Is America at war, or not?

[carpro]

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=116268

Is America at war, or not?

Are we at war – or not?
For if we are at war, why is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed headed for trial in federal court in the Southern District of New York? Why is he entitled to a presumption of innocence and all of the constitutional protections of a U.S. citizen?

SNIP

What do we do if the case against KSM is thrown out because the government refuses to reveal sources or methods, or if he gets a hung jury, or is acquitted, or has his conviction overturned?

In America, trials often become games, where the prosecution, though it has truth on its side, loses because it inadvertently breaks one of the rules.

The Obamaites had best pray that does not happen, for they may be betting his presidency on the outcome of the game about to begin

 

[Robert Snow]

Would it be a good trade off if this terrorists, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was freed, yet it resulted in Obama being a one term president? If it awakened the country to the damage Obama is doing, would America not benefit in the long run?

 

[carpro]

That is exactly what might happen.

Worth it?

That's a tough one.

 

[Robert Snow]

That is exactly what might happen.

Worth it?

That's a tough one.

I am starting to wonder if there is anything Obama is doing that is not designed to destroy the United States. Now, this may seem to be hyperbole, but honestly, I fear for the future of our country if the current trend continues. First there's the killing of our children, then the takeover of our businesses. There is the complete sell out to the environmentalists. Where will it end. In fact, I sometimes fear that the damage this president is doing will be irreversible even if he serves only one term.

It's like an adult version of the pied piper. It is difficult to get many to break the demonic spell this man and his administration has over many in our population.

 

[Revmitchell]

I am starting to wonder if there is anything Obama is doing that is not designed to destroy the United States.

nope...........

 

[Rubato 1]

Would it be a good trade off if this terrorists, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was freed, yet it resulted in Obama being a one term president? If it awakened the country to the damage Obama is doing, would America not benefit in the long run?

Good trade: for every KSM we have in custody there are several on the loose. Let him go and ditch Obama!? - I say 'Go for it'.

The problem is that we think problems will be solved if Obama is voted out. Pray tell what will we do then? And who will do it? Another half-hearted liberal conservative Democratic-Republican like the John McCain many Christians voted for?

Obama being voted out will only better reveal the greater problem - the American apathy toward truth and right.

 

[KenH]

I am starting to wonder if there is anything Obama is doing that is not designed to destroy the United States. Now, this may seem to be hyperbole

I don't think it is hyperbole at all. It's been going on ever since Grover Cleveland left office. What we have now are the cumulative effects of the past 112 years.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

Carpro, I don't think you believe in American justice. You're worried about him getting acquitted but there's that possibility in a military commission. You don't think our court system is good enough to handle this? They've convicted Jose Padilla, shoe bomber Richard Reid, and a bunch of other terrorists. What do you want to do?

Also, should we just ignore the grand jury indictment from 1996 against KSM?

 

[saturneptune]

Good trade: for every KSM we have in custody there are several on the loose. Let him go and ditch Obama!? - I say 'Go for it'.

The problem is that we think problems will be solved if Obama is voted out. Pray tell what will we do then? And who will do it? Another half-hearted liberal conservative Democratic-Republican like the John McCain many Christians voted for?

Obama being voted out will only better reveal the greater problem - the American apathy toward truth and right.

You are certainly on the right track. Neither is a good answer. The answer is elect a government that supports the Constitution, liberty, and freedom. That means neither Democrat or Republican.

 

[carpro]

Carpro, I don't think you believe in American justice. You're worried about him getting acquitted but there's that possibility in a military commission. You don't think our court system is good enough to handle this? They've convicted Jose Padilla, shoe bomber Richard Reid, and a bunch of other terrorists. What do you want to do?

Also, should we just ignore the grand jury indictment from 1996 against KSM?

Technicalities. He wasn't Mirandized. He was waterboarded, nullifying all his confessions. It will be a circus if he is tried at all. He is not a citizen and does not deserve the protections of our constitution.

The Military Commissions act of 2006 is in force and he could and should be tried there. But he can't be after the Obama idiots get him acquitted in federal court. Double jeopardy, you know. The whole thing just stinks of politics and makes a mockery of our own Constitutional rights, paid for so dearly and given away so cravenly to a foreign combatant mass murderer.

On and on.

This is one of the stupidest moves any president could make in wartime.

Completely idiotic.

BTW Padilla and Reid were citizens and the information used to convict them was not nearly as sensitive as what will be needed to convict KSM.

If it ever goes to trial at all. He may just be ordered released.

 

[targus]

In America, trials often become games, where the prosecution, though it has truth on its side, loses because it inadvertently breaks one of the rules.

The Obamaites had best pray that does not happen, for they may be betting his presidency on the outcome of the game about to begin

You are forgetting that they still have the "Bush's fault" card that they can play.

And there are still plenty enough of his drones around for that to work.

 

[billwald]

Section 8, US Constitution, duties and powers of congress:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Did Congress declare war on any Arab or Moslem state?

 

[Rubato 1]

Section 8, US Constitution, duties and powers of congress:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Did Congress declare war on any Arab or Moslem state?

Back to the original controversy in U.S. Politics: loose-constructionism vs. strict-constructionism...

 

[Dragoon68]

Those that have been fighting the war will certainly say we have been at war. Some others may try to put different names on it.

The favorite is to say it is not a war - not a legal war - because there's been no "formal declaration of war". Yet the process of deciding and funding it have followed all the requirements of law. Congress has had the power to stop it at any time they wanted but they really don't want to do that because they've known it's been just all along. They'd rather sit back, see which way the wind blows, and then claim it was all because of an "illegal" act by a President if it goes bad, or, if it goes good, they can enjoy the decision to have "supported" it.

The current administration is likewise testing the direction of the wind. They've not really acted on all those "change" ideas - whatever they were - that got them elected. They can't even seem to make a decision about what to do. They're too proud to admit Iraq was a just war instead focusing on the presumption that it should have been all about Afghanistan. Yet they can't seem to get it together in Afghanistan and they're also fooling around with a few other areas as well. Meanwhile the men an women doing the fighting and supporting the fighting just keep on doing a great job of doing what they're suppose to do.

We can't even seem to enjoy the victories we've had in Iraq. A few years ago it was widely predicted it would all end in a terrible civil war and we'd be run out of town. Yet, slowly but surely, Iraq has taken over responsibility for their own governance and requires less and less of our active support. It's not a perfect situation - it may never be - but our objectives have largely been met and we ought to just give thanks for that and a bit a recognition for those who've done it and the one President that stuck with it even though it cost him his popularity and subjected him to endless criticism by many who'd have either done nothing, done much the same in policy, or, more likely, done much worse.

But, again, to those fighting it the war it is a war complete with the killing, the destruction, the hardships, and all the other things that go on in the business of war mostly out of sight from the arguing about whether or not it's really a war - a legal war.

 

[saturneptune]

Those that have been fighting the war will certainly say we have been at war. Some others may try to put different names on it.

The favorite is to say it is not a war - not a legal war - because there's been no "formal declaration of war". Yet the process of deciding and funding it have followed all the requirements of law. Congress has had the power to stop it at any time they wanted but they really don't want to do that because they've known it's been just all along. They'd rather sit back, see which way the wind blows, and then claim it was all because of an "illegal" act by a President if it goes bad, or, if it goes good, they can enjoy the decision to have "supported" it.

The current administration is likewise testing the direction of the wind. They've not really acted on all those "change" ideas - whatever they were - that got them elected. They can't even seem to make a decision about what to do. They're too proud to admit Iraq was a just war instead focusing on the presumption that it should have been all about Afghanistan. Yet they can't seem to get it together in Afghanistan and they're also fooling around with a few other areas as well. Meanwhile the men an women doing the fighting and supporting the fighting just keep on doing a great job of doing what they're suppose to do.

We can't even seem to enjoy the victories we've had in Iraq. A few years ago it was widely predicted it would all end in a terrible civil war and we'd be run out of town. Yet, slowly but surely, Iraq has taken over responsibility for their own governance and requires less and less of our active support. It's not a perfect situation - it may never be - but our objectives have largely been met and we ought to just give thanks for that and a bit a recognition for those who've done it and the one President that stuck with it even though it cost him his popularity and subjected him to endless criticism by many who'd have either done nothing, done much the same in policy, or, more likely, done much worse.

But, again, to those fighting it the war it is a war complete with the killing, the destruction, the hardships, and all the other things that go on in the business of war mostly out of sight from the arguing about whether or not it's really a war - a legal war.

I can tell you exactly why, which you know, since you are one of the ones who know what they are talking about when this subject arises, as does carpro. Ninety percent of those on this board never served, and ninety-nine percent never fought, and quite frankly, do not have a clue. I see post after post in thread after thread commenting on war or foreign policy that have no idea or foundation for what they say except for the latest CNN or Foxnews Report.

 

[saturneptune]

Those that have been fighting the war will certainly say we have been at war. Some others may try to put different names on it.

The favorite is to say it is not a war - not a legal war - because there's been no "formal declaration of war". Yet the process of deciding and funding it have followed all the requirements of law. Congress has had the power to stop it at any time they wanted but they really don't want to do that because they've known it's been just all along. They'd rather sit back, see which way the wind blows, and then claim it was all because of an "illegal" act by a President if it goes bad, or, if it goes good, they can enjoy the decision to have "supported" it.

The current administration is likewise testing the direction of the wind. They've not really acted on all those "change" ideas - whatever they were - that got them elected. They can't even seem to make a decision about what to do. They're too proud to admit Iraq was a just war instead focusing on the presumption that it should have been all about Afghanistan. Yet they can't seem to get it together in Afghanistan and they're also fooling around with a few other areas as well. Meanwhile the men an women doing the fighting and supporting the fighting just keep on doing a great job of doing what they're suppose to do.

We can't even seem to enjoy the victories we've had in Iraq. A few years ago it was widely predicted it would all end in a terrible civil war and we'd be run out of town. Yet, slowly but surely, Iraq has taken over responsibility for their own governance and requires less and less of our active support. It's not a perfect situation - it may never be - but our objectives have largely been met and we ought to just give thanks for that and a bit a recognition for those who've done it and the one President that stuck with it even though it cost him his popularity and subjected him to endless criticism by many who'd have either done nothing, done much the same in policy, or, more likely, done much worse.

But, again, to those fighting it the war it is a war complete with the killing, the destruction, the hardships, and all the other things that go on in the business of war mostly out of sight from the arguing about whether or not it's really a war - a legal war.

I can tell you exactly why, which you know, since you are one of the ones who know what they are talking about when this subject arises, as does carpro. Ninety percent of those on this board never served, and ninety-nine percent never fought, and quite frankly, do not have a clue. I see post after post in thread after thread commenting on war or foreign policy that have no idea or foundation for what they say except for the latest CNN or Foxnews Report.

By the way, if you are interested, there is an excellent documentary on the History Channel of never seen footage and stories about WW2. It is very realistic.

 

[Dragoon68]

... By the way, if you are interested, there is an excellent documentary on the History Channel of never seen footage and stories about WW2. It is very realistic.

Thanks! I'll check it out!

 

[carpro]

Thanks! I'll check it out!

It was good. Some footage I had never seen, in color at that.

The footage from Saipan was brutal.

 

[carpro]

You are forgetting that they still have the "Bush's fault" card that they can play.

And there are still plenty enough of his drones around for that to work.

No. I haven't forgotten, but I believe that excuse is wearing more and more thin with the public, as time goes on.

 

[rbell]

Carpro, I don't think you believe in American justice. You're worried about him getting acquitted but there's that possibility in a military commission. You don't think our court system is good enough to handle this? They've convicted Jose Padilla, shoe bomber Richard Reid, and a bunch of other terrorists. What do you want to do?

Also, should we just ignore the grand jury indictment from 1996 against KSM?

*Sigh*

WHat is wrong with liberals??? Read the following, and comprehend:

HE IS NOT AN AMERICAN CITIZEN!!!!!
HE DOES NOT RECEIVE THE SAME CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES!!!
HE IS DESERVING OF A MILITARY TRIBUNAL!!!!

Good grief. That's really basic stuff.
What you think of our court system is immaterial. We are a nation of laws, and Obama, Holder, and the other morons running this country are completely ignoring them. They are putting this country at risk...as well as subverting the rule of law.