Welcome to Bizarro Amerika!
October 21, 2020, 01:17:57 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: WE NOW HAVE A "GRIN" OR "GROAN" FEATURE UNDER THE KARMA.
 
  Home   Forum   Help Search Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

They told me if I voted for John McCain...


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: They told me if I voted for John McCain...  (Read 1823 times)
lil mike
Noob
*

Karma: +2/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 907


View Profile
Badges: (View All)
« on: November 27, 2011, 11:36:21 am »

(with apologies to Professor Glenn Reynolds!)

...the White House would ignore the War Powers Act.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/05/white-house-on-war-powers-deadline-limited-us-role-in-libya-means-no-need-to-get-congressional-autho.html

President Obama wrote a letter to congressional leaders this afternoon suggesting that the role is now so “limited” he does not need to seek congressional approval.
 
“Since April 4,” the president wrote, “U.S. participation has consisted of: (1) non-kinetic support to the NATO-led operation, including intelligence, logistical support, and search and rescue assistance; (2) aircraft that have assisted in the suppression and destruction of air defenses in support of the no-fly zone; and (3) since April 23, precision strikes by unmanned aerial vehicles against a limited set of clearly defined targets in support of the NATO-led coalition's efforts.”



... and they were right!
 
A senior administration official told ABC News that the letter is intended to describe “a narrow US effort that is intermittent and principally an effort to support to support the ongoing NATO-led and UN-authorized civilian support mission and no fly zone.”
 
“The US role is one of support,” the official said, “and the kinetic pieces of that are intermittent.”
 
From the beginning of the U.S. military intervention in Libya, the Obama administration has cited the 1973 War Powers Act as the legal basis of its ability to conduct military activities for 60 days without first seeking a declaration of war from Congress. The military intervention started on March 19; Congress was notified on March 21. Those 60 days expire today.

Report Spam   Logged

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Howey
Administrator
Noob
*****

Karma: +693/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 9436



View Profile
Badges: (View All)
« Reply #1 on: November 27, 2011, 11:55:41 am »

Is this a rerun?
Report Spam   Logged

lil mike
Noob
*

Karma: +2/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 907


View Profile
Badges: (View All)
« Reply #2 on: December 02, 2011, 02:39:26 pm »

...the government would target US citizens!

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-lawyers-citizens-targeted-war-us-154313473.html

Obama lawyers: Citizens targeted if at war with US

U.S. citizens are legitimate military targets when they take up arms with al-Qaida, top national security lawyers in the Obama administration said Thursday.

The lawyers were asked at a national security conference about the CIA killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen and leading al-Qaida figure. He died in a Sept. 30 U.S. drone strike in the mountains of Yemen.

The government lawyers, CIA counsel Stephen Preston and Pentagon counsel Jeh Johnson, did not directly address the al-Awlaki case. But they said U.S. citizens do not have immunity when they are at war with the United States.

Johnson said only the executive branch, not the courts, is equipped to make military battlefield targeting decisions about who qualifies as an enemy.


Something about this sounds awfully Bushy...    Cheesy
Report Spam   Logged
Howey
Administrator
Noob
*****

Karma: +693/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 9436



View Profile
Badges: (View All)
« Reply #3 on: December 02, 2011, 03:39:24 pm »

Yeah...Bush would never have caught him! Grin
Report Spam   Logged

Howey
Administrator
Noob
*****

Karma: +693/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 9436



View Profile
Badges: (View All)
« Reply #4 on: December 04, 2011, 06:22:26 pm »

...the government would target US citizens!



Do you mean Republican attempts to imprison them for life without a trial?

Something about this sounds awfully Bushy...    Cheesy

Now that's something Bush/Cheney were chomping at the bit to do!
Report Spam   Logged

lil mike
Noob
*

Karma: +2/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 907


View Profile
Badges: (View All)
« Reply #5 on: December 04, 2011, 07:00:41 pm »


Do you mean Republican attempts to imprison them for life without a trial?

Now that's something Bush/Cheney were chomping at the bit to do!

Republican you say?

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/president-obama-issues-executive-order-institutionalizing-indefinite-detention

President Obama Issues Executive Order Institutionalizing Indefinite Detention

Administration Also Announces It Will Use Military Commissions For New Terrorism Cases

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

NEW YORK – President Obama today issued an executive order that permits ongoing indefinite detention of Guantánamo detainees while establishing a periodic administrative review process for them. The administration also announced it will lift the ban on bringing new military commissions charges against detainees that don’t already have ongoing cases in the substandard system.
Report Spam   Logged
Howey
Administrator
Noob
*****

Karma: +693/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 9436



View Profile
Badges: (View All)
« Reply #6 on: December 04, 2011, 07:02:50 pm »


Hmmm...I read all of that. Nothing about US citizens!
Report Spam   Logged

lil mike
Noob
*

Karma: +2/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 907


View Profile
Badges: (View All)
« Reply #7 on: December 05, 2011, 07:35:14 pm »

Hmmm...I read all of that. Nothing about US citizens!

You are correct!  That article had nothing to do with US citizens!  My mistake, I mixed it with another one.  We know after all that there is no threat of that happening to US citizens!
Report Spam   Logged
Howey
Administrator
Noob
*****

Karma: +693/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 9436



View Profile
Badges: (View All)
« Reply #8 on: December 05, 2011, 08:03:06 pm »

You are correct!  That article had nothing to do with US citizens!  My mistake, I mixed it with another one.  We know after all that there is no threat of that happening to US citizens!

Only if your republican comrades (my new word  Grin) don't get their way!
Report Spam   Logged

lil mike
Noob
*

Karma: +2/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 907


View Profile
Badges: (View All)
« Reply #9 on: December 06, 2011, 03:33:34 pm »

Only if your republican comrades (my new word  Grin) don't get their way!

Better check that Senate vote again!
Report Spam   Logged
Howey
Administrator
Noob
*****

Karma: +693/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 9436



View Profile
Badges: (View All)
« Reply #10 on: December 06, 2011, 04:33:38 pm »

Better check that Senate vote again!

I never said a few blue dogs and panderers didn't vote for it. Thankfully, it will be vetoed at the expense of the entire defense appropriations bill. I wonder why the Republicans hate the troops so much?
Report Spam   Logged

lil mike
Noob
*

Karma: +2/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 907


View Profile
Badges: (View All)
« Reply #11 on: December 27, 2011, 06:54:57 pm »

...the President would use signing statements to avoid laws passed by Congress.

And they were right!

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/201245-obama-says-he-wont-be-bound-by-guantanamo-gun-control-portions-of-omnibus

Obama says he’s not bound by Guantanamo, gun-control provisions

President Obama said Friday he will not be bound by at least 20 policy riders in the 2012 omnibus bill funding the government, including provisions pertaining to Guantanamo Bay and gun control.

After he signed the omnibus into law Friday, the White House released a concurrent signing statement saying Obama will object to portions of the legislation on constitutional grounds.

Signing statements are highly controversial, and their legality is disputed. Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, broke the record for most signing statements by a president.
Report Spam   Logged
Howey
Administrator
Noob
*****

Karma: +693/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 9436



View Profile
Badges: (View All)
« Reply #12 on: December 27, 2011, 08:14:25 pm »

...the President would use signing statements to avoid laws passed by Congress.

And they were right!

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/201245-obama-says-he-wont-be-bound-by-guantanamo-gun-control-portions-of-omnibus

Obama says he’s not bound by Guantanamo, gun-control provisions

President Obama said Friday he will not be bound by at least 20 policy riders in the 2012 omnibus bill funding the government, including provisions pertaining to Guantanamo Bay and gun control.

After he signed the omnibus into law Friday, the White House released a concurrent signing statement saying Obama will object to portions of the legislation on constitutional grounds.

Signing statements are highly controversial, and their legality is disputed. Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, broke the record for most signing statements by a president.


Good for him!
Report Spam   Logged

lil mike
Noob
*

Karma: +2/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 907


View Profile
Badges: (View All)
« Reply #13 on: December 28, 2011, 04:48:29 pm »

Good for him!

My how times change!



But on the other hand, he did decide after the fact that he, Cheney, Gonzales and others were exempt, so maybe it's not the shameless, flagrant, self-serving, arrogant, brazen and utter contempt for the rule of law that seems to characterize his and Mr. Cheney's approach to, say, the Constitution, and the literally countless congressional acts he's signed into law and then negated with "signing statements."


Remember those articles of impeachment you supported?

http://muchedumbre.com/forum/index.php/topic,19118.msg282916.html#msg282916

Quote
Article XXVI
Announcing the Intent to Violate Laws with Signing Statements

Ah those were the days!
Report Spam   Logged
Howey
Administrator
Noob
*****

Karma: +693/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 9436



View Profile
Badges: (View All)
« Reply #14 on: December 28, 2011, 06:21:29 pm »

My how times change!


Remember those articles of impeachment you supported?

http://muchedumbre.com/forum/index.php/topic,19118.msg282916.html#msg282916

Ah those were the days!


How many times did Bush do that with his signing statements? Were you clamboring for impeachment then?

The difference is Obama is a constitutional lawyer. He knows the Constitution and what violates it. He's a better person and President than Bush, who was stupid and had no idea what the Constitution contained.
Report Spam   Logged


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum


Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy