Yay For Common Sense!

[Avorysuds]

Newt is proof that I don’t need to agree with a candidate 100% to consider voting for them. I don’t need to agree on everything but some issues are coming up as Newt gains the spotlight that make me recoil from him. Newt wants war with Iran, Newt believes water boarding is not torture, maybe he will demonstrate how good it feels by volunteering for an entire day of it.

Newt has been caught in a few lies and half truths and I don’t like that, but he is better than anyone on stage other than Paul IMO, and as of still I can support that. Newt has a lot of explaining to do as to why he received 1.6 million and he needs to get very specific about his cuts to balance the budget.

I find it hard to believe Newt wants to balance anything when he has not stated ending any of our wars, no meaningful cuts on social programs and talks about war with Iran, equaling more spending if anything. That is my issue with Newt, I simply don’t trust him at all, that says a lot about the others running.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That does not make the audience right either...

it depends on how you define right in this case.

Right and wrong can not be defined using ones ideology.

They were wrong because a "panel" is not law. Hell, now a President can make a "panel" and say "Tell me I can do this" and void the constitution?

Newt said a panel sayong something makes it law, he is wrong, not up for debate.

He didn't say anything of the sort. He said that the law is that making war on the United States is outside the jurisdiction of the criminal justice system, and he's correct. That IS the law. The President, as Commander in Chief of the military, has the legal power to set military objectives and policies, and if an American citizen happens to be dumb enough to be one of the enemy combatants making war on the US in the path of those objectives . . . well, bend over between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye.

How the President makes his decision about objectives and policies is entirely up to him. I'd say having a panel of advisors to provide him information and insight is a good idea. Either way, Newt stated the law correctly. We are under no legal obligation to arrest or try enemy combatants like common criminals, no matter what their citizenship.

 

[Avorysuds]

it depends on how you define right in this case.

Right and wrong can not be defined using ones ideology.

They were wrong because a "panel" is not law. Hell, now a President can make a "panel" and say "Tell me I can do this" and void the constitution?

Newt said a panel sayong something makes it law, he is wrong, not up for debate.

But killing enemy combatants on the battle field during wartime---is within the law. Don't try ignoring that for convenience.

THERE IS NO WAR TIME... When you understand that you will understand how it is not law. You can't claim we are at war without a declaration of war. As far as I know it to be we only have congressional approval to be in Iraq, no where else.

So there is in fact no "battle fields." You have to skip over the simple and most important fact that there is no declaration of war.

So Newt is wrong, there is no debate.

 

[Avorysuds]

it depends on how you define right in this case.

Right and wrong can not be defined using ones ideology.

They were wrong because a "panel" is not law. Hell, now a President can make a "panel" and say "Tell me I can do this" and void the constitution?

Newt said a panel sayong something makes it law, he is wrong, not up for debate.

He didn't say anything of the sort. He said that the law is that making war on the United States is outside the jurisdiction of the criminal justice system, and he's correct. That IS the law. The President, as Commander in Chief of the military, has the legal power to set military objectives and policies, and if an American citizen happens to be dumb enough to be one of the enemy combatants making war on the US in the path of those objectives . . . well, bend over between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye.

How the President makes his decision about objectives and policies is entirely up to him. I'd say having a panel of advisors to provide him information and insight is a good idea. Either way, Newt stated the law correctly. We are under no legal obligation to arrest or try enemy combatants like common criminals, no matter what their citizenship.

Wrong and I'm tired of going over the same old ground.

 

[Avorysuds]

Anyways you guys realize that there has been more than 1 us citizen killed under Obama, correct?

 

[Avorysuds]

But killing enemy combatants on the battle field during wartime---is within the law. Don't try ignoring that for convenience.

THERE IS NO WAR TIME... When you understand that you will understand how it is not law. You can't claim we are at war without a declaration of war. As far as I know it to be we only have congressional approval to be in Iraq, no where else.

So there is in fact no "battle fields." You have to skip over the simple and most important fact that there is no declaration of war.

So Newt is wrong, there is no debate.

Umm:

Enemy Combatant
An “enemy combatant” is an individual who, under the laws and customs of war, may be detained for the duration of an armed conflict. In the current conflict with al Qaida and the Taliban, the term includes a member, agent, or associate of al Qaida or the Taliban. In applying this definition, the United States government has acted consistently with the observation of the Supreme Court of the United States in Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 37-38 (1942): “Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war.”

This was signed into LAW.

We are waging a War on organized Terror.

You can go to bat for someone who declared HIMSELF an enemy of the US, and then MOVED HIMSELF, to an enemy base, and got taken out..............






But saner heads prevail, thankfully.





(common ******* sense: he declared himself an enemy combatant. He moved to the playing field. End of story. You can goody two shoes and dance around that very blatantly basic thing, but the right thing was done and it's as cut and dry as it gets).

Sorry, where does it say we can kill them again?

 

[Avorysuds]

I’m still waiting on that deceleration of war…

 

[Avorysuds]

I’m still waiting on that deceleration of war…

In the current conflict, the President’s authority is bolstered by Congress’s Joint Resolution of September 18, 2001, which authorized “the President . . . to use all necessary and appropriate force” against al Qaida and against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines” committed or aided in the September 11 attacks.” Pub. L. No. 107-40, § 2(a), 115 Stat. 224 (2001) (emphasis added). This congressional action clearly triggers (if any trigger were necessary) the President’s traditional authority to detain enemy combatants as Commander in Chief.

LOLz!

And this is how we get the never ending "not-wars" that just pop up anywhere in the world. I see... We can't afford the "war" and we ain't winning the "war" but we sure as **** need more of the "war".


So when does this "war" end? When all thoes involved with 911 would have died from old age?

 

[Jarhead]

I’m still waiting on that deceleration of war…

In the current conflict, the President’s authority is bolstered by Congress’s Joint Resolution of September 18, 2001, which authorized “the President . . . to use all necessary and appropriate force” against al Qaida and against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines” committed or aided in the September 11 attacks.” Pub. L. No. 107-40, § 2(a), 115 Stat. 224 (2001) (emphasis added). This congressional action clearly triggers (if any trigger were necessary) the President’s traditional authority to detain enemy combatants as Commander in Chief.

LOLz!

And this is how we get the never ending "not-wars" that just pop up anywhere in the world. I see... We can't afford the "war" and we ain't winning the "war" but we sure as **** need more of the "war".


So when does this "war" end? When all thoes involved with 911 would have died from old age?

I believe yours is a debate for another thread.

 

[WillowTree]

Look... Willo supporting who the **** ever as long as they are Republican... BTW, Newt does not agree with the rule of law.

I still like Newt the best after Ron Paul but my gawd he is quickly looking like another shitty candidate. Newt also likes torture...

anybody but obama.. anybody.

 

[Dot Com]

Look... Willo supporting who the **** ever as long as they are Republican... BTW, Newt does not agree with the rule of law.

I still like Newt the best after Ron Paul but my gawd he is quickly looking like another shitty candidate. Newt also likes torture...

anybody but obama.. anybody.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Newt is proof that I don’t need to agree with a candidate 100% to consider voting for them. I don’t need to agree on everything but some issues are coming up as Newt gains the spotlight that make me recoil from him. Newt wants war with Iran, Newt believes water boarding is not torture, maybe he will demonstrate how good it feels by volunteering for an entire day of it.

Newt has been caught in a few lies and half truths and I don’t like that, but he is better than anyone on stage other than Paul IMO, and as of still I can support that. Newt has a lot of explaining to do as to why he received 1.6 million and he needs to get very specific about his cuts to balance the budget.

I find it hard to believe Newt wants to balance anything when he has not stated ending any of our wars, no meaningful cuts on social programs and talks about war with Iran, equaling more spending if anything. That is my issue with Newt, I simply don’t trust him at all, that says a lot about the others running.

You really should visit the guy's website before shooting your mouth off about what he does and doesn't propose.

21st Century Contract with America | Newt Gingrich 2012

Why does he need to explain the $1.6 million any more than he has? He heads a consulting group, and he was paid to consult. What more do you want?

And just because something isn't torture doesn't mean it feels good. There's a pretty broad spectrum in between the two.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Anyways you guys realize that there has been more than 1 us citizen killed under Obama, correct?

Yeah, we know. And we're not freaking about any of them who happened to be enemy combatants. I think when you make war on your own country, you forfeit your citizenship and any rights it conveyed, personally. Of the many problems I have with Obama, killing that steaming turd and any others like him is not among them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

THERE IS NO WAR TIME... When you understand that you will understand how it is not law. You can't claim we are at war without a declaration of war. As far as I know it to be we only have congressional approval to be in Iraq, no where else.

So there is in fact no "battle fields." You have to skip over the simple and most important fact that there is no declaration of war.

So Newt is wrong, there is no debate.

Umm:

Enemy Combatant
An “enemy combatant” is an individual who, under the laws and customs of war, may be detained for the duration of an armed conflict. In the current conflict with al Qaida and the Taliban, the term includes a member, agent, or associate of al Qaida or the Taliban. In applying this definition, the United States government has acted consistently with the observation of the Supreme Court of the United States in Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 37-38 (1942): “Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war.”

This was signed into LAW.

We are waging a War on organized Terror.

You can go to bat for someone who declared HIMSELF an enemy of the US, and then MOVED HIMSELF, to an enemy base, and got taken out..............






But saner heads prevail, thankfully.





(common ******* sense: he declared himself an enemy combatant. He moved to the playing field. End of story. You can goody two shoes and dance around that very blatantly basic thing, but the right thing was done and it's as cut and dry as it gets).

Sorry, where does it say we can kill them again?

That would be implicit in the definitions of the words "enemy" and "war". What did you think one did with one's enemies while at war, threw spitballs at them? Called them mean names?