It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The law that Obama broke

page: 10
63
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 09:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: th3dudeabides
a reply to: beezzer

Since the law is illegal, and in violation of mulitple US treaties which involve torture it does in fact seem that Obama broke no law at all, but in fact held up international law.


Since when did they make the law illegal?

I missed that.




posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

They are brainwashed. They believe the President is an absolute dictator and wont fight and dont care.

I WONT live under totalitarian rule by a president, ANY president!
edit on 9-6-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Don't talk to me about suicide. I know the subject matter all to well.

I have had an aunt, and uncle from different sides of the family commit suicide.

It doesn't happen to just vets.



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000


Super-Max at Florence


I'm good with the supermax provided we dress them up in short shorts, permanent face makeup, and nylons. I'm sure they will get along with the population there.



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 10:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: beezzer

They are brainwashed. They believe the President is an absolute dictator and wont fight and dont care.

I WILL FIGHT!! To my last and dying breath I wont tolerate a dictator which goes against everything America stands for and has stood for!


I find it sad that so many are so passive towards any of the dictates that Obama decrees.



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 10:16 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

We must decide as a nation to stand up for this nation! We have checks and balances in place to protect us, and no one is using those checks and balances they way they are intended!

It's time we use them, as now is the time our forefathers spoke of!



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 10:17 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

It's an appropriate reply and I'm sorry for your losses. My point in that post was that we shouldn't be letting the VA issue get drowned out by this manufactured outrage. It's wrong for us to do so, vets need the strong support of their nation right now. If there's going to be screaming going on let's make it count, together. To not do so, is to say the problem will literally die out... at a rate of about 22 a day.
edit on 6/9/2014 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 10:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74




My point in that post was that we shouldn't be letting the VA issue get drowned out by this manufactured outrage.


The Bergdhal swap is NOT manufactured outrage.

It should never have happened.

If people are po'd about it like myself, and others ?

WE HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO BE.

And we haven't forgotten about the VA either.
edit on 9-6-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 10:20 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Passive? Hardly. Laws need to change, maybe even clarify the Constitution on this one. What good is it to shout, incorrectly, that a law has been broken. Wouldn't it be better to shout 'hey this shouldn't be legal' ?



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 10:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: beezzer

Again, he can't break a law that doesn't apply to him.

And you are really stretching now just fishing for something since your original argument is now flat on it's face.

The President can't break a law that applies to the Secretary of Defense...period.





Obama broke the law. Unless you're saying that Hagel went rogue?

Is that your defense now?


It's very simple.

The law specifically names the Secretary of Defense as who it applies to.

Who is the Secretary of Defense?



Charles Manson didn't personally kill anyone either.....


Oh yeah he did. Just not the ones that he is famous for being involved in their deaths, The Tate-La Bianca murders. He ordered those done, but he did murder people.



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 10:25 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 10:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: beezzer

Passive? Hardly. Laws need to change, maybe even clarify the Constitution on this one.


So you want to CHANGE the Constitution in order to satisfy your progressive agenda?



What good is it to shout, incorrectly, that a law has been broken. Wouldn't it be better to shout 'hey this shouldn't be legal' ?


The law was broken. Get over it.

A constitutional lawyer (Obama) signed this law into place.

Guess your king isn't as smart as he thinks he is.



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 10:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Obama called his actions unconstitutional. What further clarity do you need? Obama told you himself that what he did was unconstitutional and promised never to do it because of that in 2008... then he went and did it anyway.

Was it only unconstitutional when Bush did it do you think? Or unconstitutional for ANY sitting president. I'm of the latter opinion btw. It was unconstitutional for both, and it doesn't matter whose boy is doing it!

I wont stand for it, I didn't sit back and okay Bush and I damn sure wont sit back and okay it from Obama. If we don't let a clear warning to any future presidents that we as Americans will not tolerate totalitarianism from our sitting presidents, members of the house and senate, and politicians at large, then they will only get worse!

I'm not sitting back and watching it get worse and worse! I'll stop it now! # isn't rolling downhill on this one! We start at the top and impeach our way down.
edit on 9-6-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 10:44 PM
link   
a reply to: kruphix

But he can be an accessory after the fact. It depends. We need some truth and reconciliation to be decisive.



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 10:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: neo96

It's an appropriate reply and I'm sorry for your losses. My point in that post was that we shouldn't be letting the VA issue get drowned out by this manufactured outrage. It's wrong for us to do so, vets need the strong support of their nation right now. If there's going to be screaming going on let's make it count, together. To not do so, is to say the problem will literally die out... at a rate of about 22 a day.


Went to the VA this morning. Physical that I had to get done so I can go on a trip with my scouts next month.

Would you like to know what the topic of conversation was in the waiting room by us veterans there?

By the oldest WW2 vets, and some of the youngest vets who just got out?

Well it was not about problems with the VA. No ma'am, it surely was not.

It was about this exchange.

Not a man in the room was happy about this exchange. Not at all.

Most of what was said, I can't repeat here. Filters will snip out the words.

Let us just say that everyone pretty much stated that this POTUS has over stepped his bounds and gone too far.

All of them called the deserter a "Worthless piece of...."..... well can't repeat that on here.

This from some that were POWs themselves.

Not one word about any VA problems.

Instead, it was all about wondering, and I quote: "Just who the hell does this president think he is?"

Was talked about at one of the local VFWs though. I believe the phrase that stuck out the most was:

"How the hell can we count on a president to fix what is wrong with the VA, when the (insert some rather crude words here) pulls something as stupid as this?" (referring to this exchange of 5 top terrorists for a single deserter).

So you want to know what us veterans think? This is what we are thinking:

How do we trust a commander in chief that is lying, making secret deals, and helping break his own laws?

We don't.
edit on 9-6-2014 by eriktheawful because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 10:54 PM
link   
a reply to: eriktheawful

In My Honest Opinion, what Obama did was a slap in the face to every fighting man and woman.


edit on 9-6-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: whywhynot

If I'm not mistaken, and someone here can surely correct me if I am, the people in Super-Max are 23/hr lockdown with little human interaction at all. I believe that's the point of part of the place. "We can't kill ya, but you'll wish we did!" kinda thing... In some cases? Hey, that sounds about right to say, too.




posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Scary conclusion if it was an inside job.
then what? a reply to: Snarl



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 11:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Not Authorized
a reply to: kruphix

But he can be an accessory after the fact. It depends. We need some truth and reconciliation to be decisive.


Except he already answered the question that he was an accessory in advance, that it was discussed by his entire administration and that he knew what was taking place. Not an accessory after the fact.

When asked the direct question, "What was the reason for not informing the eight members of Congress who would customarily be informed by this?"

Obama said, "We have a rule a principle that when somebody wears our countries uniform and the're in a war theater and they're captured we're going to do everything we can to bring them home. And we saw an opportunity and we took it. And I make no apologies for it, It was a unanimous decision among my principles in my government and a view that was shared by my, the members of the joint chiefs of staff "this is something that I would do again and I will continue to do wherever I have an opportunity"

Follow up: "For the lack of Congressional communication?:

Obama's answer: "The main concern was that we had to act fast in a delicate situation that required no publicity."

He would do it again, meaning that he did it the first time, that is an admission of prior knowledge of how this situation was going to be handled and that he was the one making the ultimate decision based on what was discussed. That he was not an accessory after the fact, but that it was a discussed and the decision was made in advance to break the law as the tactic that Obama decided to take.
www.youtube.com...
edit on 9-6-2014 by The_Phantom because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 11:53 PM
link   
Lawfare's examination of this issue is spot on:

lawfareblog.com/2014/06/the-president-pretty-clearly-disregarded-a-congressional-statute-in-swapping-gtmo-detainees-for-bergdahl/
From the article:

To say that the President disregarded a federal statute because he interpreted it in the emergency context before him to impinge upon Article II is not at all to say that the President acted wrongly or unlawfully. It’s actually quite a hard legal issue, with few real precedents. But that seems to me to be the issue.


The essence of it is that it's not necessarily true that the President broke the law, because the law itself oversteps the constitutional bounds applied to Congress-- they have no say whatsoever in how the Commander in Chief handles the military.

If we consider the "robbing a bank" analogy, it would be the equivalent of the bank refusing to let you access your money by having the teller hold it behind their backs, and then you struggle it away from the teller anyway. The bank has no right to limit the access to your funds.
edit on 9-6-2014 by Jalbrook because: Fix Link

edit on 9-6-2014 by Jalbrook because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
63
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join