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

Anyone seen this?

harpers.org...

Perhaps the most astonishing of these memos was one crafted by University of California at Berkeley law professor John Yoo. He concluded
that in wartime, the President was freed from the constraints of the Bill of Rights with respect to anything he chose to label as a counterterrorism operations inside the United States

harpers.org...

Obama and Holder Must Prosecute War Crimes or Become Guilty of Them Themselves

www.thiscantbehappening.net.../278

The Ten Lies of Dick Cheney (Parts I and II)

www.commondreams.org...

Top Ten Myths about Iraq, 2008

www.juancole.com...
Now for the good stuff!!

Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.

georgewashington2.blogspot.com...

Cheney’s Legacy of Deception

But the true absurdity of Cheney’s self-defense is in placing the nebulous war on terror at the same level of threat as the civil war that tore apart this country or the Nazi military machine that rumbled unstoppable across most of Europe, augmented by the military might of Japan.

www.truthdig.com...

Dick Cheney has publicly confessed to ordering war crimes. Asked about waterboarding in an ABC News interview, Cheney replied, “I was aware of the program, certainly, and involved in helping get the process cleared.” He also said he still believes waterboarding was an appropriate method to use on terrorism suspects. CIA Director Michael Hayden confirmed that the agency waterboarded three Al Qaeda suspects in 2002 and 2003.

www.globalresearch.ca...
Nothing these guys do or have done would surprise me!
Even if a portion of it is true,I wouldnt be quite so proud about it.


[edit on 26-7-2009 by dodadoom]

reply to post by harvib

It is a conflict of interest.

Huh??

It gives overwhelming authority to designate anyone as an enemy combatant. Imagine what Obama could do with this authority.

No, it doesn't. It seems pretty clear:

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.

Paranoia notwithstanding, it has never happened in these United States.

reply to post by dodadoom

Now for the good stuff!!

Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.

Umm... so the CIA did it's job and kept a database that later turned out to be hostile to the US. So what? They probably didn't make a blood- brother- cut- your- pinky- oath, if that's what you're implying...???

reply to post by jsobecky

Yaser Esam Hamdi, a citizen of the United States, has been accused of being an enemy combatant. Captured by American soldiers during combat operations in Afghanistan, he was then held at the Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. After discovering his American citizenship, military authorities then transported him to the Norfolk Naval Station. The military, without substantial evidence, determined that he was an enemy combatant. Because of this special status, he was neither allowed to visit with an attorney nor receive a fair trial.

www.youthnoise.com...

Another detainee raised objections in federal court about his enemy combatant status. In May 2002, Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen, was arrested in Chicago as he disembarked from a flight from Pakistan. Attorney General JOHN ASHCROFT announced that Padilla was a "dirty bomber," an al-Qaeda terrorist trained to make and explode a low-grade nuclear device. He was arrested under a judicial warrant, which made it necessary for him to make a court appearance. A lawyer was appointed to represent Padilla, but then the U.S. government changed its mind. It informed the judge that Padilla had been classified as an enemy combatant in a military order signed by President Bush. Confined to military custody in a South Carolina brig, Padilla's requests to see his lawyer were refused.

law.jrank.org...

reply to post by jsobecky

Really thats it? You dont get it?
We bought and paid for them several times already!
Now they turn around and bomb us?
My paranoia says its all a game played on you.
The cia set it all up and paid 'em off just like they always do!
Remember the iran contra deals anyone? Anyone?
I guess not if ya liked reagan. He was in on it.
Gee whiz, you guys dont do much investigating do ya?
Or read history much either, apparently....

Okay......either way you wanna play it, it still smells purty bad!
(and things aint exactly getting much better unless broke is better)
Google Tim Osman sometime when you have a sec.



[edit on 26-7-2009 by dodadoom]

reply to post by dodadoom

Yaser Esam Hamdi, a citizen of the United States, has been accused of being an enemy combatant. Captured by American soldiers during combat operations in Afghanistan, he was then held at the Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Geez... I bet he was just picking poppy flowers in the mountains of Afghanistan.

In May 2002, Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen, was arrested in Chicago as he disembarked from a flight from Pakistan.

Padilla was guilty as sin.

reply to post by jsobecky

No, it doesn't. It seems pretty clear:

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.

Yes but it is the accuser who decides if the accusations are with merit. This Country was founded on a system to ensure that a person accused of a crime is able to receive a "speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury" Why? Because in times past ones' government was able to levy charges without Burden of Proof leaving the defendant without any ability to defend himself.

It could define "enemy combatant" as one who flies at night on broomstick. It doesn't make a difference because it is a simple matter designating an individual as an "enemy combatant". There is no real process to ensure the designation is accurate.

I know you are not a fan of Obama. Do you feel comfortable knowing that at anytime he could declare you an enemy combatant. How could you prove you are not?

Paranoia notwithstanding, it has never happened in these United States.

What has never happened in these United States?

reply to post by dodadoom

Originally posted by dodadoom
reply to post by jsobecky

 

Really thats it? You dont get it?
We bought and paid for them several times already!

Now they turn around and bomb us?
My paranoia says its all a game played on you.
The cia set it all up and paid 'em off just like they always do!

Omigod.

I want to ask you one question. No, two.

Do you think bin Laden is an enemy of the US, even though he once collaborated with us?

If so, why do you think he flipped?

reply to post by jsobecky

Padilla was guilty as sin.

Probably. However it is every American's duty to demand that our rights are retained regardless of what we are accused of. If one American citizen can be denied their sixth amendment rights we all can.

I don't understand why liberals have trouble with that concept.








[edit on 26-7-2009 by harvib]

reply to post by jsobecky

Thank you Beck!

Do you think bin Laden is an enemy of the US, even though he once collaborated with us?

Of course

If so, why do you think he flipped?

Why else? Money, power, fame, virgins.
Same thing that gets everyone.
Everyone has their price.
If that doesn't work, theres always torture, death threats, immediate family threatened, etc....you know, typical spy stuff.
No wonder it's the land of the greed, home of the fraid'!
Thanks for askin'!
I envy you, I really do. I wish I was fooled like most naive citizens are.
Wouldn't be on here listening to the rantings of the paranoid.
I'd be appreciating my own peeps and life before obamie takes it all away!

Lets keep playing THEIR game with THEIR players, shan't we?
God bless the USA, we need it.


[edit on 26-7-2009 by dodadoom]

reply to post by harvib

Originally posted by harvib
reply to post by jsobecky

 

Padilla was guilty as sin.

Probably. However it is every American's duty to demand that our rights are retained regardless of what we are accused of. If one American citizen can be denied their sixth amendment rights we all can.

I don't understand why liberals have trouble with that concept.
[edit on 26-7-2009 by harvib]

Neither do I. But then, I'm not a liberal.

What you fail to accept is the fact that a citizen can turn into a terrorist. That is when he loses his citizen's rights and falls under enemy combatant rules. That is what happened to Padilla.

And yes, the POTUS has the ultimate authority to define who is a terrorist. Rarely does it flow to that level.

reply to post by dodadoom

If so, why do you think he flipped?

Why else? Money, power, fame, virgins.
Same thing that gets everyone.
Everyone has their price.

Do you know the history of the bin Laden family? Osama had over a quarter billion to his own disposal when he reached 18. He didn't need money.

Even so, he's sure not living high on the hog right now with all his ill-gotten gains, is he?

No, you are way off on your thinking as to why he hates the US.

[edit on 26-7-2009 by jsobecky]

reply to post by jsobecky


Why did you have to bring up the bin ladens?
Theres a whole nother page full of threads in and of itself.

I hope I'm way off on my thinking, I really do beck.
You can believe whatever/whomever you want.
Too bad the threads not about bailouts because I guess we
needed them like the war too!

You know the worse thing about what you guys believe?
We still dont have bin laden caught.
Either it's planned or it's a complete failure that led to a false war
killing untold numbers of civilians.
You want to justify all that in your mind as being neccesary
because thats what you we're told, be my guest.
Good luck and peace 2 U regardless.

reply to post by jsobecky

Neither do I. But then, I'm not a liberal.

No? Aren't conservatives for small Government with limited powers? By your next statement you certainly aren't a proponent of a Government with limited powers.

And yes, the POTUS has the ultimate authority to define who is a terrorist. Rarely does it flow to that level.

Then clearly you support a government with an unchecked executive branch. An executive branch that has the ability to remove a citizens sixth amendment rights without providing a shred of real proof. This in my opinion is anti-American. It certainly doesn't conform to the ideals this nation was founded. Does it?

I am trying to understand how you can be in support of Obama having such unchecked authority.

What you fail to accept is the fact that a citizen can turn into a terrorist.

What have I said to indicate that? A citizen can also become a murderer or a rapist or a burglar. Do you understand why these pathetic individuals have a right to an impartial trial? Do you understand the implications if we allow people who are charged with certain crimes to lose that right????

That is when he loses his citizen's rights and falls under enemy combatant rules.

First off the sixth amendment protects American Citizens until they are provenguilty. How can any American support legislation that would allow someone to be charged with a crime and then not require the accuser to prove their guilt.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is so fundamental to our society that even school children understand that ideal.

You seem to be an advocate for a war to defend our freedoms yet you also seem to be an advocate for removing those freedoms our soldiers are fighting so hard to protect. I wish people with similar ideology would instead choose to honor and support our troops.

[edit on 26-7-2009 by harvib]

I guess I'll bow out of this thread as..

1. I don't believe the Constitution applies to non-citizens

2. If you take up arms against my country, I hope and pray you lose ALL of your rights, among other things...Citizen or not...

3. I could care less how long they keep enemies of my country, forever is OK with me..

So, you all have fun...

I don't have a Lilly Livered Liberal Bone in my body...

That is a joke.. kind of...



Semper

reply to post by semperfortis

1. I don't believe the Constitution applies to non-citizens

Agreed!

2. If you take up arms against my country, I hope and pray you lose ALL of your rights, among other things...Citizen or not...

Agreed!

3. I could care less how long they keep enemies of my country, forever is OK with me..

Agreed!

I don't have a Lilly Livered Liberal Bone in my body...

Me neither! And I think it is a disgrace when liberals willingly give up their rights in order to be protected. As conservatives we agreed along time ago that we would never give up our rights in order for someone else to keep us "safe". That is why we are the home of the brave. Only the brave proclaim live free or die!

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I think Cheney was correct.

In this instance the issue was not law enforcement, but part of the war on terror.

Hi, Grady. I usually agree with much of what you say but this startles me a little bit. Do you not feel that the classification of terrorist is currently being abused? Now right wingers, protesters, those opposed to abortion or illegal immigration, returning veterans, gun owners etc., are being labeled 'low level terrorists' by our government.

This incident sets a scary precedent. Just label pro-Constitution protesters 'terrorists' or anyone opposed to government corruption as enemy combatants to render the Posse Comitatus Act worthless.

Call the citizens terrorists and sick the military on them as a police force. Remember, this incident was being described as a test. It would make sense that during that time they'd use it on the acceptable bogeyman. Then once the people fail the test, the heat gets turned up on innocent civilians and anyone opposed to government decisions is now magically a terrorist.

In my humble opinion, I find that alarming.

[edit on 7/27/2009 by AshleyD]

reply to post by harvib


You've got some strange logic there, my friend.

You say:

I know you are not a fan of Obama. Do you feel comfortable knowing that at anytime he could declare you an enemy combatant.

And so I reply:

And yes, the POTUS has the ultimate authority to define who is a terrorist. Rarely does it flow to that level.

From that you conclude that:


Then clearly you support a government with an unchecked executive branch. An executive branch that has the ability to remove a citizens sixth amendment rights without providing a shred of real proof. This in my opinion is anti-American. It certainly doesn't conform to the ideals this nation was founded. Does it?

Let me give you a little hint....It Does Not Follow.

But nice try, dude.

reply to post by AshleyD


Just remember that it was the Obama admin that made those assertions. Grady was talking about Cheney.

reply to post by jsobecky

Let me give you a little hint....It Does Not Follow.

Care to explain why not?

Just to clarify a few stumbling blocks in this debate:

1. Libertarian-leaning thinkers generally regard Republicans as liberals. From their position on the political spectrum, you are a tax-and-spend liberal if you support the GOP (just like if you support the Democrats). Sorry guys, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

2. Libertarians are viewed, by the Department of Homeland Security, as right-wing extremists and potential terrorists.

It should be easy to see why Libertarians would passionately oppose the measures taken by the Bush Administration -- likely to continue under the Obama Administration -- and label all policy supporters as liberals.