Vote Obama 2012

Post Reply New Topic

Makes sense to me. If we are blowing up a compound, I am not going to assume that some 20-something guy in the same compound is just some college student who happened to be there. I am going to assume that he was there to get his 2012 edition suicide bomber belt.

Well, you seem to be up to no good. I just instructed some of my goonies here to dispatch some patriot missiles to your house. It's too late to run. We know where to find you.

Which Barack Obama has officially waived in the cases you are so concerned about. Section 1021 of the NDAA of 2012 could not possibly apply, under our statutes, to an American civilian who was not engaged in terrorist activity.

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/ND ... tFINAL.pdf

If you had done any research on this before jumping the gun and going into "ret*d conspiracy theorist" mode, you would have known this before you made a f*****g idiot of yourself on a public forum. Are you getting this paranoid rubbish from Noam Chomsky's cult? Noam Chomsky is a f*****g idiot.

"In addition, the President has decided to waive application of Section 1022 at the outset
in a number of specific situations where it serves our national security interests, including by
avoiding harm to our counterterrorism efforts. Specifically, as certified in the procedures issued
today, the President has determined it is in the national security interests of the United States to
waive the military custody requirement of Section 1022 in the following circumstances:
• When placing a foreign country’s nationals or residents in military custody will impede
counterterrorism cooperation;
• When a foreign government indicates that it will not extradite or transfer suspects to the
United States if the suspects may be placed in military custody;
• When an individual is a U.S. lawful permanent resident who is arrested in this country or
arrested by a federal agency on the basis of conduct taking place in this country;
• When an individual has been arrested by a federal agency in the United States on charges
other than terrorism offenses (unless such individual is subsequently charged with one or
more terrorism offenses and held in federal custody in connection with those offenses);
• When an individual has been arrested by state or local law enforcement, pursuant to state or
local authority, and is transferred to federal custody;
• When transferring an individual to military custody could interfere with efforts to secure an
individual’s cooperation or confession; or
• When transferring an individual to military custody could interfere with efforts to conduct
joint trials with co-defendants who are ineligible for military custody or as to whom a
determination has already been made to proceed with a prosecution in a federal or state court."

Not only that, but Section 1021 of the NDAA of 2012 specifies in the first place that it is subject to the terms of a resolution passed in 2001, which you didn't bother to read.

"Sec. 1021. Affirmation of authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force."

Since it is too much trouble for you to drag your sorry, useless keester to where you can actually read the 2001 resolution, I'll just graft it onto the f*****g post.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107pu ... publ40.pdf

"Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible
for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were
committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that
the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect
United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign
policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence;
and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary
threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United
States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to
take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism
against the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the ‘‘Authorization for
Use of Military Force’’.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL.—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.
(b) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.—
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.—Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the
War Powers Resolution.
President.
Authorization for
Use of Military
Force.
50 USC 1541
note.
Sept. 18, 2001
[S.J. Res. 23]
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:42 Oct 03, 2001 Jkt 089139 PO 00040 Frm 00001 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL040.107 APPS10 PsN: PUBL040PUBLIC LAW 107–40—SEPT. 18, 2001 115 STAT. 225
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S.J. Res. 23 (H.J. Res. 64):
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 147 (2001):
Sept. 14, considered and passed Senate and House.
WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 37 (2001):
Sept. 18, Presidential statement.
Æ
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.—Nothing in
this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution."

And, as it says above, the 2001 resolution does not supercede the War Powers Resolution, which you also didn't bother to look up and read. Instead of actually researching this bill and finding out who it applies to and when, you jumped the gun and went, without detour, straight into the assumption that Barack Obama had signed into a law an act that would authorize him to come break down your door and shoot you in the head for disagreeing privately with Michelle Obama's fashion choices!

Why do you exist? Do you have any reason to freaking exist?

We have always been engaged in some conflict or other on foreign soil, since the god damn country was founded. What fantasy land have you been living in? There is no such thing as peace-time because the world stays f**ked-up.

Do you think it would be more economical to go pursuing terrorists without having a clear policy as to who and where? That's what we have been doing, and it doesn't seem to be very effective. The whole point of this appointment is to narrow the scope of who we are blowing up and when. This "assassination czar" is an improvement, you imbecile.

So you prefer for your presidents to have secret lists of people they are intent on killing rather than making them public, right? Is that it?

Being a paranoid wacko does not make you of any interest to the American government. In the unlikely event that you were to even draw their attention, you would immediately be written off as a "another useless idiot craving attention. Attention granted. Move on."

That's interesting, but I'm not sure what that has to do with Barack Obama hiring someone to try to establish a procedure for sorting out who should and shouldn't be deemed a target for assassination. Personally, I think that we should have been helping the Russians fight against the Taliban in the first place. For all of its faults, the USSR actually did a fairly excellent job with the Central Asian countries. You go into Central Asia, and you find a very different flavor of Islam. It comes across a lot like American Christianity. If the Russians had been allowed to take control of Afghanistan, I have to wonder if the outcome might have been similar, in the end. It's easy to make the assumption that the Russians would have just become more powerful and more Communist if that had happened, but they actually would have ended up a lot more stretched trying to control so much territory. Eventually, they would have had to retreat from places like Germany, anyway, just because it would no longer have been worthwhile to try to maintain a hegemony in Europe when they could concentrate their attention on places like Afghanistan a lot more profitably. Then again, you start getting into weird territory when you start trying to second-guess history.

The Taliban. We really are going to have to kill them all. There is no reasoning with fanatics. You can kill them, or you can let them spread their fanaticism until they figure out how to kill millions. There really isn't any middle-ground there.

The Taliban is not just a bunch of wackos, but they are intent on the total obliteration of human culture. They are as extreme as they come.

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_new ... 1206150009

"The Taliban seized control of Kabul in 1996 and within two years had established effective rule over most of the landlocked country.

Adopting an extreme interpretation of Islam, the Taliban decreed that women could not work or study. The Taliban also prohibited music, calling it "un-Islamic," and burned instruments, cassette tapes and other musical recordings. Many musicians fled the country."

People like Chomsky think that organizations like the Taliban are just "misunderstood." I say, kill them all. Every man, woman and child.

I get the feeling you're a very angry person, are you trying to close down my thread? I'll just make another

If I had a pet goat, I just might have to name it Nom Chompsky.

Hey, you're good at looking things up, could you look up for everyone how the government defines a terrorist?

I rarely vote for anywone these days it comes down to what figurehead you want nothing more nothing less. The sepreme court make most the decissions anyway. If things get worse I may as well fill out my paper work for duel citizenship and move to Canada.

We aren't that much better these days. The House of Commons (our version of the House of Representatives) has the majority of the seats controlled by the Conservatives, a party which got 39% of the vote in the last election. And dear old Stephen Harper seems intent on recreating Canada in the image of the USA.

ok. to get this all straight, we have a greater chance of not voting for the two top presidents. depending on circunstances. we need to have a clear thought that this world needs to have a luck charm for 2013. no mattter what president we vote for. sometimes we have to believe that is all but a money jug for the presidents to do. look at what happened with the guy at the senate. he made his point by getting pissed. he was right the government did the same thing over and over again. doing nothing but stealing money. ron paul should be next. but he might just go with romney's campaign.

Last edited by autismthinker21 on 18 Jun 2012, 3:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It doesn't necessarily have to be Ron Paul, but Mitt And Barry should be out of the question. Goldman Sachs decided the ticket for us.

You would make Siddhartha Gautama swear.

My reputation precedes me.

Just telling it how I see it.

That wasn't my point of voting for Ron Paul, i mean't by believing in god. sometimes the best thing to do is pray for a lucky chance for 2013. but since the presidents like to rack in money from everyone, it's pointless to do elections every 4 years. but oh well. who cares what president it is. sometimes it's best to let it run it's course. but no the president we have now doesn't leave things alone. instead he goes around the world and spends our hard earned money to make peace with everyone. america needs to be fixed before we can help the other capitals around this world. good grace. idiots.