Will Saddam go Free?

See, you have joined with the Constitution Party, the Libertarians, the Communist Party, Cindy Sheehan, leftist Democrats, and who knows what other groups in saying that the war is illegal.

However, you do not have any court decision to back up your claim.

Also, Poncho, you have yet to answer my question as to the legal status of Saddam if he were captured illegally?

 

No, what I'm saying is congress, instead of declaring war as is their constitutional power to do, instead left it up to the President to prove his case for war (a clear and imminent threat) according to the WPA of 1973 which was, like it don't the law of the land at that time. I don't have to join with any one to ask questions and seek answers. Did he (POTUS) or congress make any decree resolution or even a statement that the WPA standards were met? So far I believe the answer to that is no.

Not yet, and with the current coruption of the courts and congress I do not see one coming anytime in the near future.

I would think the answer would be fairly obvious CMG, if he were captured illegally it wouldn't be legal. Would it?

 

See how your mistaken premise about the Constitutional powers of the President and the Congress leads you to a false conclusion? However, look at all those who think that the war is illegal but yet want to try Saddam for war crimes.

What cannot be answered by the right and by the left is how Washington could conduct the Whiskey Rebellion and Jefferson the war against Islamic pirates, etc, etc, etc. That makes the whole issue null and void. Congress is not saying that the war is illegal, the President is not saying that the war is illegal, and the Court is not saying that the war is illegal because all branches of government are acting within their Constitutional authority.

Saddam's trial for crimes against humanity and human rights abuse is legal in any venue.

 

How are my premises mistaken please explain. Why should I base my opinion on the opinions of others when I can look at the law for myself?

It doesn't need to be answered by the right and the left. Historical precedents do not take precedent over legal precedents or the rule of law at the time of a declaration of war which did not happen in this case. The law in this case is the WPA of 1973. There was no proclamation from the POTUS or congress that the standards set forth in the law (the law of the land at that time) were met.

Doesn't matter what they are saying or not saying, it is what they can prove according to law. You have made the statement that the court, the president and congress are acting within their Consitutional authority, and you also made the statement that the Iraq war is legal. The burden of proof is on you to prove both. Can you do it?

 

I have proven that the war is legal. All 3 branches say that it is legal. The case is therefore closed. The powers of the Commander in Chief date to George Washington and stem from the Constitution.

Poncho, you need to get out of bed with the leftists. During Viet Nam, the far-right supported the war because it was against communism and communist expansion. Now the far-right has gotten into bed with the leftists. Now since the Viet Nam war was legal so is this one.

I hope that you do not join the leftists in saying that George Washington is a war criminal who acted illegally in the Whiskey Rebellion and that Thomas Jefferson is a war criminal who acted illegally against the Islamist pirates on the shores of Tripoli.

 

If indeed all three branches have said the war is legal then you should have no difficulty in showing us the decrees, mandates, resolutions or statements by one or more branches saying that the standards of the 1973 WPA were met by this administration. Where are they?

 

Church mouse guy quote

"all branches of government are acting within their Constitutional authority."

No, they are acting from directives issued by their superiors of the Illuminatti, not the Constitution.

The following is from the Protocols written by the Edomite Rothschild:

WE NAME PRESIDENTS
Protocol 10:

11. In the near future we shall establish the responsibility of presidents.

12. By that time we shall be in a position to disregard forms in carrying through matters for which our impersonal puppet will be responsible. What do we care if the ranks of those striving for power should be thinned, if there should arise a deadlock from the impossibility of finding presidents, a deadlock which will finally disorganize the country? ...

13. In order that our scheme may produce this result we shall arrange elections in favor of such presidents as have in their past some dark, undiscovered stain, some "Panama" or other - then they will be trustworthy agents for the accomplishment of our plans out of fear of revelations and from the natural desire of everyone who has attained power, namely, the retention of the privileges, advantages and honor connected with the office of president. The chamber of deputies will provide cover for, will protect, will elect presidents, but we shall take from it the right to propose new, or make changes in existing laws, for this right will be given by us to the responsible president, a puppet in our hands. Naturally, the authority of the presidents will then become a target for every possible form of attack, but we shall provide him with a means of self-defense in the right of an appeal to the people, for the decision of the people over the heads of their representatives, that is to say, an appeal to that same blind slave of ours - the majority of the mob. Independently of this we shall invest the president with the right of declaring a state of war. We shall justify this last right on the ground that the president as chief of the whole army of the country must have it at his disposal, in case of need for the defense of the new republican constitution, the right to defend which will belong to him as the responsible representative of this constitution. (Iran? Grenada? Kuwait? Iraq? Panama? Somalia? Bosnia? Kosovo? Indonesia?)

14. It is easy to understand that in these conditions the key of the shrine will lie in our hands, and no one outside ourselves will any longer direct the force of legislation.

15. Besides this we shall, with the introduction of the new republican constitution, take from the Chamber the right of interpolation on government measures, on the pretext of preserving political secrecy, and, further, we shall by the new constitution reduce the number of representatives to a minimum, thereby proportionately reducing political passions and the passion for politics. If, however, they should, which is hardly to be expected, burst into flame, even in this minimum, we shall nullify them by a stirring appeal and a reference to the majority of the whole people ... Upon the president will depend the appointment of presidents and vice-presidents of the Chamber and the Senate. Instead of constant sessions of Parliaments we shall reduce their sittings to a few months. Moreover, the president, as chief of the executive power, will have the right to summon and dissolve Parliament, and, in the latter case, to prolong the time for the appointment of a new parliamentary assembly. But in order that the consequences of all these acts which in substance are illegal, should not, prematurely for our plans, fall upon the responsibility established by us of the president, WE SHALL INSTIGATE MINISTERS AND OTHER OFFICIALS OF THE HIGHER ADMINISTRATION ABOUT THE PRESIDENT TO EVADE HIS DISPOSITIONS BY TAKING MEASURES OF THEIR OWN, for doing which they will be made the scapegoats in his place ... This part we especially recommend to be given to be played by the Senate, the Council of State, or the Council of Ministers, but not to an individual official.

16. The president will, at our discretion, interpret the sense of such of the existing laws as admit of various interpretation; he will further annul them when we indicate to him the necessity to do so, besides this, he will have the right to propose temporary laws, and even new departures in the government constitutional working, the pretext both for the one and the other being the requirements for the supreme welfare of the State. (Presidential Decrees such as F.D.R. employed to debase the US dollar and steal the gold and to place the U.S. under a permanent State of Emergency and War against its own citizens?)

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/przion4.htm#Protocol%20%20No.%2010

 

Who voted for this???? Will the mystery voter come forward, is this a joke or are you serious??? </font>[/QUOTE]Well, it wasn't me I haven't even voted in this poll. For what it's worth I say let the Iraqi's try him and do what they will.

 

That's what I am saying. You are willing to abandon a human being to something that you consider illegal.... I guess actions speak louder than words. The Congress acted, the President ordered, and the Court dismissed (which is what happened to the Viet Nam war case). President Washington and President Adams and President Jefferson are war heroes even though they had no declaration of war because they did not need it. President Bush has Congressional permission. The overwhelming majority of Democrats say that the war is legal.

Mrs. Sheehan and Mr. Peroutka are defeated.

 

I'm not abadoning anyone to anything CMG. I don't view the Iraqi judicial system as illegal unless the outcome of the trial is coerced by the multinational powers which have an interest in privatizing Iraq's wealth (unto themselves) or by a secret military tribunal run by them.

The overwhelming majority of Democrats are nothing more than a controlled opposition. They come out on cue and say stupid things at precisely the right time so the so called conservative republicans can spend their time making fun of them and not recognize the positions that both parties play in the globalist corporate bankers scam on America. Despite their best efforts I am glad to say that more people everyday are becoming aware of the scam. I think George Bush is probably the best thing to happen to the American patriot cause, without his supposed rumbling stumbling fumbling routine for the cameras a great number of people would still be snoozing. Even the republicans are begining to wake up. Oh happy days!

The congress caved in under duress and gave "permission" as you call it by fiat, the courts are corupt and have a vested interest in the scam also.

The only people to be defeated if we let this go on to the next stage (nuking Iran or attacking Syria or otherwise widening the conflict) are the American people and the people of the world. I expect when things get bad enough even you will finally come to your senses.

 

Oh, Poncho, the Iraqi judicial system obtained jurisdiction through an illegal war. If Bush were indicted as a war criminal for this illegal war and tried, certainly the illegal trial of Saddam would be part of the case against Bush.

Sorry, Poncho, you can't have your cake and eat it, too.

 

Still haven't come up with the resolution mandate decree or statement that the standards of the WPA 73 were met eh?

Enjoy your cake while you can mi amigo, less than four and a half years till the full implementation of the "North American Community" is in place. Then you can debate with the elite's brownshirts about whether or not you are allowed to eat it.

 

Adios, Amigo. The constitution prevails. Look forward to your war crime trials against George Washington. I could admire your position if you insisted upon freeing Saddam as a first step in correcting an illegal situation.

 

CMG, the constitution offers little threat to the form of government we now have. Have a happy day comrade global citizen. Nice job of side stepping my questions btw.

 

Congress authorized it, but this is a very local, insular standard for an international war. Do you consider that the only "valid" standard?

Which Laws of War do you mean? Perhaps I should know, but I don't.

 

Congress authorized it, but this is a very local, insular standard for an international war. Do you consider that the only "valid" standard?

Which Laws of War do you mean? Perhaps I should know, but I don't. </font>[/QUOTE]Our law - including the terms of those treaties to which we subcribe with other nations - is the only law to which our nation is bound in our soverign right to defend ourselves.

We may, in the interest of diplomancy, seek international approval and cooperation to the extent it can achieve desired goals, but we are not bound by the laws of other nations.

The "Law of War" is a body of federal law, regulations, doctrine, and orders that describe legal matters concerning our conduct in making war.

 

Told you so. LE,

I sure will be enjoying that steak dinner when the Iraqis put a bullet through his head.

Joseph Botwinick