Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on June 03, 2014, 06:02:23 AM
-
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jeffrey-toobin-obama-clearly-broke-the-law-on-bergdahl
Jail this communist traitor
-
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jeffrey-toobin-obama-clearly-broke-the-law-on-bergdahl
Jail this communist traitor
The president has an executive order clause you moron. If he had waited for Congress to act, he would have been dead by now. Shut the fuck up
-
The president has an executive order clause you moron. If he had waited for Congress to act, he would have been dead by now. Shut the fuck up
Oh fuck you. Seriously - fuck you. This asshole was a deserter and we gave up 5 of the deadliest terrorists at GITMO for a deserter? GMAFB.
There is a law in place and o-fag needs to follow it
-
For all that, the administration’s handling of the matter raised some troubling questions. In releasing five senior Taliban commanders from Guantanamo Bay prison to the de facto custody of Qatar, Mr. Obama appears to have sidestepped a law requiring that Congress be notified before such releases from Guantanamo take place. The Afghan government, which was not informed of the prisoner swap before it took place, angrily alleged that it also violated international law by transferring detainees to a third country. Congressional Republicans charged that the administration had breached its policy of refusing to negotiate with terrorists — a precept it confirmed just weeks ago in advising Nigeria’s government not to negotiate with the Boko Haram movement about abducted schoolgirls.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/was-price-to-win-release-of-an-american-soldier-from-taliban-captivity-too-high/2014/06/02/7ee295e4-ea72-11e3-93d2-edd4be1f5d9e_story.html
-
Several leftists on this board have described Napolitano as "level headed" and "objective", yet none of them posted this link to a video where he says that the clowninchief broke the law and explains what a signing statement is. This "impartial" man clearly states that a signing statement, under our system, DOESN'T change the law. So it can't be used by any president as justification to break the law.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/06/03/judge_napolitano_obama_admin_violated_law_provided_material_support_to_terrorist_organization.html
-
http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/02/pentagon-official-bergdhal-deal-was-political-criminal-and-dangerous/#ixzz33a7ex1Hs
Obama is a criminal and a terrorist so this is no surprise
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-circumvents-laws-with-signing-statements-a-tool-he-promised-to-use-lightly/2014/06/02/9d76d46a-ea73-11e3-9f5c-9075d5508f0a_story.html
>:(
-
WHINNNNEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Midget meltdown in effect.
-
The president has an executive order clause you moron. If he had waited for Congress to act, he would have been dead by now. Shut the fuck up
You need to educate yourself.
The law requires a 30 day notice by the president before he makes a any prisoner swap. I know that the only law that you accept is the crapcare law, but we are a nation of many laws and there are other laws that restrict the authority of your lord and savior brack the joke obama.
HE BROKE THE LAW. His executive power has nothing to do with this and HE IS NOT SUPPOSED TO USE IT in any case like this without FIRST providing notice to congress. PERIOD.
You leftist idiots didn't like Bush doing the same thing, SO WHY DO YOU BEND OVER BACKWARDS TO DEFEND THE FAILUREINTHEWHITEHOUSE FOR DOING THE SAME EXACT THING?
-
WHINNNNEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Midget meltdown in effect.
Hey fuckface - these were 5 Taliban Commanders kept in GITMO because they were the worst of the worst. Those freed under previous admn were mostly just rabble caught up in the midst of everytyhing.
Additionally -this traitor was a deserter and abandoned his post - not a pow
-
You need to educate yourself.
The law requires a 30 day notice by the president before he makes a any prisoner swap. I know that the only law that you accept is the crapcare law, but we are a nation of many laws and there are other laws that restrict the authority of your lord and savior brack the joke obama.
HE BROKE THE LAW. His executive power has nothing to do with this and HE IS NOT SUPPOSED TO USE IT in any case like this without FIRST providing notice to congress. PERIOD.
You leftist idiots didn't like Bush doing the same thing, SO WHY DO YOU BEND OVER BACKWARDS TO DEFEND THE FAILUREINTHEWHITEHOUSE FOR DOING THE SAME EXACT THING?
Link.
-
WHINNNNEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Midget meltdown in effect.
Obviously you suffer from a lack of reading comprehension skills. Read the title. Still can't understand? Read it again. Still doesn't get through that itsy bitsy brain? Then your only hope is a bullet right between your eyes.
-
Link.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/06/03/judge_napolitano_obama_admin_violated_law_provided_material_support_to_terrorist_organization.html
-
Hey fuckface - these were 5 Taliban Commanders kept in GITMO because they were the worst of the worst. Those freed under previous admn were mostly just rabble caught up in the midst of everytyhing.
Additionally -this traitor was a deserter and abandoned his post - not a pow
Poor baby. Obama just pissing in your face again huh?
-
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/06/03/judge_napolitano_obama_admin_violated_law_provided_material_support_to_terrorist_organization.html
#1 I am not watching any video your dumb ass posts.
#2 There was nothing in the write up on that article that states 30 days wait is mandatory.
Try again.
-
'Taliban Dream Team': Who are the 5 prisoners traded for Bergdahl's freedom?
Published June 02, 2014
·FoxNews.com
A top Republican senator called Monday for an “immediate hearing” to investigate the controversial release of five Taliban prisoners in exchange for American Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s freedom, as he and others raised alarm that the administration just freed the “Taliban Dream Team.”
New questions are surfacing about the terms of the deal, as details emerge about the Guantanamo Bay prisoners sent to Qatar in exchange for Bergdahl – who was a Taliban captive in Afghanistan for the past five years.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., sent a letter to the leaders of the Senate Armed Services Committee calling for a hearing. He said the prisoners “have American blood on their hands and surely as night follows day they will return to the fight.”
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., on Sunday called the five former detainees “the hardest of the hard-core” and “the highest high-risk people,” who are “possibly responsible for the deaths of thousands.” In the interview on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” he noted others that have been released have “gone back into the fight.”
So who are these terror leaders the U.S. helped put back in circulation, and just how dangerous are they?
Experts tell Fox News the men served in various military and intelligence roles linked to Al Qaeda before being sent to the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The Joint Task Force Guantanamo classified all five as “high” risk to the U.S. Two of the five men are “wanted” by the United Nations on war crimes for the deaths of thousands of Shiite Muslims in Afghanistan.
The Taliban has long pushed for the release of the men who have been called the “GITMO Five” – a group of experienced jihadists who helped run the terror organization’s operations in pre-9/11 Afghanistan.
Here’s a closer look at the five Taliban commanders released in exchange for Bergdahl:
Abdul Haq Wasiq
Thought to be in his early 40s, Wasiq served as the Taliban deputy minister of intelligence and “had direct access to Taliban and Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin leadership,” according to an internal memo that assessed risk at Guantanamo. He reportedly used his office to support Al Qaeda “and to assist Taliban personnel elude capture.” He also reportedly arranged for Al Qaeda personnel to train Taliban intelligence staff. Wasiq belongs to the Khogyani Tribe and began his religious training under his father, Muhammad Saleem, who died in 1981.Three years later, he went to study Islam at Warah, a school located on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border near the Khyber Pass. When the Taliban assumed control in Afghanistan, a number of Islamic students, including Wasiq, went to Kabul. Wasiq has been accused by Human Rights Watch of mass killings and torture. According to a report by the Joint Task Force Guantanamo, Wasiq “arranged for Al Qaeda personnel to train Taliban intelligence staff in intelligence methods.”
Mullah Norullah Noori
As a senior Taliban military commander, Noori has been described in government reports as a military mastermind of sorts who engaged in hostilities “against U.S. and Coalition forces in Zabul Province.” Noori, who is estimated to be around 46 or 47 years old, has developed close ties to Taliban leader Mullah Omar and other senior Taliban officials, according to a JTF-GTMO report. Noori, who was named as the Taliban governor for the Balkh and Lagman provinces, is wanted by the United Nations for war crimes including the murder and torture of thousands of Shiite Muslims. Noori has been able to remain a “significant figure” to Taliban supporters and sympathizers. According to government records, which are based on conversations with Noori, he grew up in Shajoy where he learned to read and write at a mosque in his village. His father was the imam at the mosque. As a boy, he worked as a farmer on his father’s land. In March 1999, he traveled to Kabul where he met with Mullah Yunis, the commander of the Taliban security base, and expressed interest in joining the Taliban. After the Taliban front lines fell in November 2001, Noori traveled to Konduz where he was trained and worked with Omar. Noori has been implicated in the murder of thousands of Shiites in northern Afghanistan. When asked about the killings, Noori “did not express any regret and stated they did what they needed to do in their struggle to establish their ‘ideal state.’”
Mullah Mohammad Fazi
As the Taliban’s former deputy defense minister, Fazi was held at Guantanamo after being identified as an enemy combatant by the United States. Fazi is an admitted senior commander who served as chief of staff of the Taliban Army and as a commander of its 22nd Division. He’s also wanted by the United Nations on war crimes for the murder of thousands of Shiite Muslims in Afghanistan. According to documents, Fazi “wielded considerable influence throughout the northern region of Afghanistan and his influence continued after his capture.” The Taliban has used Fazi’s capture as a recruiting tool. “If released, detainee would likely rejoin the Taliban and establish ties” with other terrorist groups, the Guantanamo report says.
Mullah Khairullah Khairkhwa
Khairkhwa is the former governor of the Herat province and has close ties with Usama bin Laden and Mullah Omar. According to the Joint Task Force Guantanamo file, Khairkhwa “represented the Taliban during meetings with Iranian officials seeking to support hostilities against US and coalition forces.” Khairkhwa and his deputies are suspected of being associated with an extremist military training camp run by the Al Qaeda commander Abu Musab al Zarqawi, who was killed in 2006. U.S. authorities have also accused Khairkhwa of becoming a powerful opium trafficker.
Mohammad Nabi Omari
As a senior Taliban leader, Nabi Omari has held multiple leadership roles in various terror-related groups. Pre-9/11, Nabi, who is estimated to be in his mid-40s, worked border security for the Taliban – a position that gave him “access to senior Taliban commander and leader of the Haqqani Network, Jalaluddin Haqqani,” according to the JTF-GTMO report. Born in the Khowst Province of Afghanistan, Nabi Omari and his family were forced to resettle as refugees though In Miram Shah, Pakistan after the Soviet Union’s occupation in Afghanistan. In the late 1980s, Nabi Omari returned to Afghanistan where he fought with the mujahideen against the Soviets. During the early 1990s, he ping-ponged between Taliban-related positions and others, including a stint as a used car salesman. In August 2002, Nabi reportedly helped two al Qaeda operatives smuggle missiles in Pakistan. The weapons were smuggled in pieces and the plan was to reassemble the missiles once all of the pieces had been brought across. Nabi was caught in September 2002 and eventually moved to Guantanamo.
-
Obviously you suffer from a lack of reading comprehension skills. Read the title. Still can't understand? Read it again. Still doesn't get through that itsy bitsy brain? Then your only hope is a bullet right between your eyes.
Reading the title doesn't amount to a hill of beans when the person who posted it is just as stupid as your idiot ass is and constantly lies all the time.
Try again Nancy boy.
-
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/06/02/professor_jonathan_turley_i_dont_think_theres_much_debate_obama_broke_the_law.html
Turley is not exactly a far right conserviative.
-
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/06/02/professor_jonathan_turley_i_dont_think_theres_much_debate_obama_broke_the_law.html
Turley is not exactly a far right conserviative.
You beat me to it.
But now you will see retards like Lurker claim that he is a sell out and then try to find a loophole, when there isn't one.
HE BROKE THE LAW. PERIOD!!!
-
CNN ANCHOR: Jonathan, did the White House violate federal law?
JONATHAN TURLEY: They did. I don't think the White House is seriously arguing they're not violating federal law. To make matters worse, this is a long series of violations of federal law this president has been accused of. I testified twice in Congress about this record of the president in suspending or ignoring federal laws. This is going to add to that pile. I don't think there's much debate that they're in violation of the law. What's fascinating, Carol, is when this law went to the president, he used a signing statement which, if you recall as a senator, he opposed, and ran against for president. But he actually used one in this circumstance and said, 'I'm going to sign this, but I actually think that notice requirement is unconstitutional.' He's essentially arguing the very same principle of George Bush, that when it comes to Gitmo, he has almost absolute power, that it is his prerogative, his inherent authority to be able to make these decisions as he sees fit.
-
You beat me to it.
But now you will see retards like Lurker claim that he is a sell out and then try to find a loophole, when there isn't one.
HE BROKE THE LAW. PERIOD!!!
Lurker is the worst of the worst - would support Obama if he raped his mother in the name of progessivisim and liberalism
-
Still waiting for a link that clearly states a 30 day mandatory wait is required for executive orders.
Little retardario makes this claim and yet can't support. Surely there will be some evidence out there you think?
Not interested in what any professor or idiots like yourself claim.
-
But this is nothing new.
He violated his own crapcare law. Every single time he delayed mandates, changed enrollment dates and made exceptions for policies that were considered by libtards as "garbage" or "sub-standard", the jokeinthewhitehouse broke the law. PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Lurker is the worst of the worst - would support Obama if he raped his mother in the name of progessivisim and liberalism
No, if I was the worst of the worst, then I would be 5'2", bald, mentally unstable, living in the ghetto and a closet fag chasing Obama's BBC.
But that would be you wouldn't it?
-
Still waiting for a link that clearly states a 30 day mandatory wait is required for executive orders.
Moron, this law is not subject to executive order.
Obviously, you refused to watch any of the videos.
So, off with you, lurker the FAG.
-
But this is nothing new.
He violated his own crapcare law. Every single time he delayed mandates, changed enrollment dates and made exceptions for policies that were considered by libtards as "garbage" or "sub-standard", the jokeinthewhitehouse broke the law. PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"HEHEHEHEHEHE" you can't support your own bullshit claim. No surprise.
This isn't about Obamacare you dumbass.
This isn't about enrollment dates.
This isn't about whether he broke the law.
I asked a simple verification of a claim you made and you can't provide it. What's the matter? Can't find a copy and paste to steal somewhere to support your claim? This astounding level of stupidity... does it come from being a brain dead Republicunt or from being a brain dead Christian?
-
HE BROKE THE LAW. PERIOD!!!!!!!!
-
This will be my last post on this thread.
It is clear the failure in the white house broke the law.
Nothing more to discuss.
Thread over.
-
This will be my last post on this thread.
It is clear the failure in the white house broke the law.
Nothing more to discuss.
Thread over.
The creepy ass gay stalkers on this site cant get over the fact that the messiah they worship is nothing more than a two bit terrorist in his own right.
-
Moron, this law is not subject to executive order.
Obviously, you refused to watch any of the videos.
So, off with you, lurker the FAG.
Really? You claimed it does. Right here in your own words.
You need to educate yourself.
The law requires a 30 day notice by the president before he makes a any prisoner swap. I know that the only law that you accept is the crapcare law, but we are a nation of many laws and there are other laws that restrict the authority of your lord and savior brack the joke obama.
HE BROKE THE LAW. His executive power has nothing to do with this and HE IS NOT SUPPOSED TO USE IT in any case like this without FIRST providing notice to congress. PERIOD.
You leftist idiots didn't like Bush doing the same thing, SO WHY DO YOU BEND OVER BACKWARDS TO DEFEND THE FAILUREINTHEWHITEHOUSE FOR DOING THE SAME EXACT THING?
HAHAHAHA. Now what is your little excuse? If that little "law" of a thirty day waiting period is not subject to an executive order, then he didn't break the law as he acted by executive order.
Continue arguing with yourself. Watching the mental handicap is amusing. Again, maybe stealing a cut and paste somewhere would be much better for you. Because you can't articulate an argument on your own.
-
This will be my last post on this thread.
It is clear the failure in the white house broke the law.
Nothing more to discuss.
Thread over.
HAHAHAHA can't even support your own claims? Fucking dumbass. Stick to copying other people's comments and pasting them here.
-
The creepy ass gay stalkers on this site cant get over the fact that the messiah they worship is nothing more than a two bit terrorist in his own right.
The only gay stalkers I see on here is YOU. You can't get Obama off your mind every day can you? Constantly on here polluting the board with your little gay talk and gay fantasies. No straight man alive obsesses over gayness the way you do.
The amount of pain that self loathing brings because of having a life that sucks so bad must be incredible.
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/03/jeffrey-toobin-obama-broke-law-bergdahl_n_5437034.html
Funny - only one idiot is left arguing otherwise.
-
"The law says 30-days' notice. Give 30 days' notice. Now, it is true that he issued a signing statement, but signing statements are not law. Signing statements are the president's opinion about what the law should mean. Now, it may be that the law is unconstitutional, a violation of his power as commander in chief, but no court has held that. The law is on the books, and he didn't follow it."
-
"The law says 30-days' notice. Give 30 days' notice. Now, it is true that he issued a signing statement, but signing statements are not law. Signing statements are the president's opinion about what the law should mean. Now, it may be that the law is unconstitutional, a violation of his power as commander in chief, but no court has held that. The law is on the books, and he didn't follow it."
Link to where it is clearly spelled out as a law regarding 30 day notice.
DISCLAIMER :
Opinion website do not count.
Pundits talking about it do not count.
Someone mentioning it in a video do not count.
The voices in your head crying about it do not count.
If it's a law, it's has a credible source on the books somewhere.
-
You beat me to it.
But now you will see retards like Lurker claim that he is a sell out and then try to find a loophole, when there isn't one.
HE BROKE THE LAW. PERIOD!!!
If its an emergency matter, the president can act immediately without anyone's fucking imput. Suck Obama asshole.... ;D
-
We've been negotiating for 3 years....Congress stopped it once.
-
If its an emergency matter, the president can act immediately without anyone's fucking imput. Suck Obama asshole.... ;D
Was not an emergency - this traitor and Obama voter was in stable condition when they got him.
The law says the opposite by the way.
-
Was not an emergency - this traitor and Obama voter was in stable condition when they got him.
The law says the opposite by the way.
Link to where the law says 30 days notice is MANDATORY.
I've asked this countless times. Nothing yet. Not even from the original little retard that made this claim. No surprise.
-
Link to where the law says 30 days notice is MANDATORY.
I've asked this countless times. Nothing yet. Not even from the original little retard that made this claim. No surprise.
There's was a law that was written and signed by Obama however it exempts emergency and top secret actions in addition to the president having executive order anyway. Constitutionally, Obama could actually ignore the law entirely
-
There's was a law that was written and signed by Obama however it exempts emergency and top secret actions in addition to the president having executive order anyway. Constitutionally, Obama could actually ignore the law entirely
Just what you leftists want - a communist king
-
There's was a law that was written and signed by Obama however it exempts emergency and top secret actions in addition to the president having executive order anyway. Constitutionally, Obama could actually ignore the law entirely
Exactly. But let's not let a little fact or logic interfere with the whinefest the dimwits are doing.
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bergdahl-release-arrangement-could-threaten-the-safety-of-americans-republicans-say/2014/05/31/35e47a2a-e8ff-11e3-afc6-a1dd9407abcf_print.html
Even people in his own admn are admitting that he broke the law - but oh - you two twinks know differently ::)
-
Moron, this law is not subject to executive order.
Obviously, you refused to watch any of the videos.
So, off with you, lurker the FAG.
Let me just say that "Lurker the FAG" does not have the ring to it that "Retardario" does.
Carry on. ;D
-
Buuttt....what about Obama?
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/06/03/bowe-bergdahl-desertion-charges
-
Let me just say that "Lurker the FAG" does not have the ring to it that "Retardario" does.
Carry on. ;D
He, like the other mental midget on here, is obsessed with gayness and queer innuendo. We all know what that means in their real lives.
Don't expect a reply from him. Just like every time in the past when he gets his teeth kicked in, he runs away and ignores the thread rather than actually explaining some bullshit he spewed. Dumb bitch can't make his own argument without relying on plagiarizing some other person's viewpoint from another source and trying to pass it off as his own here.
He can't help it though. It's GOD'S WILL that he is so stupid.
-
He, like the other mental midget on here, is obsessed with gayness and queer innuendo. We all know what that means in their real lives.
Don't expect a reply from him. Just like every time in the past when he gets his teeth kicked in, he runs away and ignores the thread rather than actually explaining some bullshit he spewed. Dumb bitch can't make his own argument without relying on plagiarizing some other person's viewpoint from another source and trying to pass it off as his own here.
He can't help it though. It's GOD'S WILL that he is so stupid.
All that may be true but, to Dario's credit, he is pretty good at increasing the size of the font. ;D
-
There's was a law that was written and signed by Obama however it exempts emergency and top secret actions in addition to the president having executive order anyway. Constitutionally, Obama could actually ignore the law entirely
And how exactly does anything you wrote make any fucking sense at all? So let me get this straight, Obama can simply ignore the law? Then why do we have laws? Shit is the POTUS can just ignore the law, then I should be able to as well...........
-
And how exactly does anything you wrote make any fucking sense at all? So let me get this straight, Obama can simply ignore the law? Then why do we have laws? Shit is the POTUS can just ignore the law, then I should be able to as well...........
The whole idea of signing statements seems a little shady to me, too.
But, to be fair about it, Obama did not invent this trick.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement)
-
All that may be true but, to Dario's credit, he is pretty good at increasing the size of the font. ;D
Several times in several sizes in random spots of a post.
Like he is adding further emphasis on his stupidity.
-
Several times in several sizes in random spots of a post.
...
It's true!! It's like we're seeing directly into Dario's tortured and addled brain where some voices are louder than others, lol.
BTW, you have made me laugh several times today.
All you can hope from reading this board, really.
-
Did I make you laugh? Or did you laugh out loud? Or maybe you just LOL?
Or maybe what you really meant is factoring in the (obvious) ignoring of the homosexual projections that are so prevalent from a poster in question is that you simply sat there and experienced a great beam of sunshine inside your soul that spread to your face where it radiated outwards in the form of a chuckle.
-
And how exactly does anything you wrote make any fucking sense at all? So let me get this straight, Obama can simply ignore the law? Then why do we have laws? Shit is the POTUS can just ignore the law, then I should be able to as well...........
YES, he most certainly can ignore ignore the law because it interferes with his executive power that he has as president. He doesn't have to follow that law as the Constitution gives him the authority to override congressional laws
-
YES, he most certainly can ignore ignore the law because it interferes with his executive power that he has as president. He doesn't have to follow that law as the Constitution gives him the authority to override congressional laws
GMAFB - you have to be trolling
-
YES, he most certainly can ignore ignore the law because it interferes with his executive power that he has as president. He doesn't have to follow that law as the Constitution gives him the authority to override congressional laws
No he cannot ignore the fucking law, if that is the case there is no fucking law. You ignorant asshole, he would be a dictator and not a president. For fuck sake I though everyone had to pass a constitution test before they could get out of 8th grade ::)
-
WH apologizes to Senate intel chief for prisoner swap secret
Share on facebook
224
Share on twitter
382
Share on google_plusone_share
More Sharing Services
87
Share on email
212 .
By Alexander Bolton - 06/03/14 01:22 PM EDT
White House Backpedals After Claiming Bergdahl 'Served With Honor And Distinction'
The White House has apologized to Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) for failing to alert her in advance of a decision to release Taliban commanders from Guantanamo Bay.
Feinstein told reporters that she received a call from Deputy National Security Adviser Tony Blinken on Monday evening apologizing for what the administration is calling an “oversight.”
ADVERTISEMENT
“I had a call from the White House last night, from Tony Blinken, apologizing for it,” she said.
“He apologized and said it was an oversight,” she added.
Feinstein also said leaders of the House and Senate Intelligence panels were almost unanimously against a prisoner trade when it came up in 2011.
She said the chairmen and ranking Republicans of the “connected committees” spent a lot of time in 2011 reviewing the possibility of a prisoner swap and came out firmly opposed to releasing senior militants from the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay.
“There were very strong views and they were virtually unanimous against the trade,” she said.
“I certainly want to know more about whether this man was a deserter,” she said of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who was released to American special forces in return for the freedom of five senior Taliban commanders.
Administration officials have said in public that they did not have time to inform Congress of the prisoner swap because Bergdahl’s life was in danger and they did not know how long the Taliban would be willing to wait to finalize the deal.
The National Defense Authorization Act required the administration to alert Congress of the pending release of prisoners from Guantanamo at least 30 days in advance.
“The notification to us is important and I think that it would have been a much better thing to do because you do try to work together,” Feinstein said.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Tuesday he was notified by the administration of the prisoner swap immediately before it
.
Read more: http://thehill.com/policy/defense/208070-white-house-apologizes-to-senate-intelligence#ixzz33bPWbeud
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
THIS IS WHY FAGBAMA BROKE THE LAW
-
NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE www.nationalreview.com PRINT
June 3, 2014 6:45 AM
The Taliban Swap and 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors'
By Andrew C. McCarthy
The Wall Street Journal had a fine editorial Monday on President Obama’s reckless decision to negotiate with the Taliban and release from Guantanamo Bay five of its most senior, most capable, most implacably anti-American jihadists for an American army sergeant who, according to accounts from his fellow soldiers, went AWOL in 2009. I addressed the swap in a Corner post over the weekend and in a column yesterday.
Faithless Execution, my book on presidential lawlessness and the Constitution’s ultimate response to it, impeachment, has just been released. I’ve thus been repeatedly asked about the president’s violation of a federal statute in carrying out the exchange and whether this rises to the level of a “high crime and misdemeanor,” the constitutional standard for impeachable offenses that is prominently discussed in my book. This line of inquiry misses the point. There surely is an impeachable offense in this irresponsible deal, but it involves the commander-in-chief’s dereliction of duty, not his failure to comply with dubious statutory terms.
The National Defense Authorization Act states that the president must give Congress 30 days’ notice before transferring war prisoners out of Gitmo, along with an explanation of steps taken to mitigate any potential threat the release poses to the United States. The administration concedes that the president did not comply with this law in releasing the Taliban commanders. The Journal’s editors pooh-pooh the allegation of some Republican lawmakers that this makes the exchange illegal; they argue, to the contrary, that the law is an “unconstitutional” constraint on the president’s “wartime decision-making.” The editors have a point, though one that is undercut by the president himself.
Article II of the Constitution gives the president significant unilateral authority over the conduct of foreign affairs. As commander-in-chief, moreover, the president has traditionally had near plenary authority over the capture and disposition of enemy combatants in wartime. Congress has salient constitutional powers, too. As the Journal points out, Congress could properly have used “its comparably strong power of the purse” to deny the president funding for objectionable prisoner transfers. Instead, with the 30-day notice prescription, it purported to legislate direct limitations on the president’s prerogatives. The president’s commander-in-chief prerogatives may be frustrated by Congress’s exercise of its competing spending power, but Congress may not legislate away the president’s Article II powers—i.e., the Constitution may not be amended by a mere statute. The Journal is right on that score.
The problem in this instance, however, is two-fold. First, there is the now-familiar hypocrisy point. Throughout the Bush administration, when the president relied on his constitutional authority to override congressional restrictions on his wartime surveillance authority and control over enemy combatants, the Left, including then-Senator Obama and many of the lawyers now working in his administration, screamed bloody murder. Some even suggested that he should be impeached for violating the FISA statute. President Obama, of course, is now doing the same thing he and his allies previously condemned. As I contend in Faithless Execution, he is doing it far more sweepingly and systematically than Bush, whose statutory violations occurred in the context of his incontestable war powers and were strongly supported by judicial precedents.
Of course, on the straight legal question, hypocrisy is beside the point: If the statutory restrictions in the NDAA are unconstitutional, President Obama is within his rights to ignore them. The fact that doing so demonstrates the mendacity of his complaints about Bush says much about his character but it is legally irrelevant.
Perhaps because he knows this, though, the president is soft-selling his constitutional authority to ignore laws that improperly restrict his powers to transfer wartime detainees to other countries. The Journal emphasizes that the president asserted his constitutional objection in a fleeting statement back when he signed the NDAA. The editors have to go back to the signing statement because the administration has been reluctant, in the specific context of the Taliban release, to declare that Obama—in Bush/Cheney style—is relying on Article II war powers to ignore statutes. Administration officials instead blather about some purported presidential power to waive Congress’s restrictions if the president unilaterally perceives exigent circumstances. That is, as with Obamacare, the immigration laws, and other enactments, Obama is claiming the despotic power to amend, rewrite and ignore the NDAA at his whim.
To my mind, the dispute is nearly irrelevant. The vital point here is that the president has returned five senior commanders to the Taliban and Haqqani network while those violent jihadist organizations are still conducting offensive attacks against American troops, who are still in harm’s way and still conducting combat operations pursuant to a congressional authorization of military force.
These terrorists were not exchanged in connection with a final peace settlement in which it would be appropriate to exchange detainees—after all, if there is no more war, even unlawful enemy combatant prisoners must be released unless they can be charged with crimes.
While the president is obviously abandoning the war effort, it has not been fully abandoned yet. The Taliban and Haqqani have not surrendered or settled; they are still working hard to kill our troops. It is thus mind-bogglingly irresponsible for the commander-in-chief to replenish their upper ranks. The reason the laws of war permit enemy combatants to be detained until the conclusion of hostilities is humane: when enemy forces are depleted, they have a greater incentive to surrender, bringing a swifter, less bloody conclusion to the war. By giving the enemy back its most effective commanders, Obama, by contrast, endangers our forces, potentially extends the war, and otherwise makes it far more likely that the war will end on terms injurious to American interests.
As I demonstrate in Faithless Execution, high crimes and misdemeanors are not primarily statutory offenses. They are the political wrongs of high public officials—the president, in particular—in whom great public trust is reposed. When the commander-in-chief replenishes the enemy at a time when (a) the enemy is still attacking our forces and (b) the commander-in-chief has hamstrung our forces with unconscionable combat rules-of-engagement that compromise their ability to defend themselves, that is a profound dereliction of duty.
That’s what we ought to be outraged about. The chitter-chatter about a 30-day notice requirement is a sideshow. Yes, the president has once again violated a statute. And as I said in yesterday’s column, he undoubtedly did so in order to get the swap done before public and congressional protest could mount. But in the greater scheme of things, that’s a footnote to the real travesty.
-
No he cannot ignore the fucking law, if that is the case there is no fucking law. You ignorant asshole, he would be a dictator and not a president. For fuck sake I though everyone had to pass a constitution test before they could get out of 8th grade ::)
One law doesn't trump another law that's in the Constitution.....GOP and the flat earthers can moan and bitch but it won't matter
-
One law doesn't trump another law that's in the Constitution.....GOP and the flat earthers can moan and bitch but it won't matter
You don't have a clue what you are talking about, the POTUS does not have limitless power to do as he pleases.
-
The president has an executive order clause you moron. If he had waited for Congress to act, he would have been dead by now. Shut the fuck up
What is an "executive order clause"?
He issued a signing statement. That's not an executive order. Also, an executive order cannot change a federal law. Unless your name is Obama. And you're the president.
-
Still waiting for a link that clearly states a 30 day mandatory wait is required for executive orders.
Little retardario makes this claim and yet can't support. Surely there will be some evidence out there you think?
Not interested in what any professor or idiots like yourself claim.
Both Toobin and Turley are liberals.
Do you disagree with what they said?
-
Exactly. But let's not let a little fact or logic interfere with the whinefest the dimwits are doing.
You're taking Vince's word and not asking him for a link?
-
You're taking Vince's word and not asking him for a link?
;D
-
What is an "executive order clause"?
He issued a signing statement. That's not an executive order. Also, an executive order cannot change a federal law. Unless your name is Obama. And you're the president.
Article II of the Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution
Its also been settled in previous court cases:
In the landmark decision Nixon v. General Services Administration Justice William Rehnquist, afterwards the Chief Justice, declared in his dissent the need to "fully describe the preeminent position that the President of the United States occupies with respect to our Republic. Suffice it to say that the President is made the sole repository of the executive powers of the United States, and the powers entrusted to him as well as the duties imposed upon him are awesome indeed."
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/BarackObamaSigningLegislation.jpg/800px-BarackObamaSigningLegislation.jpg)
-
So if Obama declared that by executive powers all blacks had to get back on ships to Africa in the name of public safety you are cool with it? :D
-
One more thing.....the only thing I could see being an issue is the "Take Care Clause" . The president is responsible for executing laws even if he disagrees with it.
However....I believe that this guy was traded for reasons that are not aware to us considering that we've known where he was for over 4 years. I do believe that he may face a court martial for desertion once he's debriefed. However, he's not going to get any punishment other than a general discharge as 5 years as a POW is more than enough punishment and that's IF HE GETS PUNISHED. He could be propped up like a hero
-
One more thing.....the only thing I could see being an issue is the "Take Care Clause" . The president is responsible for executing laws even if he disagrees with it.
However....I believe that this guy was traded for reasons that are not aware to us considering that we've known where he was for over 4 years
Correct - to get the VA scandal out of the news. ;)
-
Correct - to get the VA scandal out of the news. ;)
Exactly....that's one thing that should be clear to everyone and even I'm not going to dispute that. Its just a smokescreen to get everyone feeling good. I think that he would have been left to hang had it not been for the VA scandal.
On the other hand, its funny that he didn't get his head chopped off or end up dead in the desert...WHY????
-
YES, he most certainly can ignore ignore the law because it interferes with his executive power that he has as president. He doesn't have to follow that law as the Constitution gives him the authority to override congressional laws
Seriously? So just forget about that Constitutional mandate that he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"?
-
Seriously? So just forget about that Constitutional mandate that he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"?
That's the thing...the president can argue for either law. He has just as much right to do it as to not do it
-
That's the thing...the president can argue for either law. He has just as much right to do it as to not do it
Not following you. What do you mean he "can argue for either law"? What laws are you talking about?
-
6 U.S. soldiers dead and 5 Taliban released all for 1 guy who deserted his camp and went AWOL during war.
Absolutely disgraceful decision by Obama.
-
You need to educate yourself.
The law requires a 30 day notice by the president before he makes a any prisoner swap. I know that the only law that you accept is the crapcare law, but we are a nation of many laws and there are other laws that restrict the authority of your lord and savior brack the joke obama.
HE BROKE THE LAW. His executive power has nothing to do with this and HE IS NOT SUPPOSED TO USE IT in any case like this without FIRST providing notice to congress. PERIOD.
You leftist idiots didn't like Bush doing the same thing, SO WHY DO YOU BEND OVER BACKWARDS TO DEFEND THE FAILUREINTHEWHITEHOUSE FOR DOING THE SAME EXACT THING?
because at the end of the day, they could give a rats ass about any of this. all they care about is gay marriage and abortion. they only pretended to care about this shit when Bush was in office. none of them have given Gitmo a second thought since 2008.
-
Article II of the Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution
Its also been settled in previous court cases:
In the landmark decision Nixon v. General Services Administration Justice William Rehnquist, afterwards the Chief Justice, declared in his dissent the need to "fully describe the preeminent position that the President of the United States occupies with respect to our Republic. Suffice it to say that the President is made the sole repository of the executive powers of the United States, and the powers entrusted to him as well as the duties imposed upon him are awesome indeed."
Holy shit dude, you are one dumb motherf_cker.
First, Obama can't do whatever he wants.
Second, Nixon LOST the Supreme Court case.
-
Holy shit dude, you are one dumb motherf_cker.
First, Obama can't do whatever he wants.
Second, Nixon LOST the Supreme Court case.
I cited the wrong one....but this case still proves point on executive order
-
I cited the wrong one....but this case still proves point on executive order
An executive order cannot conflict with either federal law or the U.S. Constitution.
-
Exactly....that's one thing that should be clear to everyone and even I'm not going to dispute that. Its just a smokescreen to get everyone feeling good. I think that he would have been left to hang had it not been for the VA scandal.
On the other hand, its funny that he didn't get his head chopped off or end up dead in the desert...WHY????
Why because he walked off base and joined them, gave them tactics and I'm sure intel. This fucking guy is the enemy
-
I cited the wrong one....but this case still proves point on executive order
No, it doesn't and executive orders are not even the issue here.
-
An executive order cannot conflict with either federal law or the U.S. Constitution.
Well, don't expect Obama to be impeached....if the GOP goes after him, they'll look like shit for not wanting to get a POW out after 5 years. They'll bitch a little bit and that will be the end of it
-
Both Toobin and Turley are liberals.
Do you disagree with what they said?
Doesn't matter what THEIR political basis is. I asked a specific poster about a specific claim he made. Nothing was offered up as proof of that claim. No surprise.
You're taking Vince's word and not asking him for a link?
You can't be serious.
-
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/06/03/turley_obama_the_president_that_richard_nixon_always_wanted_to_be.html
100% truth - Obama is a lawless out of control pos
-
boehnner and issa talk about impeachment for fundraising purposes and even use in their ads.
BUT
They don't impeach anyone. that's the problem. they're like the girl that grinds on a guy all night at the club, lets him buy her drinks all night, leads him to the car, then VOILA, they get a text from their sick grandmother and have to go, leaving him blue.
And it happened that one benghazi friday night. And that one F&F friday night. And that other friday night, etc etc. Repubs are the dudes that keep buying her drinks and going home with blueballs, and still bragging to their friends about "oh, i'm SO going to nail her on Friday!"
-
Well, don't expect Obama to be impeached....if the GOP goes after him, they'll look like shit for not wanting to get a POW out after 5 years. They'll bitch a little bit and that will be the end of it
I didn't say anything about Obama being impeached. I'm addressing your contention that the president can choose not to follow federal law, and that an executive order trumps federal law and the U.S. Constitution.
-
Doesn't matter what THEIR political basis is. I asked a specific poster about a specific claim he made. Nothing was offered up as proof of that claim. No surprise.
You can't be serious.
You were asking for links and they gave you two articles and excerpts from two different liberal commentators. Do you disagree with what those commentator said about Obama violating the law?
While repeatedly asking them for links, you agreed with Vince, without asking for a link.
There's was a law that was written and signed by Obama however it exempts emergency and top secret actions in addition to the president having executive order anyway. Constitutionally, Obama could actually ignore the law entirely
Exactly. But let's not let a little fact or logic interfere with the whinefest the dimwits are doing.
-
You were asking for links and they gave you two articles and excerpts from two different liberal commentators. Do you disagree with what those commentator said about Obama violating the law?
While repeatedly asking them for links, you agreed with Vince, without asking for a link.
Surely the law is written down somewhere for the common people to find and not have to rely on it being fed to them by "commentators". I asked for a link to where this was spelled out since one little retard made that statement.
Linking to commentators that parrot the claim is not the same thing.
-
Daily Mail ^ | 6-5-2014 | David Martosko, U.s. Political Editor
Posted on June 5, 2014 at 8:23:20 PM EDT by sheikdetailfeather
The Obama administration passed up multiple opportunities to rescue Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl because the president was dead-set on finding a reason to begin emptying Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, according to a Pentagon official.
'JSOC went to the White House with several specific rescue-op scenarios,' the official with knowledge of interagency negotiations underway since at least November 2013 told MailOnline, referring to the Joint Special Operations Command. 'But no one ever got traction.'
'What we learned along the way was that the president wanted a diplomatic scenario that would establish a precedent for repatriating detainees from Gitmo,' he said.
The official said a State Department liaison described the lay of the land to him in February, shortly after the Taliban sent the U.S. government a month-old video of Bergdahl in January, looking sickly and haggard, in an effort to create a sense of urgency about his health and effect a quick prisoner trade.
'He basically told me that no matter what JSOC put on the table, it was never going to fly because the president isn't going to leave office with Gitmo intact, and this was the best opportunity to see that through.'
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
-
The law is clear:
Via BlackFive:
Obama should have read this before he started negotiating with the Taliban.
The US “will make no concessions to terrorists. It will not pay ransoms, release prisoners, change its policies or agree to other acts that might encourage additional terrorism.”
U.S. Policy and Response to Terrorists
Since no country is immune to terrorism, it is imperative that governments have the appropriate policies, intelligence and flexible response options to deal effectively with terrorist acts. Trained personnel and programs must be in place before, during and after each crisis, both to respond to the problem and to answer inevitable criticism in the event of failure. Long-term policies to achieve these objectives are costly, complicated and difficult, yet essential as a defense against the importation of terrorism from overseas.
CURRENT POLICY
The U.S. position on terrorism is unequivocal: firm opposition to terrorism in all its forms and wherever it takes place. Several National Security Decision Directives as well as statements by the President and senior officials confirm this policy:
• The U.S. Government is opposed to domestic and international terrorism and is prepared to act in concert with other nations or unilaterally when necessary to prevent or respond to terrorist acts.
• The U.S. Government considers the practice of terrorism by any person or group a potential threat to its national security and will resist the use of terrorism by all legal means available.
• States that practice terrorism or actively support it will not do so without consequence. If there is evidence that a state is mounting or intends to conduct an act of terrorism against this country, the United States will take measures to protect its citizens, property and interests.
• The U.S. Government will make no concessions to terrorists. It will not pay ransoms, release prisoners, change its policies or agree to other acts that might encourage additional terrorism. At the same time, the United States will use every available resource to gain the safe return of American citizens who are held hostage by terrorists.
• The United States will act in a strong manner against terrorists without surrendering basic freedoms or endangering democratic principles, and encourages other governments to take similar stands.
-
The law is clear:
Via BlackFive:
Obama should have read this before he started negotiating with the Taliban.
The US “will make no concessions to terrorists. It will not pay ransoms, release prisoners, change its policies or agree to other acts that might encourage additional terrorism.”
U.S. Policy and Response to Terrorists
Since no country is immune to terrorism, it is imperative that governments have the appropriate policies, intelligence and flexible response options to deal effectively with terrorist acts. Trained personnel and programs must be in place before, during and after each crisis, both to respond to the problem and to answer inevitable criticism in the event of failure. Long-term policies to achieve these objectives are costly, complicated and difficult, yet essential as a defense against the importation of terrorism from overseas.
CURRENT POLICY
The U.S. position on terrorism is unequivocal: firm opposition to terrorism in all its forms and wherever it takes place. Several National Security Decision Directives as well as statements by the President and senior officials confirm this policy:
• The U.S. Government is opposed to domestic and international terrorism and is prepared to act in concert with other nations or unilaterally when necessary to prevent or respond to terrorist acts.
• The U.S. Government considers the practice of terrorism by any person or group a potential threat to its national security and will resist the use of terrorism by all legal means available.
• States that practice terrorism or actively support it will not do so without consequence. If there is evidence that a state is mounting or intends to conduct an act of terrorism against this country, the United States will take measures to protect its citizens, property and interests.
• The U.S. Government will make no concessions to terrorists. It will not pay ransoms, release prisoners, change its policies or agree to other acts that might encourage additional terrorism. At the same time, the United States will use every available resource to gain the safe return of American citizens who are held hostage by terrorists.
• The United States will act in a strong manner against terrorists without surrendering basic freedoms or endangering democratic principles, and encourages other governments to take similar stands.
Yo self-proclaimed lawyer-boy, where da link at?
-
sounds about right... obama wants his legacy to be "I led the emptying of Gitmo!"
Plus whatever shady shit this dude was up to. If we're being told "deserter", who knows what else he was up to.
-
sounds about right... obama wants his legacy to be "I led the emptying of Gitmo!"
...
I've been thinking this, too.
To be fair, though, I'm pretty sure it was one of his campaign promises.
(And everyone knows how is about keeping his word, lol.)
-
Skip to comments.
Obama Could Be Facing 10 years to Life In Prison…
Western Journalism / Fox News ^ | June 6, 2014 | Tom Hinchey
Posted on 06/06/2014 5:09:05 PM PDT by bamahead
Shepard Smith asked Judge Andrew Napolitano whether or not the Taliban prisoner exchange was legal under the NDAA H.R. 1960 Statute.
The judge explained that the swap was illegal because taxpayer dollars were spent to remove these prisoners from Guantanamo Bay without giving Congress 30 days notice.
However, Napolitano goes a step further by pointing out that Obama has provided material assistance (human assets) to the Taliban, which has been identified by Congress to be a non-state terrorist organization. This is a crime punishable by imprisonment of 10 years to life, which covers all Americans–including the President.
-
Skip to comments.
Obama Could Be Facing 10 years to Life In Prison…
Western Journalism / Fox News ^ | June 6, 2014 | Tom Hinchey
Posted on 06/06/2014 5:09:05 PM PDT by bamahead
Shepard Smith asked Judge Andrew Napolitano whether or not the Taliban prisoner exchange was legal under the NDAA H.R. 1960 Statute.
The judge explained that the swap was illegal because taxpayer dollars were spent to remove these prisoners from Guantanamo Bay without giving Congress 30 days notice.
However, Napolitano goes a step further by pointing out that Obama has provided material assistance (human assets) to the Taliban, which has been identified by Congress to be a non-state terrorist organization. This is a crime punishable by imprisonment of 10 years to life, which covers all Americans–including the President.
Now we're talking.
-
Napalitano knows exactly what to say to fire up the retards who watch Faux News.
Did he happen to mention that the Bush administration released or transferred over 500 detainees?
-
Skip to comments.
Obama Could Be Facing 10 years to Life In Prison…
Western Journalism / Fox News ^ | June 6, 2014 | Tom Hinchey
Posted on 06/06/2014 5:09:05 PM PDT by bamahead
Shepard Smith asked Judge Andrew Napolitano whether or not the Taliban prisoner exchange was legal under the NDAA H.R. 1960 Statute.
The judge explained that the swap was illegal because taxpayer dollars were spent to remove these prisoners from Guantanamo Bay without giving Congress 30 days notice.
However, Napolitano goes a step further by pointing out that Obama has provided material assistance (human assets) to the Taliban, which has been identified by Congress to be a non-state terrorist organization. This is a crime punishable by imprisonment of 10 years to life, which covers all Americans–including the President.
Napolitano is an idiot and shit stirrer for Fox News. Wishful thinking from the bitter party of the right
-
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/hagel-admits-obama-ignored-law-in-taliban-release
;)
-
Napolitano is an idiot and shit stirrer for Fox News. Wishful thinking from the bitter party of the right
He is an idiot now.
But when he criticized the GOP you were hailing his courage and along with others, describing him as the "only objective voice at Fox".
You are like every other libtard, democrat scumbag.
-
What are the odds OB gets impeached over this? 10000000 to 1?
-
What are the odds OB gets impeached over this? 10000000 to 1?
A LANDSLIDE!!!!
-
A LANDSLIDE!!!!
Hey twinkie -
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/208981-senior-dem-obama-didnt-follow-law-on-bergdahl
;)
-
“I am scared to death for our country” : Energy CEO says Obama DESTROYING low-cost energy with EPA
http://therightscoop.com/ ^ | June 20, 2014 | The Right Scoop
Posted on June 20, 2014 at 8:23:29 PM EDT by Whenifhow
Murray Energy CEO Robert Murray says he is scared to death for this country, for poor people, those who live on fixed incomes and for people who are retiring.
Murray says Obama is illegally using the EPA and the Clean Air Act to take over the US Electric Power Grid and in the process he’s destroying low-cost energy.
Murray points out that coal is only 4 cents per kilowatt-hour and Obama wants to replace it with renewable energy sources, wind and solar, that cost 22 cents per kilowatt-hour.
By 2030, according to Murray, we will be down from 40% coal-fired electricity to 14% coal-fired electricity.
Watch below:
-
Impeachment and Jail is too good for him
-
Impeachment and Jail is too good for him
what do you suggest
have you asked yourself what would jesus do?
I'm guessing he would forgive him (assuming Jesus even thought he did something wrong)
-
what do you suggest
have you asked yourself what would jesus do?
I'm guessing he would forgive him (assuming Jesus even thought he did something wrong)
He needs to be sent to where he came from and banned from atepping foot ever in the usa again.
-
He needs to be sent to where he came from and banned from atepping foot ever in the usa again.
are you Coach?
If not then STFU or at least don't reply for him
-
what do you suggest
have you asked yourself what would jesus do?
I'm guessing he would forgive him (assuming Jesus even thought he did something wrong)
He's the devil. So ask YOURSELF what would Jesus do. Oh, that's right. You're a liberal. You can't believe in Jesus or the devil.
-
He needs to be sent to where he came from and banned from atepping foot ever in the usa again.
x 2
-
He's the devil. So ask YOURSELF what would Jesus do. Oh, that's right. You're a liberal. You can't believe in Jesus or the devil.
I don't know what JWD
that's why I asked you
-
what do you suggest
have you asked yourself what would jesus do?
I'm guessing he would forgive him (assuming Jesus even thought he did something wrong)
I have a question for you, if the POTUS\.gov doesn't follow the law, is there any law? Or do they just get to pick and choose which laws they follow without repercussion? Sure they put on a dog and pony show but at the end of the day no one is held accountable. If this is the case then all Americans should be able to pick and choose which laws they want to follow, they are only following the precedent set by elected officials
-
Does Jesus forgive muslims?
-
I have a question for you, if the POTUS\.gov doesn't follow the law, is there any law? Or do they just get to pick and choose which laws they follow without repercussion? Sure they put on a dog and pony show but at the end of the day no one is held accountable. If this is the case then all Americans should be able to pick and choose which laws they want to follow, they are only following the precedent set by elected officials
Sure there are laws. But all laws aren't equal nor are they applied equally to all people.
Some can be broken without much fear of consequences and others can't. It works that way for political figures/gov't agents and for private citizens, though the laws one can break with impunity are different for those 2 groups.
It should be added that which laws one can break with near impunity vary greatly depending on other factors like time and place.
I think you know this is how it works in the USA. You probably think it sucks and I understand that, I think.
Me? I'm not so sure it sucks. I think that it's possible to go too far the other way, too; When the gov't's view about breaking any law are TOO strict, you can end up living how they do in Singapore where folks can get whipped with a cane for graffiti and pay heavy fines for small-time stuff like chewing gum or not flushing after using a public toilet.
-
The standard for impeachment is "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors".
-
Sure there are laws. But all laws aren't equal nor are they applied equally to all people.
Some can be broken without much fear of consequences and others can't. It works that way for political figures/gov't agents and for private citizens, though the laws one can break with impunity are different for those 2 groups.
It should be added that which laws one can break with near impunity vary greatly depending on other factors like time and place.
I think you know this is how it works in the USA. You probably think it sucks and I understand that, I think.
Me? I'm not so sure it sucks. I think that it's possible to go too far the other way, too; When the gov't's view about breaking any law are TOO strict, you can end up living how they do in Singapore where folks can get whipped with a cane for graffiti and pay heavy fines for small-time stuff like chewing gum or not flushing after using a public toilet.
The fact that a politician can get away with tax evasion, murder and the list goes on is complete horseshit. They never face any real punishment, and if they do the exiting POTUS pardons them. No one wants to admit it, but there is a ruling class in the USA and then the rest of us. The rest of us need to understand that elected officials are public servants, not rock stars or untouchables. They should be held to a higher standard, because they choose that path. Instead we get the bottom of the barrel, sociopaths and con men making decisions that line their pockets and give them more power. All the while the populace argues about non sense and keeps sending the same lying bastards back to DC.
-
The standard for impeachment is "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors".
If that was the case then the simple fact that Obama care was passed by buying off senators would have seen a lot of politicians out on their ass.
-
An interesting idea from George Will....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-f-will-stopping-a-lawless-president/2014/06/20/377c4d6e-f7e5-11e3-a3a5-42be35962a52_story.html?hpid=z2
-
The fact that a politician can get away with tax evasion, murder and the list goes on is complete horseshit. They never face any real punishment, and if they do the exiting POTUS pardons them. No one wants to admit it, but there is a ruling class in the USA and then the rest of us. The rest of us need to understand that elected officials are public servants, not rock stars or untouchables. They should be held to a higher standard, because they choose that path. Instead we get the bottom of the barrel, sociopaths and con men making decisions that line their pockets and give them more power. All the while the populace argues about non sense and keeps sending the same lying bastards back to DC.
I understand and even go along with your thinking to a point.
I agree that if a political leader is guilty of a serious crime like murder, then he or she should pay for that crime like any other citizen. For lesser crimes, though...I'm not so sure.
To play devil's advocate here, don't you think there's a downside to prosecuting political leaders for things like tax evasion and other relatively minor crimes? Seems to me that nearly every president would end up behind bars because even if the transgressions were minor and relatively common (like lying about getting a blowjob from some slutty intern), the opposition political party would see it only as an opportunity to hurt the other party. And even if just removing one from office were the penalty, that can easily be taken too far.
You actually see this in other countries, btw. Ever heard of Thai Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej? The 73-year old Sundarevej (along with his whole cabinet) were removed from office in 2009 by the Thai Supreme Court for the crime of....receiving $2,300- for appearing on some cooking shows. In Thailand. The same Thailand where prostitution is illegal (wink wink, nudge nudge). Is that some excessive shit or what?
It's easy to make the case that prosecuting your political leaders for anything except the most egregious offenses is not something a politically stable government should be doing.
So, what should be done when our leaders cravenly break the laws that they know they can get away with? I think the answer may be to just publicly call them out on it. If a large percentage of the people are expressing their condemnation over some politician's misdeeds, then, for today's politicians who live and die by polls, that very well might be enough of a penalty by itself. (Maybe not, though; Some politicians, particularly ones in their last legal term of office, might not GAF...)
-
So..hypothetically..if I can lie,cheat and steal my way to the top...that provides me with immunity from prosecution from a whole list of minor crimes?
-
I understand and even go along with your thinking to a point.
I agree that if a political leader is guilty of a serious crime like murder, then he or she should pay for that crime like any other citizen. For lesser crimes, though...I'm not so sure.
To play devil's advocate here, don't you think there's a downside to prosecuting political leaders for things like tax evasion and other relatively minor crimes? Seems to me that nearly every president would end up behind bars because even if the transgressions were minor and relatively common (like lying about getting a blowjob from some slutty intern), the opposition political party would see it only as an opportunity to hurt the other party. And even if just removing one from office were the penalty, that can easily be taken too far.
You actually see this in other countries, btw. Ever heard of Thai Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej? The 73-year old Sundarevej (along with his whole cabinet) were removed from office in 2009 by the Thai Supreme Court for the crime of....receiving $2,300- for appearing on some cooking shows. In Thailand. The same Thailand where prostitution is illegal (wink wink, nudge nudge). Is that some excessive shit or what?
It's easy to make the case that prosecuting your political leaders for anything except the most egregious offenses is not something a politically stable government should be doing.
So, what should be done when our leaders cravenly break the laws that they know they can get away with? I think the answer may be to just publicly call them out on it. If a large percentage of the people are expressing their condemnation over some politician's misdeeds, then, for today's politicians who live and die by polls, that very well might be enough of a penalty by itself. (Maybe not, though; Some politicians, particularly ones in their last legal term of office, might not GAF...)
Why should they get a pass on "minor crime's"? The average american has the IRS crawling up their ass with a microscope for tax evasion.
And as far as they will use this against the other candidate\party, how is that any different then todays political climate? When was the last time you heard a politician out line what they are going to do, instead of simply attacking the opposition? Hey I'm the lesser of 2 evils, for for me.....
These assholes are entrusted with the nations treasure, can send our armies to war, make treaties and the list goes on, your damn right I expect them to obey the law, no matter how large or how small
-
So..hypothetically..if I can lie,cheat and steal my way to the top...that provides me with immunity from prosecution from a whole list of minor crimes?
Well, if you make it to the top, then basically, yeah, you're probably gonna be able to skate on a bunch of stuff that would cause a regular citizen, especially one without means, to live in a cage.
-
Why should they get a pass on "minor crime's"? The average american has the IRS crawling up their ass with a microscope for tax evasion.
And as far as they will use this against the other candidate\party, how is that any different then todays political climate? When was the last time you heard a politician out line what they are going to do, instead of simply attacking the opposition? Hey I'm the lesser of 2 evils, for for me.....
These assholes are entrusted with the nations treasure, can send our armies to war, make treaties and the list goes on, your damn right I expect them to obey the law, no matter how large or how small
The case can be made that they should get a pass for the sake of government stability. Do you seriously want to change governments every time some leader cheats on his taxes or the like? That's some banana republic shit, it seems to me.
And how would it be different from now if the opposition party had a more realistic chance to actually kick folks out of office for relatively minor offenses? Well, most realistic folks from both parties now realize that ousting a president from office for anything less than a blatant, inarguable and serious crime is not gonna happen. Furthermore, trying to make it happen without very good cause can backfire and hurt the opposition party.
Maybe your expectations are a little unrealistic? My own admittedly cynical expectation is that our leaders only avoid getting caught totally red-handed while committing serious offenses. Sadly, that alone makes the USA have a leg up on many foreign countries.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's at all good for leaders to try to govern as "do as I say, not as I do" types, but many people will lie, cheat, and steal and since our leaders are people...
-
The case can be made that they should get a pass for the sake of government stability. Do you seriously want to change governments every time some leader cheats on his taxes or the like? That's some banana republic shit, it seems to me.
And how would it be different from now if the opposition party had a more realistic chance to actually kick folks out of office for relatively minor offenses? Well, most realistic folks from both parties now realize that ousting a president from office for anything less than a blatant, inarguable and serious crime is not gonna happen. Furthermore, trying to make it happen without very good cause can backfire and hurt the opposition party.
Maybe your expectations are a little unrealistic? My own admittedly cynical expectation is that our leaders only avoid getting caught totally red-handed while committing serious offenses. Sadly, that alone makes the USA have a leg up on many foreign countries.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's at all good for leaders to try to govern as "do as I say, not as I do" types, but many people will lie, cheat, and steal and since our leaders are people...
Well maybe a precedent needs to be set, break the law pay the price. A few POTUS, congressmen, reps get sent packing and the rest will have to un-fuck themselves or face the same. Seems to me condoning the behavior only encourages it, the only ones that make it on the radar, are the arrogant pricks that thing they are above the law. Push the boundaries beyond what is ignored in DC. Why are my expectations unrealistic?
-
Being impeached is just an accusation, it's the first step in a process of removal ..... the problem with putting the POTUS in jail is that he is considered the 'chief citizen" - he represents the USA, so if you impeach and carry out the process to the end, you have put the representative of the American people in jail/ prison - you want to be REALLY sure that is the best course of action for the country when considering this scenario ...... besides what POTUS hasn't done SOMETHING that would be considered an impeachable offense by some ?
Ford thought about it with Nixon -and got it right
Should the POTUS be above the law or members of congress -? no way, but things must be thought out and decided in context of what is best for the country
just my 2 cents
-
Being impeached is just an accusation, it's the first step in a process of removal ..... the problem with putting the POTUS in jail is that he is considered the 'chief citizen" - he represents the USA, so if you impeach and carry out the process to the end, you have put the representative of the American people in jail/ prison - you want to be REALLY sure that is the best course of action for the country when considering this scenario ...... besides what POTUS hasn't done SOMETHING that would be considered an impeachable offense by some ?
Ford thought about it with Nixon -and got it right
Should the POTUS be above the law or members of congress -? no way, but things must be thought out and decided in context of what is best for the country
just my 2 cents
I can see your point of view, but I do not believe that the reason whatever POTUS has not been impeached, is for the good of the country. These guys just keep seeing how far they can push the boundaries, how can a POTUS be impeached for what another POTUS did an was not? So when does it stop? Will it be to late when Americans wake up and the only course of action is to take up arms?
-
Agree with you Kaz, it's a slippery slope for sure
And the more that politicians push the envelope and get away with it just helps create a new generation of politician down the road who will push it even further ....