- Comment by on November 21, 2011 at 4:34pmGood resources? Nah - I expect he's just repeating stuff he's read elsewhere. No brains or thinking or logic in what he wrote. Probably a liberal/fascist.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
- Comment by on November 25, 2011 at 8:35am1. The President doesn't have a general authority to arrange for "hits" on American citizens. However, in war zones or in times of war, American citizens who become traitors are properly subject to being killed as enemy combatants.Just as, if you and I invade a federal building and take hostages and start shooting hostages, it is unlikely that federal law enforcement will let us shoot every hostage, then capture us and try us in court. At some point, when we refuse to surrender and continue shooting, the feds should send in snipers to shoot us. We are demonstrated murderers, and to limit the harm we are doing, the feds must kill us. Even thou we are U.S. citizens, we do not get a trial. There is no problem here! We must be stopped.If our troops can’t feasibly capture American citizens who are fighting with the Enemy (and who among us would want any of our Troops to risk their lives to capture alive such traitorous scum?), then why not shoot them? They are the ones who chose to take up arms against us.If you break into my house with a weapon after dark when I am alone, I will shoot you. You won’t get a trial. The purpose of War is to kill the bastards fighting on the other side; not capture them and give them trials.2. Re formal declarations of war against nation states: WE MUST ADAPT TO THE CHANGING NATURE OF WARFARE! The days when “war” was between nation states is over. It was The Treaty of Westphalia (circa 1648) which restricted “warfare” to nation states. Before that, “war” was a more decentralized affair: This Duke against that Earl, armed peasants against such & such a town, etc.However, starting with WW I, warfare began to change once again: It began to be no longer restricted to the nation states. Loyalties began to transcend national boundaries: hence, the “international communism” of the Marxists.WW II was fought between nation states; but today, the Muslim fanatics transcend national boundaries. William Lind is an authority on this new mode of warfare - I think he calls it “Fourth Generation Warfare”. It is imperative that one understand that the Muslim jihadists have made the 17th century model of war set forth in the Treaty of Westphalia outmoded.WE must change our 17th century mindset about the nature of War. We need to adjust our thinking so we can handle the non-state enemy combatants who are making war on us. These new Muslim enemy combatants come from all countries – even our own! The Muslim terrorists who make war on us are not "soldiers" of a "nation state". Their loyalties transcend national boundaries.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Comment by on November 25, 2011 at 9:14amWell I know our David isn't legitimizing Islamic jihadists - but I expect he is concerned about that Indonesian in the white house putting out hits on American citizens: First an islamic jihadist; then a "tax protestor"; then ....us!Which just goes to show that We The People should spend at least as much time on deciding for whom we vote for President as we do to deciding which new car to buy. Our President needs to be a person whom we can TRUST with such power. We can't trust the current occupant of that office.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Comment by on November 25, 2011 at 9:28amMy comments about the changing nature of warfare from the 17th century model to today's stateless jihadists does not interfere with the original intent of The Constitution one whit. WARFARE changes - one reason we beat the British was b/c they practiced the old-fashioned warfare where the opposing forces formed lines and marched on each other; whereas our Citizen Militia practiced guerrilla warfare (Mel Gibson's unit illustrates this in "The Patriot").After the Treaty of Westphalia, war was the exclusive province of Nation States. But the Muslim jihadists have changed that: NOW, war is conducted by stateless Muslims from many different countries (including ours), against Western Civilization.But The Constitution remains able and effective - if we would only use it. The issue David raised shows the importance of electing an honorable and capable person to the Presidency - a person whom we can Trust as Commander in Chief.Jon, search William Lind and fourth generation warfare - it is fascinating. Lind is fascinating.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Comment by on November 26, 2011 at 11:19amI may not have been clear."Due process" is a legal term which has reference to fair trials (the right to appear, to compel the attendance of witnesses in one's favor, the right to cross-examine witnesses for the other side, a jury of one's peers, etc.) . "Due process" is great - and we ought to have it in all our criminal trials.But War is an entirely different matter. In War, we need to kill every combatant on the other side we can. "Due process" has nothing to do with War. War is about killing - it is not about "fairness" (as in a "fair" trial). The fascist liberal left (and some of the libertarians) do us great harm when they apply "due process" principles to the battlefield.While I was for some years a military officer, I was not a combatant. But I know enough about war to know that our business in war is to Kill - it is not to find out who among the enemy is a U.S. Citizen and then read them their Miranda warnings!And the concept of "due process" - fair trials - comes from the Bible:Bearing false witness is condemned (The Ten Commandments); the evidence of two or more witnesses is required to prove a case (Deut 19:15 & Matthew 18:16); public trials are required (Exodus 18:13); & judges are required to be fair, impartial, & without favoritism. (Deut. 1:16-17).
- Permalink Reply by on
- Comment by on December 1, 2011 at 6:59amIt's any case of federal cognizance in which a State is a party where, pursuant to Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2, the supreme Court has "original jurisdiction" [i.e., trial jurisdiction]. States are involved in many cases which are not "of federal cognizance" - e.g., state criminal prosecutions. Those cases are properly handled in the State Court systems.The cases involving States "of federal cognizance" are listed in clause 1: E.g., "Controversies between two or more States", cases involving a State and a provision of the U.S. Constitution, Cases involving a State and federal statutes, etc.The Constitution grants original jurisdiction [trial court] over such cases to the Supreme Court alone. The Constitution does not grant jurisdiction over such cases to the lower federal courts.The great constitutional issue of our time is must the federal government obey the Constitution? Today, most lawyers, federal judges, and everyone in Congress and the Executive Branch say, "no".But the original intent of the Constitution is very clear: ONLY the supreme Court has jurisdiction to conduct the trials of cases of federal cognizance in which a State is a party. There are great policy reasons for this, as Alexander Hamilton points out in the Federalist Papers (see link below). If any supreme Court judge seeks to shirk his responsibility imposed by The Constitution of the United States, and shove it onto lower courts to whom the power was NOT granted, then he should be impeached and removed.I have two papers on this which explain what Hamilton says about this in The Federalist Papers. http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/original-and-appellate-...
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
- Comment by on December 7, 2011 at 5:02pmLandshark, If the House Rules say that all resolutions of Impeachment must be referred to the Judiciary Committee, then so be it. So yes, any Congressman who is not on the Judiciary Committee must defer to that Committee on issues of impeachment.But as a practical matter, if the Judiciary Committee doesn't support impeachment, it won't go anywhere.If I were in Congress, House Judiciary is the one Committee I would want to be on!
- Permalink Reply by on
- Comment by on December 9, 2011 at 9:15amThomas, under the Hague & Geneva Conventions, enemy combatants may be held for the duration of hostilities. No trials, no hearings, no "due process". They may be held until the hostilities are over. That is a sensible and rational policy.The liberal progressive left (and their ideological allies, the loony libertarians) have really muddled things by confusing & mixing up the Law of War (the Hague & Geneva Conventions address treatment of POWs) with domestic criminal law!It is idiotic to give these POWs trials. Plus, it is dangerous. I'm telling you, as a former criminal defense lawyer, that in criminal trials conducted under American Rules, the evidence files of the prosecution are open to defense counsel. Everything the prosecution has - all the sources all the evidence - is available to defense counsel. We call this "Discovery". The prosecution may want to protect its "confidential informants", but defense counsel can ask the judge to force the prosecution to reveal the identity of these informants. With increasingly leftist and reality-challenged federal judges, the inclination to protect such sources shrinks every day.Decades ago, I used to teach the Hague & Geneva Conventions, but don't remember the particulars on the required treatment of captured spies out of uniform.Again, part of our difficulties on the treatment of these people is that we are not fighting "Declared Wars" - we are fighting things like "overseas contingencies" ; and we are fighting something very vague & indefinite: Not "Islamic jahidist bastards" but .... what do we call our enemy these days?Also, b/c of our idiotic immigration and open borders policies, we are being flooded with enemy infiltrators. We are sure to come to bloody war where we - on an individual, family and neighborhood level - must defend ourselves from the islamic jihadists. Prepare.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Comment by on December 11, 2011 at 10:03amOh, I see that Landshark asked about our domestic labor market. No, I never heard any talk from the early days of our Republic about protecting "American jobs". Today, American jobs have disappeared b/c the federal government makes it too big a hassle & expense to have employees. I am one of many who "shrugged" b/c the federal and state and county governments made running a business too big a hassle to put up with. We have a fascist system where property nominally remains in private hands, but the federal government dictates all aspects of running private businesses and employer-employee matters.And yes, Vern: International commerce is one of the few matters over which The Member States delegated certain authority to the federal government.
No comments:
Post a Comment