The law that Obama broke

a reply to: Indigo5

I think you would have a hard time making a legal case that we are not engaged in a "Time of War" at present

Nope I can make that case rather effing easy.

Miss Napolitano is really beating around the bush in using the euphemism “man-caused disaster” for terrorism Read more: www.washingtontimes.com... Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

What war ?

The last decade was about 'man caused disasters'.

a reply to: Indigo5
They are not POW's. Simply because Taliban is not considered a country.

They are (I believe) enemy combatants.

And are not subject to the same rights as POW's.

a reply to: neo96

I think the important thing is, there never needed to be an invasion.

The Northern Alliance were TOO good. They were told not to take some major cities until after the Holidays, for example, and they just flipped Washington the bird and took them anyway. They had the nation all but done and won by Christmas and that wouldn't have worked. Nope.. Wouldn't have done at all for the war Bush and many more than JUST him, envisioned should happen with all war brings with it.

No invasion was needed to get Bin Laden if we read the words of the men who were on the ground in the teams tracking right up his tail pipe until told to break off and stand down. Jawbreaker is the name of the book about that very early segment which may well have prevented the war altogether if it'd played out differently. It's a great read with a very frustrating end.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

I think the important thing is, there never needed to be an invasion.

It happened that is what happens when US POTUS's make epic foreign policy blunders.

Most people blame GW we invaded, no argument.

But that is where most people stop.

The preceeding president made some epic foreign policy blunders.

Like failing to kill Bin Laden when he had the chances.

His 'police actions' against 'terrorists' from the First World Trade Center Attack, the USS Cole, and Kobar Towers bombing, and others.

That approach didn't work.

GW's approach didn't work.

Before either of those two we can go back to the Reagan administration, and a Texas congressman name Charlie Wison whose aid, and cash created the Taliban.

That was created during the fight against communism.

We are definitely guilty here, but it spans the course of several US administrations.

But what we are guilty of is being dumb enough to get involved in the middle east.

Because all roads lead to only two countries there.

Saudi Arabia, and Iran which are the MAIN instigators in the middle east.

No one cares anymore. Move on, wait for the televised Army trial.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Indigo5

I think you would have a hard time making a legal case that we are not engaged in a "Time of War" at present

Nope I can make that case rather effing easy.

Miss Napolitano is really beating around the bush in using the euphemism “man-caused disaster” for terrorism Read more: www.washingtontimes.com... Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

What war ?

The last decade was about 'man caused disasters'.

By "easy" you mean quoting a commentary of a Speech made by Napalitano where she referred to man-made disasters rather than terrorism?....

That is your legal case to claim that despite us having soldiers actively engaged in combat on foreign soil...we are not at legally at war?

No offense...but when the retorts are reaching, muddy and not addressing reality...the debate is useless. No interest in discussing with you.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Indigo5
They are not POW's. Simply because Taliban is not considered a country.

They are (I believe) enemy combatants.

And are not subject to the same rights as POW's.

Taliban is the former official government of Afghanistan at the time of our invasion.

Taleban,[7] is an Islamic fundamentalist political movement in Afghanistan. It spread throughout Afghanistan and formed a government, ruling as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan from September 1996 until December 2001, with Kandahar as the capital.

Wiki

They are POWs.

a reply to: Indigo5

Then call DC. They are obviously not as smart as you.

It just boggles the mind how many fracking geniuses we have on ATS who are so much smarter than the mouth-breathing retards we have in Washington.

Why can't brilliant geniuses like YOU run for president?

There has been a lot of discussion lately about the status of the Taliban terrorists under the Geneva Convention. The US government has chosen to label them "unlawful combatants" under the convention. Amnesty International and others have insisted that they must be treated as prisoners of war (POWs).

www.neusysinc.com...

originally posted by: Indigo5

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.

There really is no debate. He deserted his post. The argument now is, "was he one of ours" or was he "one of theirs"?

I am inclined to believe he was one of theirs. A former Taliban member had a first hand account of Bergdahl's desertion. He was one of the Taliban members that Bergdahl encountered after his desertion. His claim was that Bergdahl wanted to help them defeat America. He taught them how to make IEDs more effective by using a cell phone as a remote detonator.

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer

A former Taliban member had a first hand account of Bergdahl's desertion. He was one of the Taliban members that Bergdahl encountered after his desertion. His claim was that Bergdahl wanted to help them defeat America. He taught them how to make IEDs more effective by using a cell phone as a remote detonator.

What? You do realize that cell phones have been used to detonate IEDs...I don't know...since the invention of cell phones?

I get that you seem to believe the BS by the Taliban PR spokesman from years ago, but I don't have the same trust in terrorists that apparently you do?

Here is the source of that story...perhaps you can tell me what other insight that story affords? It's from 2010...
www.dailymail.co.uk...

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Indigo5

Then call DC. They are obviously not as smart as you.

I'd take it as a compliment if you weren't comparing me to DC

a reply to: Indigo5

LOL yeah... everyone knows that one of the things our military teaches the troops is how to make IED's detonated by cell phones. Hell...they have been using cell phones to detonate explosives in the movies for ... years and years lol

I am pretty damned sure that the Taliban already knows how to detonate explosives with cell phones and did not need an American soldier to teach them LOL that is totally laughable.

a reply to: kruphix

Have you and beezzer settled on who broke the law?

I think its a principal-agent problem. Does the principal take all responsibility that an agent does (doesn't) do? Only if the agent is contractually bound to usurp all rules if given an order by the principal to do so. So is the agent (sec of def) bound by some legal rule to take orders from the law on the books as the priority, or the law of the principal's (president's) mouth as the priority?

If I'm responsible to mop the floors at work under penalty of termination, and my boss says not to do it. Does the boss override the rule? Is there a rule that says this override can exist and who is actually responsible for the dirty floor?

If you really want to get deeper, in our constitutional republic, the people are the principal and all government employees are the agent. So all of us are guilty, simply by being the principal, and letting the agents breach their contractual bounds.

Ultimatley, as president he has limitations of his oath, and the sec of def has obligations to his oath. Problems will arise.

a reply to: Rychwebo

Once again:

Truman: "The buck stops here"

Obama: "The buck stops at Bush"

Obama: "What buck?"

Obama: "What's this about a buck? Give it to Hagel"

a reply to: bbracken677

I was hoping to extract the legal foundation to these "bucks". Obviously what a president says is irrelevant to that which crated their position and authority in the first place.

They should be crated.
a reply to: Rychwebo

But honestly, it's about taking responsibility for one's actions. Something the current generation knows nothing about.