Jump to content



Photo

Obama negotiates w terrorists


  • Please log in to reply
161 replies to this topic

#41 kelley

kelley

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,111 posts

Posted 02 June 2014 - 08:24 AM

So now not only should the American citizenry be kept in the dark about our government's actions, it's also totally cool and understandable not to inform Congress either

What form of government do we supposedly have again?

Edited by kelley, 02 June 2014 - 08:26 AM.

  • IntegrityMatters, Tina and apirateatheart like this

#42 Quasar

Quasar

    Dux Ducis

  • Administrators
  • 6,636 posts

Posted 02 June 2014 - 08:38 AM

I guess we all knew that this was the next logical step... 

 

Taliban Hails 'Great Victory'

 

Mullah Omar, the head of the Taliban, doesn’t make statements often. Omar is so reclusive that some have even speculated that he is either dead, or otherwise incapacitated in Pakistan. But on Sunday the Taliban released a statement attributed to Omar, who declared the release of the top five Taliban commanders from Guantanamo a “great victory” for the mujahideen of Afghanistan

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/trouble-qatar_794062.html



#43 woo

woo

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,722 posts

Posted 02 June 2014 - 08:44 AM

Taliban Hails 'Great Victory'

 

 

It is.....

For them.



#44 snowman

snowman

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,673 posts

Posted 02 June 2014 - 08:58 AM

There are some Americans that are hailing this as a Great Victory... for the soldier and his family and all of us...   Not so much on here, apparently.



#45 kelley

kelley

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,111 posts

Posted 02 June 2014 - 09:00 AM

I'm ambivalent about whether it is good thing, but I can't see, and haven't even seen it claimed until now, how this is a great victory. Five for one doesn't even sound like a good deal.

#46 snowman

snowman

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,673 posts

Posted 02 June 2014 - 09:03 AM

One American is worth more than 5 of them!



#47 kelley

kelley

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,111 posts

Posted 02 June 2014 - 10:34 AM

Got me there. You should run for office yourself with moves like that.

Since this isn't a sound bite, I was obviously not assessing their worth as humans. All were prisoners. We gave up five; they gave up one. We paid five times as much. We got one; they got five. We got 20% of what they did. Poor bargain.

Your point also falls apart if it turns out to be true he was a dirtbag. American and foreign dirtbags are equal.

Edited by kelley, 02 June 2014 - 10:35 AM.

  • CityBoy, Tina, apirateatheart and 1 other like this

#48 Jeff all my Life

Jeff all my Life

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,210 posts

Posted 02 June 2014 - 11:04 AM

Man, is this the first time we've ever agreed? :tongue:
.


I imagine there is a high probability of this being true.

If you want I'll meet you in one of the threads about the canal so we can get the icky feeling to go away. Haha.
  • TLIES, Tina and Donna like this

#49 Jeff all my Life

Jeff all my Life

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,210 posts

Posted 02 June 2014 - 11:32 AM

There are some Americans that are hailing this as a Great Victory... for the soldier and his family and all of us... Not so much on here, apparently.


This is actually a great defeat. The terrorists want us to negotiate with them, that is why they terrorize us.This only validates their belief and encourages them.
  • apirateatheart likes this

#50 snowman

snowman

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,673 posts

Posted 02 June 2014 - 12:28 PM

Got me there. You should run for office yourself with moves like that.

Since this isn't a sound bite, I was obviously not assessing their worth as humans. All were prisoners. We gave up five; they gave up one. We paid five times as much. We got one; they got five. We got 20% of what they did. Poor bargain.

Your point also falls apart if it turns out to be true he was a dirtbag. American and foreign dirtbags are equal.

 

 

How do you, well not you, but how do we decide if he is a dirtbag?   According to the Rolling Stone article(I read it a couple years ago) he deserted his post...  the writer interviewed some of his fellow servicemen...  The entire unit that he was a part of was a joke in the miltary, according to the article, best as I recall.  So, taking these other soldiers word for whether he deserted or not is dicey, at best. 

But supposing he did desert his post back then.  Some would look on this as his being saved.  Saved by God, perhaps. And some would say that being saved by God, would mean that God has a plan for him... Waiting to see... 



#51 woo

woo

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,722 posts

Posted 02 June 2014 - 12:30 PM

 

 

The not telling Congress ahead of time..

Yes,

I believe that is current law.

And it appears our commander in chief disregarded it.



#52 kelley

kelley

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,111 posts

Posted 02 June 2014 - 12:32 PM

How do you, well not you, but how do we decide if he is a dirtbag? According to the Rolling Stone article(I read it a couple years ago) he deserted his post... the writer interviewed some of his fellow servicemen... The entire unit that he was a part of was a joke in the miltary, according to the article, best as I recall. So, taking these other soldiers word for whether he deserted or not is dicey, at best.
But supposing he did desert his post back then. Some would look on this as his being saved. Saved by God, perhaps. And some would say that being saved by God, would mean that God has a plan for him... Waiting to see...

OK...and some people would say blowing yourself and a bunch of other people up will get you to heaven and oodles of virgins. Your point?

I honestly don't think nationality determines people's value. You asserted it did or assumed to know the value of the five other guys as this one guy was worth more.

A lot of talking around in circles to try to make trading five to get one a good deal. It just isn't.

Edited by kelley, 02 June 2014 - 12:33 PM.


#53 snowman

snowman

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,673 posts

Posted 02 June 2014 - 12:33 PM

Yes,

I believe that is current law.

And it appears our commander in chief disregarded it.

 

i was under the impression that Obama made a signing statement about that very law. 



#54 kelley

kelley

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,111 posts

Posted 02 June 2014 - 12:36 PM

i was under the impression that Obama made a signing statement about that very law.


Oh, yeah, another one of those dirty W. practices Obama has continued and ramped up the use of.

Edited by kelley, 02 June 2014 - 12:37 PM.

  • Quasar likes this

#55 snowman

snowman

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,673 posts

Posted 02 June 2014 - 12:37 PM

OK...and some people would say blowing yourself and a bunch of other people up will get you to heaven and oodles of virgins. Your point?

I honestly don't think nationality determines people's value. You asserted it did or assumed to know the value of the five other guys as this one guy was worth more.

A lot of talking around in circles to try to make trading five to get one a good deal. It just isn't.

 

Yeah, if you look at it that way. But I'm not looking at it that way... I'm looking at it as we(the U.S.) is in a conflict with these folks and one of our guys got swiped and stashed and he is worth more than any one, or 5 of them, in my opinion. 

Whether it was a good deal or not is yet to be seen, I suppose.



#56 snowman

snowman

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,673 posts

Posted 02 June 2014 - 12:38 PM

Oh, yeah, another one of those dirty W. practices Obama has continued and ramped up the use of.

yes.



#57 woo

woo

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,722 posts

Posted 02 June 2014 - 12:40 PM

i was under the impression that Obama made a signing statement about that very law. 

And....

The administration just happened to expose the in country CIA chief last week..... By accident?

What a coincidence...



#58 kelley

kelley

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,111 posts

Posted 02 June 2014 - 12:40 PM

yes.

Well, if you agree it is a dirty W. practice, why did you cite a signing statement as a response to an obligation to inform Congress - the body charged with writing laws and representing the people?

The people's representatives passed a law. Should the president be required to follow it or not?

Edited by kelley, 02 June 2014 - 12:41 PM.


#59 snowman

snowman

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,673 posts

Posted 02 June 2014 - 12:49 PM

The history of signing statements goes way back...   i think it's a valid practice, but then again, i'm no lawyer.

 

from wikipedia:

 

Presidential usage

The first president to issue a signing statement was James Monroe.[10] Until the 1980s, with some exceptions, signing statements were generally triumphal, rhetorical, or political proclamations and went mostly unannounced. Until Ronald Reagan became President, only 75 statements had been issued; Reagan and his successors George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton produced 247 signing statements among the three of them.[11] By the end of 2004, George W. Bush had issued 108 signing statements containing 505 constitutional challenges.[11] As of January 30, 2008, he had signed 157 signing statements challenging over 1,100 provisions of federal law.[12]

The upswing in the use of signing statements during the Reagan administration coincides with the writing by Samuel A. Alito — then a staff attorney in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel — of a 1986 memorandum making the case for "interpretive signing statements" as a tool to "increase the power of the Executive to shape the law." Alito proposed adding signing statements to a "reasonable number of bills" as a pilot project, but warned that "Congress is likely to resent the fact that the President will get in the last word on questions of interpretation."[13]

A November 3, 1993 memo from White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum explained the use of signing statements to object to potentially unconstitutional legislation:

"If the President may properly decline to enforce a law, at least when it unconstitutionally encroaches on his powers, then it arguably follows that he may properly announce to Congress and to the public that he will not enforce a provision of an enactment he is signing. If so, then a signing statement that challenges what the President determines to be an unconstitutional encroachment on his power, or that announces the President's unwillingness to enforce (or willingness to litigate) such a provision, can be a valid and reasonable exercise of Presidential authority."[3]

This same Department of Justice memorandum observed that use of Presidential signing statements to create legislative history for the use of the courts was uncommon before the Reagan and Bush Presidencies. In 1986, Attorney General Edwin Meese III entered into an arrangement with the West Publishing Company to have Presidential signing statements published for the first time in the U.S. Code Congressional and Administrative News, the standard collection of legislative history.



#60 snowman

snowman

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,673 posts

Posted 02 June 2014 - 12:54 PM

Well, if you agree it is a dirty W. practice, why did you cite a signing statement as a response to an obligation to inform Congress - the body charged with writing laws and representing the people?

The people's representatives passed a law. Should the president be required to follow it or not?

 

Presidents use these apparently when they feel their own power to make a decision could be impacted. Supreme Court has not ruled on it ever. 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users