Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Ohmar, Lee, Kaine, announce war powers resolution to prevent war with Iran

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Stay in New Zealand, you ignorant leftist. Trump is under NO compulsion to notify Congress of military strikes against lawful combatants.
    Apparently the talking points he got from the Young Turks forgot to mention a little thing called the Covert Action Statute

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      As for "top congresspeople" releasing classified information... One of the leading Democrats in the Senate, Patrick Leahy, has long been known as "Leaky Leahy" because of his habit of doing just that. In 1987 he leaked the Reagan administration's operational plans to topple Muammar Gaddafi to the MSM which forced the cancelling of the operation.
      Pure speculation. Leahy spoke out strongly about the constant leaking of materials that occurred during the Reagan administration, which infamously leaked like a sieve, probably because all the Reagan appointees were out to get each other and build their own power base within the administration. Reagan's approach to leadership (namely, to watch TV all day and leave his cabinet to bicker), lead to one of the most scandal and conflict ridden administrations in US history. It eventually made records for having the highest number of administration officials investigated, indicted or convicted in US history. Against that backdrop there's no good evidence that Leahy did the leak, as opposed to any of the number of factions within the administration, and Leahy has never admitted to it.

      His leaking got so bad that eventually he was forced to step down from the Senate Intelligence Committee where he was the top Democrat.
      Not quite. He leaked information about the draft Iran Contra report by mistake and said mea culpa and resigned after he did so. A investigative report into the administration's criminal behavior is not exactly a high-priority national secret, and he took responsibility for his act. Your wild unevidenced claims that he was a serial leaker are amusing though.

      And then of course there is Adam Schiff who regularly released information deemed classified in his attempt to get Trump.
      By mentioning that the FBI's FISA filing correctly told the FISA court which US political party employed Christopher Steele to write the report on Trump? Wow, golly gee, he's sooo untrustworthy with crucial state military secrets.

      Further, it isn't always the elected official but someone on their staff. Sort of like what we saw during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings which resulted in two Democrat Senate staffers being convicted of leaking information with one, Jackson Cosko[1], being sentenced to four years behind bars.
      Jackson Cosko's crime was doxxing some Senators. He was releasing personal information about them, not state military secrets.


      So... in general you can't name a single instance in history where any democrat or even democratic aide has definitely leaked any kind of State military secret. Yet, given that background, you nuttily speculated that the military's ability to carry out recent missions was caused by keeping them secret from Democrats???

      As usual with the right wing, it's all projection. Trump is the one who blabs secrets constantly. He's got a history of ringing up people and telling them all about what he's doing. Of telling guests at Mar-o-laga what he's doing. Of telling North Korea where the US submarines are. Of inviting the Russians into the Oval office and revealing state secrets.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Starlight View Post
        The second most powerful person in leadership in a country is not a "lawful combatant" by any stretch of the imagination, mr dung-for-brains.
        He is a member of the military, and a known international terrorist. That's 2 times the definition of a lawful combatant. I've served the US Military and DoD for 34 years. You've read CNN and TYT.
        That's what
        - She

        Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
        - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

        I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
        Stephen R. Donaldson

        Comment


        • #64
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawful...ant#Definition

          (2) LAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT.—The term 'lawful enemy combatant' means a person who is—
          (A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;
          (B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or
          (C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States
          That's what
          - She

          Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
          - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

          I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
          Stephen R. Donaldson

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Starlight View Post
            Pure speculation. Leahy spoke out strongly about the constant leaking of materials that occurred during the Reagan administration, which infamously leaked like a sieve, probably because all the Reagan appointees were out to get each other and build their own power base within the administration. Reagan's approach to leadership (namely, to watch TV all day and leave his cabinet to bicker), lead to one of the most scandal and conflict ridden administrations in US history. It eventually made records for having the highest number of administration officials investigated, indicted or convicted in US history. Against that backdrop there's no good evidence that Leahy did the leak, as opposed to any of the number of factions within the administration, and Leahy has never admitted to it.
            So in your bizarre little twisted world someone is only guilty if he confesses. He had threatened to leak the information almost immediately before it was leaked and. IIRC, the WaPo, who he leaked the information to accidentally outed him as their source.

            Then of course there was the time that while doing a television interview he disclosed a top-secret communications intercept of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's telephone conversations. Oops.

            Originally posted by Starlight View Post
            Not quite. He leaked information about the draft Iran Contra report by mistake and said mea culpa and resigned after he did so. A investigative report into the administration's criminal behavior is not exactly a high-priority national secret, and he took responsibility for his act. Your wild unevidenced claims that he was a serial leaker are amusing though.
            How does one "mistakenly" give an NBC reporter access to classified information to comb through? And he only "took responsibility" after learning that investigators had him nailed as the source.

            The fact he has a long history of leaking like a sieve is beyond dispute but then that means nothing to a nutcase that thinks Soleimani is a diplomat.

            Originally posted by Starlight View Post
            By mentioning that the FBI's FISA filing correctly told the FISA court which US political party employed Christopher Steele to write the report on Trump? Wow, golly gee, he's sooo untrustworthy with crucial state military secrets.
            Schiff's releasing still-classified Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court filings in a press release is merely one of many examples. He also released classified information while he was attacking Devin Nunes for supposedly releasing classified information, and even confirmed unsubstantiated rumors that were still classified to boot.

            Originally posted by Starlight View Post
            Jackson Cosko's crime was doxxing some Senators. He was releasing personal information about them, not state military secrets.
            Never said they were. I used it as a very recent example of how Democrat staffers have also been the source of various leaks.

            Originally posted by Starlight View Post
            So... in general you can't name a single instance in history where any democrat or even democratic aide has definitely leaked any kind of State military secret. Yet, given that background, you nuttily speculated that the military's ability to carry out recent missions was caused by keeping them secret from Democrats???
            Wrong again. The first example resulted in our having to call off a military operation (and releasing the content of Mubarak's calls likely counts as well). But since he never admitted doing it in spite of all the incontrovertible evidence means in your mind that he didn't do it.

            Originally posted by Starlight View Post
            As usual with the right wing, it's all projection. Trump is the one who blabs secrets constantly. He's got a history of ringing up people and telling them all about what he's doing. Of telling guests at Mar-o-laga what he's doing. Of telling North Korea where the US submarines are. Of inviting the Russians into the Oval office and revealing state secrets.
            Presidents can declassify information on the spot. That was, in fact, something the MSM kept solemnly proclaiming all throughout the previous Administration after all the times Obama kept "blab[bing] secrets constantly."
            Last edited by rogue06; 01-07-2020, 03:47 PM.

            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment


            • #66
              If Trump was blabbing to everyone about attacking Iran, then why were the Democrats so surprised when he did it?

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                The second most powerful person in leadership in a country is not a "lawful combatant" by any stretch of the imagination, mr dung-for-brains.
                Gee, folks are getting under your skin. Star, if the "second in command" happens to be in a battle space coordinating attacks, he has relinquished his 'diplomatic immunity.

                But do continue to rant.
                "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  Gee, folks are getting under your skin. Star, if the "second in command" happens to be in a battle space coordinating attacks, he has relinquished his 'diplomatic immunity.

                  But do continue to rant.
                  But, guys, CBS posted a video of him reading poetry!
                  Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                  But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                  Than a fool in the eyes of God


                  From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                    But, guys, CBS posted a video of him reading poetry!
                    Death to America!
                    Death to America!
                    This is my cry.
                    Death to America!
                    Death to America!
                    This is what I live by.




                    Or maybe that was star's.

                    I'm always still in trouble again

                    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      00000000000000ab000-00aaai.jpg

                      I'm always still in trouble again

                      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        [ATTACH=CONFIG]41930[/ATTACH]
                        So hard to tell if that's satire, or real news.
                        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                        Than a fool in the eyes of God


                        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawful...ant#Definition

                          (2) LAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT.—The term 'lawful enemy combatant' means a person who is—
                          (A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;
                          (B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or
                          (C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States
                          It's not about whether he was a lawful combatant or not, it's about whether it was in the best Interests of the U.S. to target Soleimani for assassination. As CP recognised it is going to ratchet up the hostilities, turn the Iranian people against the U.S. and put American citizens and the military at higher risk. Everyone agrees Soleimani deserved what he got, but was it the strategically wise thing to do, and who in the long run actually benefits from the assassination? The Iranian government certainly does, the Russians are sure to be happy about it, the anti-Americans in Iraq also seem to have benefitted. The U.S., well, we rid the Iranians of their top general. But is assassinating one man worth putting Americans at risk or getting ourselves into another long, unnecessary and expensive war? This all stems from Trumps backing out of the nuclear agreement with Iran simply because of his narcisistic need to destroy the Obama legacy.
                          Last edited by JimL; 01-07-2020, 06:30 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by JimLamebrain View Post
                            It's not about whether he was a lawful combatant or not, it's about whether it was in the best Interests of the U.S. to target Soleimani for assassination. As CP recognised it is going to ratchet up the hostilities, turn the Iranian people against the U.S. and put American citizens and the military at higher risk. Everyone agrees Soleimani deserved what he got, but was it the strategically wise thing to do, and who in the long run actually benefits from the assassination? The Iranian government certainly does, the Russians are sure to be happy about it, the anti-Americans in Iraq also seem to have benefitted. The U.S., well, we rid the Iranians of their top general. But is assassinating one man worth putting Americans at risk or getting ourselves into another long, unnecessary and expensive war? This all stems from Trumps backing out of the nuclear agreement with Iran simply because of his narcisistic need to destroy the Obama legacy.
                            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                            Than a fool in the eyes of God


                            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Is political assassination a Christian act ?

                              If the US can do that sort of thing with an easy conscience, how can it claim to be acting in accord with the Gospels ?

                              One suspects that a lot of US preachers are going to be riffling through the OT in order to “prove” that political assassination undertaken by a POTUS is totally commanded by God. And I very much hope that does not happen, for if it does, it will reflect extremely badly on US Evangelicalism.

                              It is very troubling that political assassination, when practiced centuries ago, was often embarrassing to those Christians who tolerated or allowed or commanded it - but now, it seems to trouble Christians very little. (Political assassination committed by one’s enemies was, of course, an abomination.)
                              It is as though Christians are becoming coarsened, and are prepared to defend or at least tolerate what, in saner moments, they would admit was wicked & indefencible. Christians used to oppose aerial bombing of civilian centres - that scruple is now dead. A Christianity that gives way on issue after another, commits a slow suicide.
                              Unless Christians stop acquiescing in wicked acts committed by the authority of the State, why should anyone care what they say on other, more theologically central, issues ?

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Rushing Jaws View Post
                                Is political assassination a Christian act ?

                                If the US can do that sort of thing with an easy conscience, how can it claim to be acting in accord with the Gospels ?

                                One suspects that a lot of US preachers are going to be riffling through the OT in order to “prove” that political assassination undertaken by a POTUS is totally commanded by God. And I very much hope that does not happen, for if it does, it will reflect extremely badly on US Evangelicalism.

                                It is very troubling that political assassination, when practiced centuries ago, was often embarrassing to those Christians who tolerated or allowed or commanded it - but now, it seems to trouble Christians very little. (Political assassination committed by one’s enemies was, of course, an abomination.)
                                It is as though Christians are becoming coarsened, and are prepared to defend or at least tolerate what, in saner moments, they would admit was wicked & indefencible. Christians used to oppose aerial bombing of civilian centres - that scruple is now dead. A Christianity that gives way on issue after another, commits a slow suicide.
                                Unless Christians stop acquiescing in wicked acts committed by the authority of the State, why should anyone care what they say on other, more theologically central, issues ?
                                Our government doesn’t pretend to be a Christian government. And I’m not thrilled about us being in a Iraq in the first place.
                                "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by rogue06, Today, 04:20 PM
                                2 responses
                                7 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, Today, 09:35 AM
                                7 responses
                                55 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 06:39 PM
                                15 responses
                                109 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by seer, Yesterday, 02:30 PM
                                6 responses
                                45 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 02:17 PM
                                2 responses
                                27 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Working...
                                X