Author Topic: The law? (Read 1739 times)

Rude · « **Reply #90 on:** June 11, 2002, 02:09:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Apache
From someone who has/does work with intelligence, some of you are talkin' out your prettythang. You don't have a clue what the gov. has on this terrorist.

Oh, and I bet they would get alot of information from this future intelligence source if he were held by the Justice Dept. Instant invocation of rights. You do know where the gov. got the info on this guy in the first place, right?

And its presumption of innocence, not innocent until proven guilty. TV cop shows ain't real folks.

Give it up Apache....don't you know that the weazels of the world know all....cheap shots from the cheap seats... always ready to cast stones and pass judgment on incomplete facts.

They believe what is printed or patched thru cable news as if it were the truth....drawing conclusions based on the same. Cut and paste this or that tidbit to drive it home.

This happens everytime there is a crisis...a sector of society freaks out and overreacts...the sky is falling, blah blah blah.

We had better support this administration so that they can be effective...if Bush violates innocent citizens rights, then I'll be the first to toss his arse out. Until then, he is my president and I support his and his administrations efforts to protect America and her citizens.

Innocent until proven guilty you say? Try and apply the same to Bush, or would that go against what you believe as well?

Will we get hit again by terrorists? Absolutely....then what will you preach to us? Hey, why not blame Bush?

A friend of mine once said that this board is more entertaining than any television show....what an understatment.

AKSWulfe · « **Reply #91 on:** June 11, 2002, 02:10:27 PM »

cc Sandman that's the one!
Thanks!

-SW

majic · « **Reply #92 on:** June 11, 2002, 02:12:53 PM »

Formal declarations of war are a thing of the past. Besides... what country would war be declared against?

AKSWulfe · « **Reply #93 on:** June 11, 2002, 02:27:39 PM »

Try this on for size Rude... the ability to stop terrorism has changed within out government in one way... they now know it can happen, and are anticipating it. This means the red flags that were absent on the information they had prior to Sept 11th, will now be on information that pertains to potential terrorist activities.

So the only thing that's changed despite a new office being created, new color code warning for attacks (today's color is nuclear, if you see an explosion you are skarewd), certain offices being given more power... is that we have red flags on information that would potentially pertain to terrorist activities and the ability to get it all into one central location to correlate it together.

That could of happened with the government we had before Sept 11th... it just never happened on our soil before, so the information wasn't relevant.
-SW

Creamo · « **Reply #94 on:** June 11, 2002, 02:27:58 PM »

Gay and a terrorist loving liberal popsicle.

Quite a combo.

Thanks -SW, thats the bestest ever funny haha hoopty one!
Thanks!

Sandman · « **Reply #95 on:** June 11, 2002, 02:40:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Creamo
Gay and a terrorist loving liberal popsicle.

Quite a combo.

Thanks -SW, thats the bestest ever funny haha hoopty one!
Thanks!

Don't sugar coat it. Tell us how you really feel.

Eagler · « **Reply #96 on:** June 11, 2002, 03:24:43 PM »

can't have it both ways -

pls continue with your latest "freedom" whine...

while you are at it, pls list your freedoms which have changed since 9/11 and the gov getting tough with these thugs.. eh?

I can't think of one - but maybe my lifestyle is slightly different than some of yours..

Sandman · « **Reply #97 on:** June 11, 2002, 03:35:25 PM »

AKSWulfe · « **Reply #98 on:** June 11, 2002, 03:53:46 PM »

"Freedom" whine, eh? I guess what passes for a whine these days is simply pointing out the obvious.

I'm not complaining about my freedom buddy. I'm not complaining about anything. I'm stating that despite all these new changes in the government, and shifting of powers, it's still the same in terms of stopping a terrorist attack... or getting information on terrorists or terrorist actions.

If they had the information before Sept 11th, why do they need these radical changes to get information on terrorists, potential attacks, or whatever, now? Develop a facade to make the dimwitted believe the government is stronger and better than before, and more capable of stopping a terrorist attack? Hmmm, I think yes.

Just because I don't agree with what the government does, where they are going, or how they are going about it doesn't mean I'm whining. Especially when I'm merely pointing out the obvious.
-SW

Daff · « **Reply #99 on:** June 11, 2002, 03:58:28 PM »

Well, you have lost your right to due process, if you are suspected of terrorism.

Daff

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #100 on:** June 11, 2002, 04:02:05 PM »

Ooooo.... I wanted to post in this thread but there was little to discuss since its all conjecture.

At least I got 100.

AKDejaVu

Intrepid · « **Reply #101 on:** June 11, 2002, 04:02:53 PM »

Quote

War? We're at war?

Nope,

Public Law 107-40
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, <of Military Force. 50 USC 1541 note.>>

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.

[[Page 115 STAT. 225]]

(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this
resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.

Approved September 18, 2001.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S.J. Res. 23 (H.J. Res. 64):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 147 (2001):
Sept. 14, considered and passed Senate and House.

Eagler · « **Reply #102 on:** June 11, 2002, 04:06:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Intrepid
Nope

I think there are many Afgans & ppl serving proudly in our armed forces who feel differently

AKIron · « **Reply #103 on:** June 11, 2002, 04:19:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Intrepid

Nope,

What is it called then when you are attacked by virtue of nothing other than your nationality by members of another nation and you respond by invading that nation and killing and capturing it's citizens and/or residents?

Intrepid · « **Reply #104 on:** June 11, 2002, 04:21:31 PM »

Sorry, it wasn't meant to imply those who answered the call to duty are not making sacrifices. I agree many have and are doing their duty to the best of their ability. Just wanted to let people know the president doesn't need congress to declare a war in order to use troops.

"If the Constitution is to be construed to mean what the majority at any given period in history wish the Constitution to mean, why a written Constitution?"--Frank J. Hogan, President, American Bar Assn. (1939)