68 replies to this topic

[Babe Ruth]

Bama13, on 15 March 2013 - 02:10 PM, said:

Authoritizing the use military force is, to me, the same thing as declaring war.
Not going to argue semantics with you.

Unfortunately, by your post you have reduced it to semantics.

AUMF is pure sophistry, meant to fool the gullible.  Tiggs and I are discussing it on another thread.

The Congress has the Power to Declare War.

The President has the power to wage war.  FDR knew the difference.  It appears you do not.

[DieChecker]

ninjadude, on 15 March 2013 - 03:35 AM, said:

he's my hero. A true American.

If he did this to a private business or non-profit... Say, Planned Parenthood, and exposed all the dirty secrets... but, also exposed every woman who secretly had an abortion for the last 10 years, and put it on the internet, would that be the actions of a hero?

He had no idea what he was sending. If acting out like a child... in ignorance and out of blind rage and hatred is the mark of a Hero to you, fine....

He never grew up. They should charge him as a child, because he is clearly still a little boy.

[DieChecker]

Babe Ruth, on 15 March 2013 - 01:50 PM, said:

Die Checker

If Manning is a traitor, how do you describe a person or persons who take the country to war under fraud?

Like with Manning... it would depends on the intent and what the fraud was. But basically, Yes, I would call that a Traitor too.

Quote

How do you describe persons who plunder the treasury under fraud, or who pass legislation that assaults the US Constitution?

You mean like every single President of the 20th and 21st century? Bush, Clinton, Bush2 and Obama all fit that description to one degree or another.

Quote

Recall that the ONLY crime defined in the US Constitution is treason.  Article III Section 3

Providing "aid and comfort:" to the Enemy in todays world seems like a Anything Goes definition to me. Did Manning provide "aid and comfort"? Surely he did. If even one dollar of damages was done to the US government by anyone out there considered an Enemy of the US, due to what Manning released to Wikileaks... then he provided aid, and thus Treason.

[DieChecker]

Babe Ruth, on 15 March 2013 - 07:48 PM, said:

Unfortunately, by your post you have reduced it to semantics.

AUMF is pure sophistry, meant to fool the gullible.  Tiggs and I are discussing it on another thread.

The Congress has the Power to Declare War.

The President has the power to wage war.  FDR knew the difference.  It appears you do not.

Does not really matter. Is anyone going to bring in the 100 Senators and 435 (or whatever the number was in 2001) of Representatives, to have them face Trial for the same actions. No.....

They may as well as just declaired war. The difference is semantics alone.

Presidents have been entering engagements on their own authority for over 100 years. Depending on if you include covert, and "cold" wars as engagements.

[Yamato]

Bama13, on 15 March 2013 - 02:10 PM, said:

Authoritizing the use military force is, to me, the same thing as declaring war.
Not going to argue semantics with you.

Declaring war means the start of hostilities.  You've been duped into thinking the President has that power.  Read the Constitution and stop calling it semantics.

Congress has repeatedly authorized the use of force against Iran so by your standards, we're already at war with Iran.

[Yamato]

Babe Ruth, on 15 March 2013 - 07:48 PM, said:

Unfortunately, by your post you have reduced it to semantics.

AUMF is pure sophistry, meant to fool the gullible.  Tiggs and I are discussing it on another thread.

The Congress has the Power to Declare War.

The President has the power to wage war.  FDR knew the difference.  It appears you do not.

That last declaration of war is another good case in point demonstrating one thing I love about our government in the first half of the 20th century, the signs that they still took the Constitution seriously.  They realized that to ban alcohol it would take amending the Constitution to push it through.  Now they just ban whatever they want and don't even notice the rule of law above them.

The authorization to use force, citing all the UN mumbo jumbo Saddam wasn't in compliance with, was no substitute for Constitutional authority.   Deferring to global bureaucracy like the UN was no excuse to subvert the authority Congress actually has.

I still remember the newspaper headlines on September 12, 2001.   "AN ACT OF WAR!"  I remember immediately wondering, "A war on who?"   If the President needed to deploy into Afghanistan immediately without waiting for Congress, they had a limited time to either declare the war or pull the forces back in per the War Powers Resolution but that marked the beginning of this systemic abuse of power in this unconstitutional (and yes, illegal) government that Obama is now enjoying and that all future Presidents will too, at the peril of our rule of law, our security, and our liberty.  I can't believe bama13 of all people bought that soap.  

The War Powers Resolution was the first documented shirk of the rule of law, making exceptions to the clearest language in the Constitution.   That is unconstitutional itself some would say and I tend to agree.  But we can't even follow that anymore.  Even that gets thrown out the window so our Presidents can play like Kings.   We've lost our senses with what the role of government ought to be in this country and it's time for the people to take the power back.

[ninjadude]

DieChecker, on 15 March 2013 - 09:26 PM, said:

If he did this to a private business or non-profit... Say, Planned Parenthood, and exposed all the dirty secrets... but, also exposed every woman who secretly had an abortion for the last 10 years, and put it on the internet, would that be the actions of a hero?

That's where your example breaks down. Abortion is not illegal. They were PUBLIC employees. And what they were doing was.

for example

Quote

The leaked cables revealed that diplomats of the U.S. and Britain eavesdropped on Secretary General Kofi Annan in the weeks before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, in apparent violation of international treaties prohibiting spying at the UN

https://en.wikipedia...tic_cables_leak

[AsteroidX]

I think Im agreeing with you ND...I should probably take my meds.  

[DieChecker]

ninjadude, on 16 March 2013 - 12:36 AM, said:

That's where your example breaks down. Abortion is not illegal. They were PUBLIC employees. And what they were doing was.

for example

https://en.wikipedia...tic_cables_leak

As I pointed out already in this thread, if Spec Manning had read what he found, and digested it, and reported the atrocities and crimes ONLY, and if he had done so to any Public offical in the entire US government.... I'd say let him go. But he did not. He sent in whatever he could find regardless of what was in the documents. That is his crime, not exposing crimes. Exposing crimes is commendable, and could have made him a hero. But he ruined it by just being plain stupid. 100 or 1000 criiminal documents does not excuse handing over 750,000 documents to possibly aid the enemies of our nation.

[Collateral Damage]

Yamato, on 15 March 2013 - 11:16 PM, said:

Congress has repeatedly authorized the use of force against Iran so by your standards, we're already at war with Iran.

Not yet but we undoubtedly will be.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Bama13, on 15 March 2013 - 02:10 PM, said:

Authoritizing the use military force is, to me, the same thing as declaring war.
Not going to argue semantics with you.

Think of it like this:
Congress authorising the use of military force is like them loading the gun.
The president is the guy who decides who gets shot.

[Babe Ruth]

DieChecker, on 15 March 2013 - 09:26 PM, said:

If he did this to a private business or non-profit... Say, Planned Parenthood, and exposed all the dirty secrets... but, also exposed every woman who secretly had an abortion for the last 10 years, and put it on the internet, would that be the actions of a hero?

He had no idea what he was sending. If acting out like a child... in ignorance and out of blind rage and hatred is the mark of a Hero to you, fine....

He never grew up. They should charge him as a child, because he is clearly still a little boy.

Egads what an ignorant statement.  It appears highly likely that you did not take the time to read Manning's published statement he read to the court.  In it he clearly explained his motivations--exposing the crimes of his government.  I thank him for it.

So, obviously, he DID NOT do it to a private company.  He did it to a criminal organization that has duped you to the point that 11 years on you are still not aware of having been duped.

[Babe Ruth]

DieChecker, on 15 March 2013 - 09:38 PM, said:

Does not really matter. Is anyone going to bring in the 100 Senators and 435 (or whatever the number was in 2001) of Representatives, to have them face Trial for the same actions. No.....

They may as well as just declaired war. The difference is semantics alone.

Presidents have been entering engagements on their own authority for over 100 years. Depending on if you include covert, and "cold" wars as engagements.

Of course it does not matter to you.  That is rather the point--the rule of law and good governance do not matter to you, and about half the electorate, at all.  It is illustrative of why we have the government we deserve.

To those who understand what the rule of law actually means, what the Constitution and good citizenship demand, it DOES matter.

[DieChecker]

Babe Ruth, on 16 March 2013 - 02:59 PM, said:

Egads what an ignorant statement.  It appears highly likely that you did not take the time to read Manning's published statement he read to the court.  In it he clearly explained his motivations--exposing the crimes of his government.  I thank him for it.

So, obviously, he DID NOT do it to a private company.  He did it to a criminal organization that has duped you to the point that 11 years on you are still not aware of having been duped.

I don't need to read Mannings statement. It is irrelivant. Committing 750000 crimes to expose perhaps a couple hundred others should speak for itself. If there was a child mollester teaching in a school is it OK to ruin the careers of All the teachers working there? His actions go far beyond what was necessary. If someone busts into a courtroom and kills a murder, is he absolved of the 12 guards he had to kill to do so? A handful of good deeds should not excuse even one additional criminal act.

[DieChecker]

Babe Ruth, on 16 March 2013 - 03:03 PM, said:

Of course it does not matter to you.  That is rather the point--the rule of law and good governance do not matter to you, and about half the electorate, at all.  It is illustrative of why we have the government we deserve.

To those who understand what the rule of law actually means, what the Constitution and good citizenship demand, it DOES matter.

So where in all this did Manning follow the "Rule of Law"? He stole data and handed it over to someone outside of our government. The exposing of criminal actions that Manning did is not part of the rule of law, it is vigilantism.

Where is the good governance? Manning skipped the government entirely...

Edited by DieChecker, 17 March 2013 - 03:03 AM.