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: 16
63
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 10:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: manna2

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: manna2

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: beezzer


So are you saying that the Secretary of Defense went rogue, did the swap, MADE Obama do a press release in the Rose Garden? Oh my goodness!


No.

I'm saying that the law applies to the Secretary of Defense. Obama is not the Secretary of Defense and so he can't break a law that is applied to the Secretary of Defense.

If you want to talk about how the Sec Def broke a law...be my guest. But Obama didn't break any of the laws you highlighted in your thread...in fact Obama can't break any of those laws because he is not the Sec Def.

And the burglars that broke into the watergate offices were guilty of the break in. So why was Nixon impeached for it? The quality of args has diminished so in this generation.


1. Nixon was never impeached, he resigned.
2. Nixon was never charged with a crime.

Try again.
lol, so you are saying obama should resign then before it gets to impeacment? Mmmmkk. Nixon was innocent, mmmmk.....therefor obama is innocent. Nobody charged with a crime, fall guy in place...move along here, nothing to see...


Nope, just pointing out the false information in that post.

His premise started out with false information, so any conclusion of his is false.

Same goes with your reply.




posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Interestingly enough:

Watergate




The House Judiciary Committee opened impeachment hearings against the President on May 9, 1974, which were televised on the major TV networks. These hearings culminated in votes for impeachment.





He met with Republican congressional leaders soon after, and was told he faced certain impeachment in the House and had, at most, only 15 votes in his favor in the Senate— far fewer than the 34 he needed to avoid removal from office.


Knowing that impeachment would be underway soon, and that he would be removed from office, he resigned instead on August 8, 1974.

Exactly 1 month later, president Gerald Ford gave Nixon a pardon:




On September 8, 1974, Ford issued Proclamation 4311, which gave Nixon a full and unconditional pardon for any crimes he might have committed against the United States while President.


So yes, Nixon was not impeached (because he was told that he would be, and removed from office), and he was never charged with a crime (because 4 weeks later he was pardoned of any and ALL crimes while president of the US).

However, interesting to note:

Burdick Vs. United States - US Surpreme Court, 1915




A pardoned man must introduce the pardon into court proceedings, otherwise the pardon must be disregarded by the court.

To do this, the pardoned man must accept the pardon. If a pardon is rejected, it cannot be forced upon its subject.

A pardon carries an 'imputation of guilt', and accepting a pardon is 'an admission of guilt'.


Emphasis mine.

My own personal opinion is that Obama will never see impeachment, even if the House and Senate were completely controlled by the right, simply because the race card will get used.

However......if it did happen, I think Obama would use Nixon's play book. Resign and then pardoned by Uncle Joe.



posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: eriktheawful

Obama has been using Nixons playbook



And here.


edit on 11-6-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Never Mind: White House Now Says Obama Is Responsible for Bergdahl/Taliban Swap After All


One of the best things about living in the Age of Obama is that every day, if not every hour, there’s a new version of reality. It keeps you on your toes!

Justin Sink, The Hill:

President Obama was responsible for the decision to swap five Taliban militants for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the White House said Tuesday.

The White House sought to deflect charges from congressional Republicans that the administration was trying to pin blame on Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel for the trade.

“The president’s the commander in chief, and the president’s the one that’s ultimately responsible for making sure that we fulfill this commitment that we don’t leave anybody behind,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters.


Of course he is. Shame on Monday’s White House for saying otherwise. Right, Tuesday’s White House?

This is the official truth as of the time of this writing. Don’t get too used to it, because it can change at any moment.

dailycaller.com...

Based on yesterday's statement, we can discard the statement of the day before. It wasn't Hagels fault, it was Obama's. Obama is now the person responsible for breaking the law, at least as an accessory before the fact, according to the White House itself.

Whatever I believe about his policies, I can't believe that anyone out there thinks that our president is a decent, honorable, man. Certainly, Nixon accomplished far more and better things, both in foreign and domestic affairs. Further, Nixon's act of dishonesty pales to insignificance compared to Obama's.

Actually, I'd like some proof that anybody likes or admires Obama as a man. The may admire his policies (which are having the effect of increasing hatred for America, decreasing it's strength, and stopping it's economy), but anyone who admires Obama's behavior seems to me to be morally deranged.

At least, the White House has now cleared Hagel and has fixed the blame on Obama. Would that our posters do the same.



posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: charles1952




One of the best things about living in the Age of Obama is that every day, if not every hour, there’s a new version of reality. It keeps you on your toes!


I got to disagree with that author on that.

Just goes to show we can't believe one word that comes out of their mouths.

Shoots their credibility all to hell.
edit on 11-6-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: Indigo5

Head chopped off? Okay, where is that coming from?



I am having a hard time engaging in logical discussion here. The Taliban do not do such things on a regular basis? Just last year they proudly shot a teen age girl in the face for simply attending school, but Sgt. Bergdahl of the US military was not in danger? What mental gymnastics is required for such a claim? according to reports, the Taliban made threats on his life as the negotiations were deteriorating. Is there any question as to whether they would do the same? Or that they were capable of executing him? I understand you have a premise to defend, but I am not clear as to why that demands torturing logic.





originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: Indigo5

I'm still very much concerned about what 5 of the most dangerous men we had in Gitmo are planning to do, while my countrymen and those of a good number of other nations are still very much in the jackpot and line of fire. If Obama thinks this buys us safe passage out? Ask the former Soviets how THAT worked out for them, dealing with the predecessors of who we're dealing with now.



I don't think anyone thinks this buys us safe passage out. That is an outrageous expectation.

I am not concerned about those Gitmo releases. It's a long explanation that I have tried to partially articulate in prior posts, but there is no danger there in my strong opinion.






originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: Indigo5
The final weakness shown got what weakness DOES in that part of the world. Something damn close to a fighting withdrawal right to the end, amid the nation falling into civil war it never really has emerged from. I don't imagine we'll be any exception to that rule either. We haven't for anything else thus far.


Afghanistan...like most other conflicts, should have been a quick in and out, absent nation building. Pres. Bush owns the entry strategy, Pres. Obama owns the exit strategy....whether that is fair or not.
edit on 11-6-2014 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: Destinyone

I think Obama would be very mistaken to read it as an Anti-Republican backlash. I believe we'll be seeing more than that.

For me personally? If it's incumbent, I'm voting the other guy or gal. I don't give a hoot what their name is. I care even less what their party is. What we have right now is a big fail and I include everyone who us a part of it.

Everyone IN can go OUT and that's that, IMO.


Yes!! If we voted out every incumbent that would send a strong as hell message to our leaders.

"You lead with our approval!!"



posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: eriktheawful

And I love it when arrogant people have tunnel-vision. As I said originally...Rave On! All of your whining goes no where except around the ever shrinking circle of your like-minded friends.



posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: eriktheawful

"No man left behind." assumes that he didn't want to be where he was......that he was captured while performing his duties like other military personnel.

When you walk from your post, commit desertion, and actively seek out the very people you are suppose to be engaging, and instead, start helping them?


Oh...I wasn't aware that the Military has finished it's investigation? Please send me the link where that report was issued. Until then you are talking crap about a returning prisoner of war....Classy..


I assume you are in the categorically grouped people who are smearing the soldiers whom served with Bergdahl? You know, the ones calling them psychotics and liars?

They didn't desert their posts.


Not at all..They are entitled to their opinions. The military is not homogenous. I do know that we don't know the whole story, and because some in his unit think they do because of things Bergdahl said, doesn't make it the truth.

I do know some people lose their mind in combat. I don't care whether he had a bad day and walked off. No man left behind means just that. We sent them there, we bring them home. Having a debate about whether someone is a hero or a coward before doing that, while sitting cozy on our couch at home, is simply morally unacceptable in my world.
edit on 11-6-2014 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer
Truman: "The buck stops here"

Obama: "What buck?"

Obama: "The buck stops at Bush"

Obama: "The buck stops before it gets to me, always."



posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: beezzer
Truman: "The buck stops here"

Obama: "What buck?"

Obama: "The buck stops at Bush"

Obama: "The buck stops before it gets to me, always."


Leadership, to me, is taking ownership; good or bad.

It means having the backbone to stand up and take responsibility.

Obama is a poor excuse of a leader when all his synchophants and himself try to lie, blur, misdirect the attention of everyone else.



posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: beezzer
Truman: "The buck stops here"

Obama: "What buck?"

Obama: "The buck stops at Bush"

Obama: "The buck stops before it gets to me, always."

And....
The buck is a racist.



posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer




Obama is a poor excuse of a leader when all his synchophants and himself try to lie, blur, misdirect the attention of everyone else.


Quoted for TRUTH !

Leaders lead,

And Obama blames.



posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5


I am having a hard time engaging in logical discussion here. The Taliban do not do such things on a regular basis? Just last year they proudly shot a teen age girl in the face for simply attending school, but Sgt. Bergdahl of the US military was not in danger?


well, first of all, given all I have read to date? I'm not convinced he was even a prisoner in real terms for this entire period of time vs. a collaborator with no freedom of movement to be seen or snatched back by accident. That, in my mind, is a MAJOR open question after reading the military reports on that day and intercepts as well as reports from his unit and the next level up in the command chain. I'm not forming my opinions on wild theories. I have legitimate concerns, and they aren't political. They are national security. The fact a man is President doesn't automatically make anything he does, legal. Ask some of the men who went down protecting Reagan for another BAD deal and exchange.


Afghanistan...like most other conflicts, should have been a quick in and out, absent nation building. Pres. Bush owns the entry strategy, Pres. Obama owns the exit strategy....whether that is fair or not.


I'm glad we agree. 100%. I've written several times about how a small C.I.A. team leading Northern Alliance fighters had Bin Laden all but tagged and body bagged in November/December of 2001. Orders from the top thanked them for their services, denied their request for a marine blocking force across the Pakistani border and ordered them to stand down.

Next? Well...The charged of the Marines into the Kandahar area and a real war that never had to be, was in full swing. Bush owns it, absolutely he does.

Obama owns everything from Jan. 20, 2009 onward. Which means he owns everything about this situation, start to finish, as much or little as Bush owns what happened under him, and what he did and ordered. Standards apply 100% precisely equal between Presidents or no one is to blame for anything.....which is what they really want us to accept anyway.



posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Curious on this one Beez..

So Guantanamo Bay prisoners are Prisoners of War. They are Military Detainees. Under separation of powers, what authorization does Congress have to dictate their disposition? Transfer to US holding facilities? Domestic and valid congressional authority...but otherwise, they are enemy combatants apprehended in wartime.

The President alluded to this in a signing statement when he signed the Defense Authorization Bill requiring the 30 days notice of transfer..


Moreover, section 1034 would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles.

www.whitehouse.gov...

Article II of the US Constitution defines the president as "commander in chief" of the armed forces, which gives him the exclusive ability to direct the US military.

Was this not a military operation? An exchange of wartime prisoners of war for an American POW on foreign soil?

Legally that is the footing the administration is standing on. Admittedly ambiguous territory, but considering the POWs on both sides were Military detainees during an armed conflict and the exchange was a military operation, how does Congress have authority in the context of separation of powers?



posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: charles1952


I LOVE waffles!

I'm going to the WH from now on instead of Waffle House!



posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5




Article II of the US Constitution defines the president as "commander in chief" of the armed forces, which gives him the exclusive ability to direct the US military.


In times of 'war'.

But Obama unilaterally declared the 'war is over' which no longer makes him 'commander in chief'.



posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: Indigo5

well, first of all, given all I have read to date? I'm not convinced he was even a prisoner in real terms for this entire period of time vs. a collaborator with no freedom of movement to be seen or snatched back by accident. That, in my mind, is a MAJOR open question after reading the military reports on that day and intercepts as well as reports from his unit and the next level up in the command chain. I'm not forming my opinions on wild theories.



As long as you acknowledge as you did in the post above...it is "opinion" and "open questions"...


I have an array of family and friends that spent time in Afghanistan ranging from infantry to black ops. War is a mess and I refuse to judge returning soldiers on gossip, opinions, hearsay, etc. I will wait for the final report and facts to emerge, but even then it will not change my opinion on "no man left behind". War can be insanity and we don't only bring back those we decide are hero's and leave others to rot. NO MAN (guess woman to) left behind. A simple promise.


originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: Indigo5
I'm glad we agree. 100%. I've written several times about how a small C.I.A. team leading Northern Alliance fighters had Bin Laden all but tagged and body bagged in November/December of 2001. Orders from the top thanked them for their services, denied their request for a marine blocking force across the Pakistani border and ordered them to stand down.

[...]

Obama owns everything from Jan. 20, 2009 onward. Which means he owns everything about this situation, start to finish, as much or little as Bush owns what happened under him,


Yes, we agree there. Afghanistan was a cluster-eff. We finally nabbed OBL in PAKISTAN...and it was CIA+Spec Ops that did it. Meanwhile we were wasting lives in the wrong country.

And Pres. Obama knew the score when he worked very hard to get the job...he earned being responsible for what happens after the day he was inaugurated, good or bad.
edit on 11-6-2014 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Indigo5


In times of 'war'.

But Obama unilaterally declared the 'war is over' which no longer makes him 'commander in chief'.


We have troops deployed and fighting on foreign soil abroad?

I think you would have a hard time making a legal case that we are not engaged in a "Time of War" at present. We might be "Winding down", but until withdrawal is complete, we remain technically in "wartime"...as any of the soldiers remaining in Afghanistan would be quick to explain to you.



posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5




Yes, we agree there. Afghanistan was a cluster-eff. We finally nabbed OBL in PAKISTAN...and it was CIA+Spec Ops that did it. Meanwhile we were wasting lives in the wrong country.


What ?

Thought Bin Laden was killed in Tora Bora ?

He was killed again !

The guy a zombie or what ?

Even still it took the invasion of Afghanistan, and some shock and awe to push him out of that country.

Had ole GW never invaded, the current guy couldn't have taken credit for killing BIn Laden.




top topics



 
63
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join