🚀 go-pugleaf

"Monte" <GeeDubya@aol.com> wrote in message
news:Xns92DDA7B164B59Monte@216.168.3.44...
> "JerryMouse" <nospam@bisusa.com> wrote in
> news:pcSdnX_XCr9K9m-gXTWc3g@giganews.com:
>
> >
> > "Monte" <GeeDubya@aol.com>
> >
> >
> >> Ask yourself this question, where in any document
> >> or court ruling in the history of this nation has it ever
> >> even been hinted at that a president, let alone a
> >> bureaucrat can decide to have an American citizen killed?
> >
> > (Waving hand in air) I know! I know!
> >
> > The Constitution of the US names the president as Commander
> > in Chief with the sole responsibility to wage war. Imbedded
> > in the right to wage war is the determination of who to
> > wage war against!
> >
>
> CofC of the MILITARY.  The CIA is civilian.

Oh, good point. Although I bet somebody already thought of that and seconded
the CIA operatives to the military. It was a military unmanned drone plane,
after all.

>
> Again those rulings are referencing the MILITARY aspects.  Also
> you forgot to mention that the lower courts have just ruled that
> Padilla, being an American citizen is also allowed due process.
> Which so far he has been denied.  The key is 'DUE PROCESS'.

No such ruling. One court ruling (the latest) said that Padilla can have
access to a lawyer for the sole purpose of preparing a Habeas Corpus
hearing. The meetings will be monitored by a member of the military. All
other pleas before the court were denied. The court said the issues of
whether Padilla was an 'enemy combatant,' the conditions under which he was
confined, etc., were beyond the jurisdiction of the Judical Branch.

> >
> >
>
> Once again, at least you are consistent, you cite MILITARY
> examples to support a civilian action.  For the last goddam time
> the CIA is NOT a military branch.  Thus any actions it takes is
> NOT governed by those articles, rules, regulations etc. that
> apply to the various branches of the military.

You may have a point, but for sure the rules governing the CIA sure as shit
are not the same ones governing, say, a domestic FBI investigation when the
CIA operates in the Sudan.

>
> No one that I am aware of, has offered up the opinion that an
> American fighting for the enemy is not an equal target.  Once
> again I point out to you that such a person is selff declared
> 'at war' with the United States and as such suffers the same
> fate as any other soldier.  A Brit who enlists in our army to
> fight against a military foe of ours has only the same fate, and
> rights as a native American.  What you and other Bush sycophants
> keep avoiding is the issue of a single person, wheter Bush or
> some lower idiot in the CIA (yes, such is possible now under
> these neew rules) can simply declare any AMerican citizen a
> combatant, a terroist, and enemy of the state and have them
> executed by the CIA.  That sir is the fucking crux of the issue.

I'm not avoiding the issue. Bush can declare anyone - US citizen or
otherwise, within the US borders or not - an 'unlawful enemy combatant' and
have them shot this afternoon. Get used to the concept; it's been around a
long time.

>
> There is also the slight problem that no formal declaration of
> war has been forthcoming from the jackasses in Congress.   A
> declaration of which must be made in order for the
> Constitutional powers of the Commander in Chief to kick in for
> the president  (Admittedly this little article has been nearly
> obliterated in the last 60 years.) Only a watered down ambiguos
> piece of crap supporting the president in his efforts to protect
> america against the forces of evil at large in the world.  That
> the jackasses fail to protect the constitution is not ipso facto
> proof of its demise.

Absence of a declaration of war is not a small problem. It's actually not a
problem at all. There's a recent joint resolution authorizing the president
to use whatever force is necessary to deal with terrorists.


[snip repetition covered elsewhere]