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.

 

Cheney pressed Bush to test Constitutional limits by using military force on US soil

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by dodadoom
 



Originally posted by dodadoom
I am still smiling and disgusted how far the wool was pulled.

How bout those no bid contracts! Yippe ki yay!
Go palin!


Edit cuz I screwed up trying to write while laughing so hard....


Can you come up with something of substance to discuss, instead of these off-the-wall sidetrack statements that are somehow supposed to nullify everything Cheney ever did?

Wtf does Palin have to do with this issue?




posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by GradyPhilpott
 

I gave that up. Its futile with some.
Hence the name.
I dont hold out much hope for us anymore with our warlike tendancies.
Thanks to you voters and your war criminals er crap, I mean war heros.

Nope, this is pure hardcore entertainment! Luv it, thanks!

Good luck 2 U. We're ALL gonna need it. Lets nuke 'em all right?

Oh, have a great day and thanks for the reply.



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 

Sorry for having a sense of humor.
I should have known better on here!
Thanks for the 'warning'.
I musta touched a nerve!

Dont cha all know they are all puppets in a really big show?
Whats there to debate or discuss? Its in the past now.

[edit on 25-7-2009 by dodadoom]



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by dodadoom
 


This is a board for serious discussion.

Perhaps you misunderstood.

Levity is fine, but substance is expected.



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 11:24 PM
link   
Thank you. OH, AL-righty then!
Why would we need to use the military?
Why not just arrest the six with local and state officers?



[edit on 25-7-2009 by dodadoom]



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by dodadoom

Why not just arrest the six with local and state officers?





That is precisely what was done, wasn't it?

Be nice.



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by dodadoom
 


C'mon man, it's things like "what about those no-bid contracts". That's something a couple of naive kids would toss out as an attempt at 'proof' of Cheney's evil nature.

No historical background, no insight, no research. Just a soundbite that fits nicely on a protest rally placard.



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 

Oh, I think its kinda catchy! My bad!

Seems like one big romper room doesnt it?
Here this describes this problem well...
Caution, potty talk!

Wow, I had no idea how deep the denial really goes, sorry.
Cheney LOVES to use the military for his stuff.
Thats obvious enough even for this naive kid to grasp.



[edit on 25-7-2009 by dodadoom]



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
reply to post by harvib
 


I don't understand what you mean.

We don't need to give up our rights.

If we have to fight a war on our own soil, whom do you think should fight it? The Boy Scouts?



You made this statement:




We know that Cheney was hell-bent on keeping America safe from terror and he was successful.


And this one:




This is nothing more than a footnote in the history of a very successful administration.


These comments make it clear that you believe that the policies by the previous administration have kept us safe. That is fine, I can accept that argument. There hasn't been another attack on American soil since 9/11.

However by and large the way we have been kept "safe" is through the removal of our civil liberties.

So then when you make a comment such as this:




Eventually, war is going to come to the US on such a scale that the use of the military will be necessary.


It makes me wonder how you can then support the removal of civil liberties when you obviously feel that it is futile.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by harvib
 


Well, my liberties have not been infringed at all by any policy that was instituted by the Bush administration.

The Democrats have been trying to deny me my Second Amendment rights for decades. That bothers me.

You should study WWII and learn how much civil liberties were curtailed during that war, not to mention the massive draft, Japanese internment, rationing, and the retooling of civilian industries into war matériel industries.

In this war, about the only thing we have to complain about is a few inconveniences.



[edit on 2009/7/26 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by GradyPhilpott
 





Well, my liberties have not been infringed at all by any policy that was instituted by the Bush administration.


Not true. Legislation created during the Bush administration made the Bill of Rights nothing but a Bill off privileges. Any rights that you feel have not been infringed are no longer guaranteed by the Constitution but allowed by the Federal Government.

You can argue that this is necessary to keep us "safe" but even the Supreme Court has reaffirmed this fact.




You should study WWII and learn how much civil liberties were curtailed during that war, not to mention the massive draft, Japanese internment, rationing, and the retooling of civilian industries into war matériel industries.


I am well aware. We could also discuss the Civil War.




The Democrats have been trying to deny me my Second Amendment rights for decades. That bothers me.


What do you need your guns for. We have the military to fight our battles. Right? Besides you seem to be in support of the removal of civil rights in order to keep the nation "safe". Or is that only when we have a Republican in office?





[edit on 26-7-2009 by harvib]



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by harvib

Legislation created during the Bush administration made the Bill of Rights nothing but a Bill off privileges.


Would you care to be specific and a little less sarcastic?



[edit on 2009/7/26 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by GradyPhilpott
 


I too would love to "SEE" actual evidence of any lost rights..

I deal with 4th Amendment and 1st Amendment Rights almost on a daily basis and several of the other Rights outlined in the Amendments to the Constitution at least on a monthly basis and I can tell you for a fact that nothing has changed under the Bush Administration. Nothing at all...

Search Warrants are the same
Press has the same rights
Individuals have the same rights against self incrimination
Etc Etc Etc

Perhaps it is paranoia and hatred that is causing these wild unsubstantiated accusations? It sure is not day to day facts...

It is very easy, any child can do it, to throw out accusations and sound bites garnered from PBS or some other childlike liberal TV or radio show, but facts are facts...

The Bill of Rights remain and are just as effective and in place as they have always been unless you are an enemy combatant or war criminal,

Semper

[edit on 7/26/2009 by semperfortis]



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 05:03 PM
link   
Predicted response to the last 2 posts:

Patriot Act!

No-warrant wiretaps!

No habeus corpus for the dears in Gitmo!

Woo-hoo!



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by GradyPhilpott
 





Would you care to be specific a little less sarcastic?


Not being sarcastic but I can be more specific.

Authorazation For Use of Military Force


That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.


This includes United States citizens. This vague language has been and is being used to detain American citizen's without charge.


There is no bar to this Nation’s holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant.


Hamdi v. Rumsfield, 542 U.S. 507 O'connor op.


Further, we understand Congress' grant of authority for the use of "necessary and appropriate force" to include the authority to detain for the duration of the relevant conflict


Hamdi V. Rumsfield, 542 U.S 507


If the record establishes that United States troops are still involved in active combat in Afghanistan, those detentions are part of the exercise of "necessary and appropriate force," and therefore are authorized by the AUMF.


ibid.

Although the Supreme Court ruling did state:


concluded that although Congress authorized the detention of combatants in the narrow circumstances alleged in this case, due process demands that a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decisionmaker.


The creation of the "neutral decision maker" was left in the Executive Branches hands, in turn they created the Combatant Status Review Tribunals.

Let's take a look at the Combatant Status Review Tribunals.

Composition


Each Tribunal shall be composed of a panel of three neutral commissioned officers of the U.S. Armed Forces convened to make determinations of enemy combatant status…


Combatant Status Review Tribunal Process. Sec. C Paragraph 1

Is it possible that members of the Armed Forces have the ability to remain neutral when it is their own Commander-in-Chief who has made the accusations.

No Legal Counsel


The detainee shall not be represented be legal counsel but will be aided by a Personal Representative…


ibid. Sec. F Paragraph 5


The detainee is granted a Personal Representative.


Each Tribunal shall have a commissioned officer appointed by the Director, CSRT, to assist the detainee in reviewing all relevant unclassified information, in preparing and presenting information, and in questioning witnesses at the CSRT.


ibid. Sec. C Paragraph 3

So not only will the Tribunal itself be naturally biased but so will the detainee's own representative.


Burden of Proof

As American's we have all held that in the event we were accused of a crime we would be presumed innocent until proven guilty. The reason behind this is that it is impossible to prove a negative. In other words if one is accused of being a reptilian shape shifter
it would be impossible to prove otherwise.

Although this sentence would seem to indicate the burden of proof does lie with the accuser.


Tribunals shall determine whether the preponderance of the evidence supports the conclusion that each detainee meets the criteria to be designated as an enemy combatant.


The paragraph continues:


There is a rebuttalable presumption that the Government Evidence, as defined in paragraph H (4) herein, submitted by the Recorder to support a determination that the detainee is an enemy combatant is genuine and accurate. .


ibid. Sec. G Paragraph 11

In other words there is no need to substantiate any evidence against the detainee, it is all considered genuine and accurate. Therefore the very assertion that the detainee is an enemy combatant is considered genuine and accurate.

Conclusion

Under Bush era legislation the ability to incarcerate American Citizens by simply designating them as an "enemy Combatant" was established or at best reaffirmed. The ability to receive a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury as defined by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution was removed. Along with the ability to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense granted in the same article.

The Sixth Amendment is arguably the most important amendment because when removed one loses the ability to contest any and all accusations.

When one's Government has the ability to issue accusations and maintains the judicial process in their jurisdiction the defendant loses any ability to receive an impartial trial. And the accuser gains the ability to detain anyone for any reason without substantiation. With such vast authorities one would have to realize any "rights" he believes he has are only at the allowance of those that have such authorities.


















[edit on 26-7-2009 by harvib]



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 





No habeus corpus for the dears in Gitmo!


I hope you read my post in full and understand that the concern is not for those that have been deemed as alien enemy combatants.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by harvib
 

Good Job! Touche'.....
Oh, and thanks Jsobecky, you are right about the patriot act!
Nuff said, thanks!

If you guys would spend as much time doing some research as you do defending these scoundrels, we may get past this idea that we needed all
this to keep us safe.
Laughing again! You guys are a hoot!

I dont suppose anyone read the first bailout bill about giving away our very sovereignty to other countries, if the dollar fails, have we?
Provide the link?
Provide it yourself. You obviously got time.
Well maybe if you are nice.
No this aint the link, but it's a good place to start nonetheless!
Plus its fun and interactive! Wheeee!
www.aclu.org...

The PATRIOT Act's Impact on Your Rights


Click on "click here to start" in the middle of the page.
Its important enough I will quote it. Welcome to the regime boys!
The patriot act:


Violates the First Amendment by effectively authorizing the FBI to launch investigations of American citizens in part for exercising their freedom of speech. 
Violates the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech by prohibiting the recipients of search orders from telling others about those orders, even where there is no real need for secrecy.
Creates a very serious risk that truly innocent individuals could be deported for association with political groups that the government later chooses to regard as terrorist organizations.  
Punishes speech protected by the First Amendment, even of lawful permanent residents. The USA PATRIOT Act permits visitors and immigrants to be found "inadmissible" for advocacy that the Secretary of State determines undermines our anti-terrorism efforts. This could conceivably include speeches, Letters to the Editor, or other comments about the government and its actions.



Violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing foreign intelligence searches for criminal purposes without probable cause of crime.
Violates the Fourth Amendment by failing to provide timely notice to persons whose home has been searched. Notice is also a key element of due process, which is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. 
Violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing the government to seize records in intelligence and terrorism investigations without probable suspicion that the records pertain to a terrorist, spy or other foreign agent.



Allows indefinite incarceration of persons without judicial review thereby denying due process and equal protection of law.   
Creates a very serious risk that individuals could be deported for association with political groups that the government later chooses to regard as terrorist organizations.  




[edit on 26-7-2009 by dodadoom]



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by harvib
 



First of all, thanks for providing citations for your arguments. This is what our board is all about.

Now, I'd like to say that I'm not a lawyer and wading through Supreme Court opinions is not something that I have a lot of experience with and that would be true of the vast majority of citizens.

It seems that at least in the case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, you have provided the minority opinion of SCOTUS rendered by O'Connor. In this opinion she argues that American citizens held on American soil, regardless of the circumstances, have the right to due process.

It seems to me that she makes a good argument, but in that argument O'Connor quotes the opposing opinion, which I assume was upheld by the majority of the court.


There is no bar to this Nation’s holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant. In Quirin, one of the detainees, Haupt, alleged that he was a naturalized United States citizen. 317 U.S., at 20. We held that “[c]itizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts, are enemy belligerents within the meaning of … the law of war.” Id., at 37—38. While Haupt was tried for violations of the law of war, nothing in Quirin suggests that his citizenship would have precluded his mere detention for the duration of the relevant hostilities. See id., at 30—31. See also Lieber Code, ¶153, Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, Gen. Order No. 100 (1863), reprinted in 2 Lieber, Miscellaneous Writings, p. 273 (contemplating, in code binding the Union Army during the Civil War, that “captured rebels” would be treated “as prisoners of war”). Nor can we see any reason for drawing such a line here. A citizen, no less than an alien, can be “part of or supporting forces hostile to the United States or coalition partners” and “engaged in an armed conflict against the United States,” Brief for Respondents 3; such a citizen, if released, would pose the same threat of returning to the front during the ongoing conflict. [emphasis mine]

www.law.cornell.edu...


It would seem to me that there is precedent for the majority opinion that citizens who are found to be engaged in warfare against the US in concert with a foreign enemy should be treated in the same way that the enemy combatants are treated because the citizen poses the same threat as an alien combatant.

This is a tough call for me as I can see the points of both sides of the argument. However, these are tough times and any citizen who is found to be on a foreign battlefield engaged in acts of war against the US is not going to get much from me except some abstract concession that there may be a valid opposing view toward his incarceration until all hostilities cease.

I don't have the time to peruse all the citations you have provided, but I'm certain that many will find the time. However, I think that the circumstances in this case are unique enough that the claim that our rights have been turned into privileges is a bit overboard to say the least.

Kudos for a good post, even if I disagree with your position that Bush gutted the Constitution.


[edit on 2009/7/26 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by GradyPhilpott
 





It would seem to me that there is precedent for the majority opinion that citizens who are found to be engaged in warfare against the US in concert with a foreign enemy should be treated in the same way that the enemy combatants are treated because the citizen poses the same threat as an alien combatant.


I would agree with you here. I believe that upon determination that any individual is engaged in acts against American Citizens they are the enemy and should be treated as such.

I am just vehemently opposed to the knighthood deciding if the kings accusations are accurate, especially when it comes to citizens of this nation. It is a conflict of interest. It gives overwhelming authority to designate anyone as an enemy combatant. Imagine what Obama could do with this authority.

It is widely accepted that a free nation must at times fight to defend it's freedoms. However if we lose our freedoms in the process then what is the point. We have to find a way to defeat our enemies and retain our civil liberties.




Kudos for a good post, even if I disagree with your position that Bush gutted the Constitution.


Thank you!



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   


The War Crimes Act of 1996, a federal statute set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 2441, makes it a federal crime for any U.S. national, whether military or civilian, to violate the Geneva Convention by engaging in murder, torture, or inhuman treatment.
www.globalresearch.ca...


A quartet of laws has been signed that lays the complete legal foundation for the takeover of our constitutional republic. They are the (so-called) Patriot Act of 2001 (extended in 2005); the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (which allows for the suspension of habeas corpus and the practice of torture and rendition); the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007, which facilitates the declaration of martial law and nullifies posse comitatus by allowing the President to station troops anywhere in the country and to commandeer the National Guard without the consent of local authorities; and, finally, the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, signed on May 9, 2007, which in the event of a catastrophe would place all governmental authority in the hands of the President.
If the majority of the people and those in congress were required to absorb these truths then the United States and the world would be a much nicer place for everyone. We would not have a runaway government accountable to no one. Runaway inflation at 11+% - unbeknown to most everyone. No Iraq war for lies, oil, power and the bridge to global domination etc...

netctr.com...
All signed under bush.
I think obama is continuing the same plan! FYI
Doncha all think the attorney general should be doing some digging?



What about those that have been guilty of war-profiteering, in this "time of war"? George Bush's grand-daddy; Prescott Bush was found guilty of trading with the enemy, and funding the Nazi War Machine during WWII-yet while Prescott was charged and found guilty he did not go to jail-is this how we are going to allow this current crop of New Millennium War Criminals to be treated, or will we ever be able to hold anyone, to any accountability, for anything at all-ever? (1)

rense.com...


Cheney has exactly two things going for him – the lack of a terrorist attack in the past eight years and the prospect of another one. But there's no reason to believe Cheney – who has no qualms about lying and exaggerating for political effect – when he takes credit for the former.
Cheney's only remaining card is another perverse fantasy: to make a public bet that there will be another terrorist attack, at which point he'll get to say "I told you so."

www.guardian.co.uk...


Dick Cheney keeps saying "enhanced interrogation" was used to stop imminent attacks, but evidence is mounting that the real reason was to invent evidence linking Saddam Hussein to al-Qaida.

www.salon.com...


European prosecutors are likely to investigate CIA and Bush administration officials on suspicion of violating an international ban on torture if they are not held legally accountable at home, according to U.N. officials and human rights lawyers.
"Torture is an international crime irrespective of the place where it is committed. Other countries have an obligation to investigate," Scheinin said in a telephone interview from Cairo. "This may be something that will be haunting CIA officials, or Justice Department officials, or the vice president, for the rest of their lives."
www.washingtonpost.com...

Torture Used to Link Saddam with 9/11


www.globalresearch.ca...

Cheney “Assassination Unit” Still Active Under Obama, Including Domestically


www.infowars.com...


Dick Cheney is almost certainly guilty of war crimes for his role in setting up and promoting the policy of torture. Even Colin Powell's former chief of staff thinks so.

georgewashington2.blogspot.com...

[edit on 26-7-2009 by dodadoom]




top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join