in getting Iraq to comply with the UN than year one. The United Nations is a bureaucracy of red tape with no real enforcement, they are a road block with no proven historical significance in standing up to rogue Nations that don't comply.

The United States did not have a recommendation from the UN Security Council to invade and destroy Iraq. This means that the invasion was illegal.

Damn, boy. wake up. The UN is not a body of law, it is not a court, it has no legal enforcement ability. Legal vs illegal via the UN is ridiculous.

Your ignorance is quite amazing. Did you finish grade school?

The UN Security Council does make law and can decide if a country has violated that law. Remember that international treaties have the force of law.

In order for a body to make law, that body must have judicial and enforcement powers. The UN has neither. There is no such thing as "international law".

International treaties are only binding if both countries have recourse if the other violates the treaty. The Iranians have violated the nuke treaty that Obama made with them, what court do you think we should take them to in order to make them comply? There is no court that would enforce such violations of treaties.

I am beginning to feel sorry for you since you obviously got a terrible education.

The UN does indeed make law and enforces it too. It was the UN which intervened in Bosnia to stop ethnic cleansing of Muslims by the Orthodox Serbs.

Violations of international law, such as treaties, can be adjudicated by the UN and the International Criminal Court.
ICC- Welcome to the International Criminal Court

please let us know where we can find all of the international law statutes that every country on earth has agreed to be subject to and comply with.

Please do some research. You are making a fool of yourself.

 

[Redfish]

After The coalition, led by the United States, pushed Iraq out of Kuwait with the complete surrender of the Republican Guard and Saddam, there was a "cease fire agreement" that ended the assault based on a set of conditions that Iraq must later comply with. I would be willing to bet that you don't have the slightest clue as to what the term "cease fire agreement" means.

You are guilty of using words to justify a stupid war looking for WMD that did not exist. Just look at the deaths and instability the Americans caused and feel the shame.

Yes, it was a stupid war. I think most people agree on that. Where you go off the rails is when you try to put it 100% on Bush. Dems voted to authorize, fund, and continue that fiasco.

But lets talk about a democrat war, shall we? Lets talk about the 58,000 americans who died in Kennedy and Johnson's viet nam war.

I did not mention Bush in my previous post but his war against Iraq was supported by many Democrat politicians.

So if, as you say, it was "illegal" those democrats also violated "international law". So what happens now?

The USA places itself above international by vetoing any charge against them in the Security Council.

Do you really believe that there is an international government and that the UN heads it up? The UN is an expensive joke, so was the league of nations and The Hague.

There is no such thing as international law.

 

[Eloy]

The people have no authority to elect someone to violate the Constitution. If the prime minister of Canada said he was going to build a wall between his country and the USA and that Americans would pay for it, I know Americans would find that insulting. Mexico is also trading with the USA and Canada according to the terms of NAFTA, a treaty signed by the USA. By saying that the USA will not protect Poland from a Russian invasion because they are behind on their payment to NATO violates the treaty.

Not paying your payment also violates the treaty, but you either knew that and ignored it or you are simply ignorant.

Countries cannot always pay money when it is due. If the USA considers that a good reason for allowing the Russians to invade an ally, fair enough. We now know what the Americans think is important.

How many years are they behind in their payments?

All but four countries are behind in payments to NATO (Greece, UK, Estonia, and Poland).
Some member countries cannot afford to earmark 2% of their GDP for defense because they have pressing expenditures on caring for their aging populations. The baby boomers are entering the retirement now with insufficient young people and immigrants entering the work force. This cannot be helped overnight. European countries also have burdens on their tax revenues for medical care where everyone has coverage.

A problem is also the decision of NATO to benchmark the contributions to 2% of GDP because that figure fluctuates annually and some members who have factored for this percentage find themselves under the latest calculations for their economic performances. Some have paid the 2% previously but that contribution in real terms has since gone up. The contributions of 2% last year are under that mark this year even with no change in the actual amount paid.

Some countries may be small but strategically placed, such as Latvia and Lithuania which border Russia and these strategic locations are not factored into their contributions which undervalue their importance. Through NATO, the Americans can have strategically placed personnel and materiel right up against President Trump's friend, Vladimir Putin. These countries are a buffer against Russian aggression and benefit the USA which would have to pay a lot more if they disengage as Trump threatened and later find themselves with a bigger mess to repair in the future. The Americans currently have free bases all over Europe that money could not buy.

U.S. Naval Station in Rota, Spain

Nice picture. Too bad it is ancient and the US base in Rota belongs to the Spanish Navy. Been there. How about you?

My picture is bang up-to-date: "NAVSTA Rota is the largest American military community in Spain and houses US Navy and US Marine Corp personnel. There are also small US Army and US Air Force contingents on the base." And yes, I have been there.
Naval Station Rota, Spain - Wikipedia

 

[Eloy]

...Says Mike Pence.

No words in the ban, as far as I have read, mentions Muslims.

The ban exempts people who have a minority religion (Christians) and implies that the majority religion (Muslims) are not exempt.

The ban does no such thing or perhaps you can cite for us where it says that or does that?

You can read it in the executive order.

Quote it!

Never mind! You can't! It doesn't exist and you damn well know that!

I'm sorry I can only cite the illegal executive order. I cannot provide you with the ability to see it the exception made for Christians, referred to as in "minority" religions in Muslim countries.

 

[Freewill]

Why is this thread still going? Did a bunch of conservative scumbags not get the memo that this EO is illegal and unconstitutional? I realize you scumbags HATE the constitution and everything America stands for, but could you drooling imbeciles try paying attention to the news once in a while?

Nothing unconstitutional about it. Don't you have something at home worth whining about so you don't need to come here with pretend concern for immigration? Or do you just love shoving the minority opinion onto everyone else?

Two faced that is what the left is. Trump is just using OBAMA'S policy, You dopes are once again falling into another of Trump's traps. Kinda sad, like seeing a trap where an animal chewed its leg off to get out.

DHS Announces Further Travel Restrictions for the Visa Waiver Program | Homeland Security

 

[Eloy]

The United States did not have a recommendation from the UN Security Council to invade and destroy Iraq. This means that the invasion was illegal.

Damn, boy. wake up. The UN is not a body of law, it is not a court, it has no legal enforcement ability. Legal vs illegal via the UN is ridiculous.

Your ignorance is quite amazing. Did you finish grade school?

The UN Security Council does make law and can decide if a country has violated that law. Remember that international treaties have the force of law.

In order for a body to make law, that body must have judicial and enforcement powers. The UN has neither. There is no such thing as "international law".

International treaties are only binding if both countries have recourse if the other violates the treaty. The Iranians have violated the nuke treaty that Obama made with them, what court do you think we should take them to in order to make them comply? There is no court that would enforce such violations of treaties.

I am beginning to feel sorry for you since you obviously got a terrible education.

The UN does indeed make law and enforces it too. It was the UN which intervened in Bosnia to stop ethnic cleansing of Muslims by the Orthodox Serbs.

Violations of international law, such as treaties, can be adjudicated by the UN and the International Criminal Court.
ICC- Welcome to the International Criminal Court

please let us know where we can find all of the international law statutes that every country on earth has agreed to be subject to and comply with.

Please do some research. You are making a fool of yourself.

It would take several volumes to enumerate all the international agreements between countries, companies, and institutions which make up international law. For example, shipping and navigation rights are bound by international law. "Merchant shipping is one of the most heavily regulated industries and was amongst the first to adopt widely implemented international safety standards."
ICS | The Regulation of International Shipping
Then there is international copyright law. "In general, copyright is a form of legal protection given to content creators through the assignment of specific rights to works that qualify for protection."
International Copyright Basics - RightsDirect
A book could be written on international postal regulations alone which are meant in part "to promote and encourage unrestricted and undistorted competition in the provision of international postal services and other international delivery services, except where provision of such services by private companies may be prohibited by law of the United States".
39 U.S. Code § 407 - International postal arrangements
Where do I stop?
I can assure you it is not I who is a fool.

 

[Indeependent]

Damn, boy. wake up. The UN is not a body of law, it is not a court, it has no legal enforcement ability. Legal vs illegal via the UN is ridiculous.

Your ignorance is quite amazing. Did you finish grade school?

The UN Security Council does make law and can decide if a country has violated that law. Remember that international treaties have the force of law.

In order for a body to make law, that body must have judicial and enforcement powers. The UN has neither. There is no such thing as "international law".

International treaties are only binding if both countries have recourse if the other violates the treaty. The Iranians have violated the nuke treaty that Obama made with them, what court do you think we should take them to in order to make them comply? There is no court that would enforce such violations of treaties.

I am beginning to feel sorry for you since you obviously got a terrible education.

The UN does indeed make law and enforces it too. It was the UN which intervened in Bosnia to stop ethnic cleansing of Muslims by the Orthodox Serbs.

Violations of international law, such as treaties, can be adjudicated by the UN and the International Criminal Court.
ICC- Welcome to the International Criminal Court

please let us know where we can find all of the international law statutes that every country on earth has agreed to be subject to and comply with.

Please do some research. You are making a fool of yourself.

It would take several volumes to enumerate all the international agreements between countries, companies, and institutions which make up international law. For example, shipping and navigation rights are bound by international law. "Merchant shipping is one of the most heavily regulated industries and was amongst the first to adopt widely implemented international safety standards."
ICS | The Regulation of International Shipping
Then there is international copyright law. "In general, copyright is a form of legal protection given to content creators through the assignment of specific rights to works that qualify for protection."
International Copyright Basics - RightsDirect
A book could be written on international postal regulations alone which are meant in part "to promote and encourage unrestricted and undistorted competition in the provision of international postal services and other international delivery services, except where provision of such services by private companies may be prohibited by law of the United States".
39 U.S. Code § 407 - International postal arrangements
Where do I stop?
I can assure you it is not I who is a fool.

Ever hear of a legal concept called "Dirty Hands"?
Well, Trump KNOWS there are "Dirty Hands" all over these International Agreements and he's about to clean up the mess.

 

[Freewill]

Epic – Is Team Trump Baiting Liberal Media and Refugee Protesters By Using Obama’s Own Policy?…