🚀 go-pugleaf

"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.


> Three recent court cases (in the last three months) have
> all affirmed both this and the 1942 SCOTUS decision
> allowing the president to determine who is an 'unlawful
> enemy combatant.' The latest decision (last week by a NY 
> Federal District Judge in the Padilla case) said that, yes,
> the president can order someone up against the wall and
> shot, but there is a remedy: The president can be replaced
> at the next election. 
> 

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'.




>>
>> You assume presumption of guilt and worse you assume it on
>> the word of a polititian.  Incredible, absolutely
>> incredible the limits osme people will go to in order to
>> avoid thinking. 

> 
> It's a war. In war, the president can decide (or delegate)
> bombing targets. And neither the legislative nor judicial
> branch can micro-manage the president's war-making
> decisions. 
> 
> 

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.

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.

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.


Not amazing, but ASTOUNDING!  How in the hell can your type 
defend a situation whereby another citizen can be declared an 
enemy by someone like Karl Rove? or Dick Cheney or Dubya?  
Would you also support Bill Clintons' being allowed to decide?  
Or Henry 'Dr. Strangelove' Kissinger?  How about the likes of 
say G. Gordon Liddy?  Or that wonderfully stable J. Edgar 
Hoover?  Or Lyndon B. Johson?

Tell all the rest of us how and why you support the 
dissolution of the United States!  For that is what you are 
supporting, the final destruction of the Constitution.  You 
are giving the determination of an American citizens rights to 
an individual who by fiat and whim may declare you an 
annoyance and have you voided.

C'mon Jerry explain if you can.  And for christs sake don't 
insult us with 'I trust George W. Bush to do right.'  Even if 
the lame bastard did make correct choices, what would your 
response be to President Hillary Clintons(shudder) determining 
some American to be a threat to this country?

Monte