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.
Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli
Originally posted by bftroop
Every human has the right to face their accuser and defend themselves as they are accused. No matter the magnitude of the crime. This is the American way. The constitutional way.
The Constitution is not operative on the battlefield. "It has seemed reasonably clear that the Constitution does not follow advancing troops into conquered territory. Persons in such territory have been held entirely beyond the reach of constitutional limitations and subject to the laws of war as interpreted and applied by Congress and the President" (p. 343).
Guilt without proof, is justice without law.
Which is why the Department of Justice doesn't go around killing people. But the CIA and the Department of Defense do, and they do have laws authorizing them to do that.
Our Country is built on a just and fair foundation according to our constitutional and moral convictions as keepers of liberty.
One can make a moral argument, or a practical argument, but the legal argument is settled. Under international law, states may act in self defense and target combatants, provided the means of attack are proportional and minimize collateral damage. Under municipal law, 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" (PL 107-40). Article II and the National Security Act give him the tools to apply that force.
Originally posted by bftroop
The President is authorized by who?
An International law?
So there is some international law that can tell our President what he can and cannot do?
What if he breaks that law?
Does the constitution protect him?
So what your sayin then is that our constitution means nothing, Because some international law trumps it?
If the Gov says your a terrorist than they have the right to kill you and ask questions later? Without proof and without reason?
So your saying that the U.S. is allowed because of international law to go anywhere in the world and kill anyone because we say they are a terrorist?
With as much force as we need to get the terrorist?
So basically your saying that because of Some international law the U.S. is legally allowed to attack anyone or any country based on the idea that they could be a threat to the U.S.
. I mean you could be a threat, I could be a threat, the U.S. people as a whole can be a threat. I'm truly glad that the constitution protects us from the the Gov attacking it's own people, or does that international law mean all countries?
Whew glad it's not some other country that has the right to do that. Because we would all be dead.
Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by WarminIndy
And OBL states in his fatwa over and over again..the suspension of Sharia law for civil law. He very clearly intended on replacing our Constitution with Sharia law, and he published it. So whose moral code is right?
Whose moral law is right? Well our's is of course.
Maybe we have to look at the bigger picture. If our intention is to rule over these countries and consume their natural resources, then I am perfectly fine with using overwhelming force and enjoying the spoils of war. None of this gray area junk that gets our troops killed while trying to protect the enemy though. If we want to rule over these countries, then we need to do so by force, not flip-flopping on diplomacies.
On the other hand, if our intention is to enlighten and liberate these countries and spread our brand of freedom and democracy, then we have to take the high moral road at every turn, no matter the cost, and we must lead by example and live and die by our morals even if it hampers the military effort.
In my opinion there is no in-between. If we follow the current protocol, and we try to have it both ways, we only sacrifice US lives, and create new generations of enemies that grow up wanting to avenge the wrongs we have sporadically caused. We are digging ourselves in deeper, and creating a prolonged war with an increasingly hardening enemy.
Either we WIN the dam war, or we ride our morals at all costs, but we can't continue to not win, and also not stick to our morals.
Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli
Originally posted by bftroop
There are other countries that want us all to be dead. Fortunately, our country has an inherent right of self-defense, and it's not afraid to use it.
Originally posted by Ilyich
reply to post by WarminIndy
No joke, I want you to know in your life time you will watch your homes burn, your people die, and your government leave you to fend for yourself. This isn't a threat, just remember. In your life time, fortunately you won't be able to watch this one behind your censored media. ha ha. Good luck to you.
Originally posted by SLAYER69
Originally posted by GovtFlu
Except on 9/11 there was no 'war on terror'.. no enemy combatants, none of that.... can't retro actively hold people accountable for laws that did not exist.. lol..
Don't worry...
There are colorful pictures and sound..
August 1998
Skip to 2:20
edit on 16-9-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by WarminIndy
But you asked me, not the other half of the world. I live my life and I make my decisions by my moral code which very closely resembles the moral code of our founding fathers, with a few modernizations.
I don't care what other people believe, because I am only responsible for my own actions. My decisions, and my actions will reflect my own moral code. I will not go into someone else's land and and change my own morality to match theirs. The only moral code that matters to me is my own.
By your logic, it should be fine for our troops to administer sharia law while in a Muslim land, and participate in human trafficking while in eastern europe/asia, and have sex with little pre-teens while in thailand and malaysia. Of course we do not live by that type of moral code. We decide what is right for ourselves, and we live by our own moral code no matter where we are.
Our military represents our nation, and our set of morality, and our laws, and therefore that is the code we live by. It does not change, just because we are in a foreign land, and we do not treat our enemies the way they might treat us, we treat them the way we believe a human being should be treated.
We (all Americans including military and politicians) should take the moral high road at every opportunity and serve as an example and not care who disagrees with it.
Originally posted by WarminIndy
Each of our states entered into the Union through provisional contracts with the United States. Each state's constitutions say that for whatever reason, they can secede.
Some call it the War of Northern Aggression and some call it the War of Southern Secession.
Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by WarminIndy
Our soldiers fight and die to protect that man's rights to walk on our flag. The law should protect his right to do so. (But if some patriotic individuals want to show him the difference between "legal rights" and "bad manners meet natural consequences" then I am all for that.
The law should leave him alone, the other folks on the street should beat him down!! Then the law should step in to protect his legal rights, and any dummies still standing around should be arrested.
I have not mentioned asserting our morals on others in any way. I am only talking about our own actions, such as granting constitutional rights to the prisoners in Gitmo, and extending a trial to Osama. I am entirely against asserting our morals on others, we don't have to tell the Taliban to give trials and attorneys to their people, but if we capture one of their people, we should give them the attorney and the trial.
Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli
Originally posted by WarminIndy
Each of our states entered into the Union through provisional contracts with the United States. Each state's constitutions say that for whatever reason, they can secede.
This seems contrary to the principle that the Constitution formed a "more perfect union" than the already "perpetual Union" of the Articles of Confederation. This principle became law (if it was not already) in Texas v. White, 1869, so any state entering the union after that date cannot possibly claim to have an escape clause.
Some call it the War of Northern Aggression and some call it the War of Southern Secession.
It was never called the War of Northern Aggression until well into the 20th century. That name has no historical validity, in my opinion. I believe it was coined as propaganda during the civil rights era, to paint civil rights activists as "northern aggressors."
Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by WarminIndy
Someone can come up and call my wife a ho, but that same somebody can also take a $1500 ambulance ride and drink their meals through a straw for a few weeks.
Originally posted by WarminIndy
I did not give a time frame when it was called that, only that some people do call it that.
And the "more perfect union" is in the Preamble. Most southern states were not even states when it was drafted.