New book, 'Screwed;'

[gsvol]

No, it's not about William Jefferson aka Slick Willy aka Bubba Clinton.

How Former Congressional Leaders Lobby For Our Enemies: Screwed! Dick Morris TV: Lunch Alert! at DickMorris.com

Presently BHO is signing a raft of international treaties that all presidents from Reagan on have refused to sign and submit to congress.

And there is the possibility that this lame duck senate may approve them.

Among the more odious, ICC, Small Arms and LOST.

ICC will make our Supreme Court irrevelent, Small Arms is a threat to the 2nd amendment and LOST is like cap and trade only much worse.

 

[therealUT]

ICC will make our Supreme Court irrevelent

How? If one simply views Article 47 of the "Lieber Code" it is quite natural to think that the U.S. should have been on board with the idea of the ICC from the very beginning.

Crimes punishable by all penal codes, such as arson, murder, maiming, assaults, highway robbery, theft, burglary, fraud, forgery, and rape, if committed by an American soldier in a hostile country against its inhabitants, are not only punishable as at home, but in all cases in which death is not inflicted, the severer punishment shall be preferred.

 

[Burhead]

I have not seen anything about the White House planning to submit the Rome Statute for ratification. In fact the Obama Administration has stated we will not rejoin the Rome Statute nor submit it to the Senate.

 

[therealUT]

I have not seen anything about the White House planning to submit the Rome Statute for ratification. In fact the Obama Administration has stated we will not rejoin the Rome Statute nor submit it to the Senate.

Regardless of whether what GS reports is false (which it probably is), there is no reason that individuals like Robert Bales should be tried in the U.S. He should be tried for murder either in Afghanistan or in the ICC.

 

[Burhead]

How? If one simply views Article 47 of the "Lieber Code" it is quite natural to think that the U.S. should have been on board with the idea of the ICC from the very beginning.

It is my belief we should have turned over Robert Bales to the Hague but that is a discussion for another time I suppose.

 

[therealUT]

It is my belief we should have turned over Robert Bales to the Hague but that is a discussion for another time I suppose.

Bales
Wuterich
Behenna
Gibbs

Each of these individuals should have been tried either in Iraq/Afghanistan or in the ICC. Our military should not be in the business of protecting murderers simply because they happened to be members of a certain organization/institution.

 

[therealUT]

And there is the possibility that this lame duck senate may approve them.

If two-thirds of the Senate approve these treaties, then what is your grievance? Is the Constitution a "just law" in your opinion? If so, then is the method in which the Constitution lays out for the ratification of treaties "just"? If so, then the "liberties" that would be lost would not actually be lost, according to your definition of "liberty", as one could still do what one wanted to do within the confines of "just law". Correct?

Or, do you want to alter your definition of "liberty"?

 

[Burhead]

Bales
Wuterich
Behenna
Gibbs

Each of these individuals should have been tried either in Iraq/Afghanistan or in the ICC. Our military should not be in the business of protecting murderers simply because they happened to be members of a certain organization/institution.

I agree. I'd throw in those involved in Abu Ghraib as well. What is the objection to signing the Rome Statute anyways? Our allies in Europe, Canada, Australia, etc etc have all ascended to it.

 

[therealUT]

I agree. I'd throw in those involved in Abu Ghraib as well. What is the objection to signing the Rome Statute anyways? Our allies in Europe, Canada, Australia, etc etc have all ascended to it.

American Exceptionalism.

 

[gsvol]

How? If one simply views Article 47 of the "Lieber Code" it is quite natural to think that the U.S. should have been on board with the idea of the ICC from the very beginning.

Not really, I wholeheartedly disagree.

Regardless of whether what GS reports is false (which it probably is), there is no reason that individuals like Robert Bales should be tried in the U.S. He should be tried for murder either in Afghanistan or in the ICC.

This report abut international treaties was according to the author of the book 'Screwed' which is #3 on the NY Slimes bestseller list this week.

I disagree about Bales, he should be tried by our own military court under the UCMJ.

Bales
Wuterich
Behenna
Gibbs

Each of these individuals should have been tried either in Iraq/Afghanistan or in the ICC. Our military should not be in the business of protecting murderers simply because they happened to be members of a certain organization/institution.

Have all those guys been convicted, I seem to remember in at least one case those who were to testify against them recanted and said they had originally lied to NCIS.

Again I suppsort their trial under the UCMJ and not surrendering them to a foreign nation where they are not likely to get a fair hearing.

If two-thirds of the Senate approve these treaties, then what is your grievance? Is the Constitution a "just law" in your opinion? If so, then is the method in which the Constitution lays out for the ratification of treaties "just"? If so, then the "liberties" that would be lost would not actually be lost, according to your definition of "liberty", as one could still do what one wanted to do within the confines of "just law". Correct?

Or, do you want to alter your definition of "liberty"?

I don't see 'liberty' enhanced by submitting our sovereignty to the ICC, a kangaroo court if there ever was one.

The timing for submitting them to the senate is timed to address the fact that the Dems are likely to lose their majority and rinos such as Luger and Snowe won't be around in 2013.

I have no problem with the way the Constitution spells out the rules concerning treaties, I just oppose all those treaties for various reasons.

American Exceptionalism.

Interesting that you and burnoggin are opposed to the idea and would willingly submit to the concept of international socialist rule.

Fortunately the concept of American exceptioanalism is alive an well in America, the #1 on the Slimes bestseller list this week is "Amateur" and is about Obama's ineptitude.

 

[therealUT]

Not really, I wholeheartedly disagree.

You wholeheartedly disagree with the Lieber Code? Okay.

This report abut international treaties was according to the author of the book 'Screwed' which is #3 on the NY Slimes bestseller list this week.

And...?

I disagree about Bales, he should be tried by our own military court under the UCMJ.

The murders he committed were committed against Afghan civilians, on Afghan soil, and were not in any manner a part of any military mission. Why should the US Military have jurisdiction in this case? Do you think that individuals who come to America and commit murder should be tried in American courts? Or, should we send them back to their home countries and let them try the cases?

Have all those guys been convicted, I seem to remember in at least one case those who were to testify against them recanted and said they had originally lied to NCIS.

Again I suppsort their trial under the UCMJ and not surrendering them to a foreign nation where they are not likely to get a fair hearing.

Why are they unlikely to get a fair hearing in another court? Do you think the victims and the victims' advocates get a fair hearing when these individuals are tried in the US as opposed to the ICC?

I don't see 'liberty' enhanced by submitting our sovereignty to the ICC, a kangaroo court if there ever was one.

I do not see how an American's liberty is negatively effected when they are charged and tried in foreign courts for murders they commit on foreign soil.

The timing for submitting them to the senate is timed to address the fact that the Dems are likely to lose their majority and rinos such as Luger and Snowe won't be around in 2013.

So, there are at least fifteen GOP Senators that you think would ratify these treaties prior to 2013? Or, have you just bought into the fear that these authors are selling?

I have no problem with the way the Constitution spells out the rules concerning treaties, I just oppose all those treaties for various reasons.

Well, if they are ratified under the prescribed Constitutional manner, then they are Constitutional and, if the Constitution is "just law", they promote your sense of liberty.

Interesting that you and burnoggin are opposed to the idea and would willingly submit to the concept of international socialist rule.

I am not a socialist. I also do not want international rule. I do think that American soldiers that commit murder in foreign countries should be tried in whatever court has jurisdiction; they should not be protected by the UCMJ (and, this is made quite explicit in the Lieber Code).

Fortunately the concept of American exceptioanalism is alive an well in America, the #1 on the Slimes bestseller list this week is "Amateur" and is about Obama's ineptitude.

Irony.

 

[gsvol]

I agree. I'd throw in those involved in Abu Ghraib as well. What is the objection to signing the Rome Statute anyways? Our allies in Europe, Canada, Australia, etc etc have all ascended to it.

In Iraq some of our officers were scheduled to meet with local officials, it was a set up, five of our men were kidnapped later killed.

They intended to take them accross the border into Iran and use them as bargaining chips but were prevented by our forces.

One of those captured was a Lebanese terrorist. The Obama administration just turned him over to the Iraqi government. What do you think of that?

1. You wholeheartedly disagree with the Lieber Code? Okay.



2. And...?



3. The murders he committed were committed against Afghan civilians, on Afghan soil, and were not in any manner a part of any military mission. Why should the US Military have jurisdiction in this case? Do you think that individuals who come to America and commit murder should be tried in American courts? Or, should we send them back to their home countries and let them try the cases?



4. Why are they unlikely to get a fair hearing in another court? Do you think the victims and the victims' advocates get a fair hearing when these individuals are tried in the US as opposed to the ICC?



5. I do not see how an American's liberty is negatively effected when they are charged and tried in foreign courts for murders they commit on foreign soil.



6. So, there are at least fifteen GOP Senators that you think would ratify these treaties prior to 2013? Or, have you just bought into the fear that these authors are selling?



7. Well, if they are ratified under the prescribed Constitutional manner, then they are Constitutional and, if the Constitution is "just law", they promote your sense of liberty.



8. I am not a socialist. I also do not want international rule. I do think that American soldiers that commit murder in foreign countries should be tried in whatever court has jurisdiction; they should not be protected by the UCMJ (and, this is made quite explicit in the Lieber Code).



9. Irony.

1. I wholeheartedly disagree with submitting ourselves to the legal rule of the ICC for numerous reasons.

2. And you should read it.

3. He was under the jurisdiction of the US military and as such he is entitled to trial under the UCMJ. Your questions are comparing apples and oranges.

4. Yes. The ICC is slanted, for instance the major Serbians all died while in custody and were never convicted, not to mention they were denied a fair chance to defend themselves, meanwhile most of the moslems who were committing genocide against Serbs were never even tried and the case against the Albanians who harvesting organs from healthy young Serbians and selling them on the black market was not pursued at all.

5. To whom would anyone appeal?? Evidently you and Bur trust the ICC to be unbiased, I DO NOT.

6. If they aren't submitted then there is no chance of them being ratified, that is the best course. For instance I wouldn't trust either Tennessee senator to vote against all of them for sure.

7. That is why I oppose signing and ratifying these treaties, is that too hard for you to understand?

8. If it were up to you Congressman West would be rotting in some Iraqi jail.

9. Fortunately we probably won't have to endure another four years of Obama.


Furthermore:


ScottFactor.com Conservative Blog

Agenda 21 is a type of treaty agreement that has never been debated or adopted by the US Congress, yet it is still being implemented all across America right down to the local village level, including here on the Mississippi Gulf Coast. In a nutshell, its purpose is Marxist-style wealth redistribution and the severe restricting—or theft, if you will—of private property rights and individual freedoms, all under the guise of “saving the environment.”

This is not hyperbole, and anyone who is actually interested in the facts can very easily find them. The UN’s own website is full of information on Agenda 21 and the methods for implementing it outside of legislation, through non-governmental organizations such as citizen advisory boards, “visioning councils,” and other such planning committees.

The history of this movement goes back decades, at least to the early 1970s, but a key year was 1987 when the nebulous term “sustainable development” was coined in a report titled, “Our Common Future,” which came from the UN World Commission on Environment and Development.

In 1992, the UN's Conference on Environment and Development, the “Earth Summit,” held in Rio de Janeiro, produced three documents: The Convention on Biological Diversity, The Framework Convention on Climate Change, and Agenda 21. As one of his last acts in office, President George H.W. Bush signed on to what were called the “Rio Accords.” After all, who needs congressional review?

According to Henry Lamb, who is one of our nation’s foremost experts on the UN’s global governance plans,

“Agenda 21 contains 288 pages of specific policy recommendations which, when fully implemented, will result in what its authors consider to be ‘sustainable development.’ Chapter two calls for the creation of a ‘national strategy’ for the implementation of Agenda 21 recommendations. Within months of his election (July 19, 1993), President Clinton complied with the recommendation of Agenda 21 by issuing Executive Order 12852 which created the President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD).”
----------------------

“Problem is, most of the Think Global—Act Local socialists realize that most adults are smart enough to see through their utopian pipe dreams. Their solution? Brainwash the school children. It's not education anymore. It's indoctrination.

 

[therealUT]

1. I wholeheartedly disagree with submitting ourselves to the legal rule of the ICC for numerous reasons.

Do you disagree with the Lieber Code or Abraham Lincoln's General Order to the Army?

2. And you should read it.

No thanks.

3. He was under the jurisdiction of the US military and as such he is entitled to trial under the UCMJ. Your questions are comparing apples and oranges.

If I walk off post at Ft. Riley and kill sixteen civilians in Manhattan, KS, do you think I should be tried under UCMJ or under Kansas law? The bottom line is that neither Bales, Behenna, Wuterich, or Gibbs were acting in accordance with any official military duty/orders. They simply committed murder on foreign soil; they should not have the privilege of being tried under the UCMJ.

4. Yes. The ICC is slanted, for instance the major Serbians all died while in custody and were never convicted, not to mention they were denied a fair chance to defend themselves, meanwhile most of the moslems who were committing genocide against Serbs were never even tried and the case against the Albanians who harvesting organs from healthy young Serbians and selling them on the black market was not pursued at all.

You are still denying the genocide that the Serbian Christians inflicted upon the Bosnian Muslims? You are an idiot.

5. To whom would anyone appeal?? Evidently you and Bur trust the ICC to be unbiased, I DO NOT.

There is an entire appeals process within the ICC. I trust the ICC to be no more biased than the U.S. Judicial System.

6. If they aren't submitted then there is no chance of them being ratified, that is the best course. For instance I wouldn't trust either Tennessee senator to vote against all of them for sure.

So, you think that greater than 50% of the GOP Senators are Republicans in Name Only? If that is the case, then wouldn't be more likely that you are the fringe of the GOP Party, not them?

7. That is why I oppose signing and ratifying these treaties, is that too hard for you to understand?

I still do not understand what you are trying to say. You are simply trying to hold on to your f***ed up definition of liberty so that you can say you are pro-liberty and anti-immigrant; yet, you cannot reconcile your definition of liberty with your opposition to the ratification of these treaties.

8. If it were up to you Congressman West would be rotting in some Iraqi jail.

Preferably flogged; but, yes, someone who assaults an unarmed individual who poses no direct threat should be tried as a criminal.

9. Fortunately we probably won't have to endure another four years of Obama.

After Romney's incredibly hawkish speech yesterday, I would not be so sure of that probability.

 

[gsvol]

1. Do you disagree with the Lieber Code or Abraham Lincoln's General Order to the Army?



2. No thanks.



3. If I walk off post at Ft. Riley and kill sixteen civilians in Manhattan, KS, do you think I should be tried under UCMJ or under Kansas law? The bottom line is that neither Bales, Behenna, Wuterich, or Gibbs were acting in accordance with any official military duty/orders. They simply committed murder on foreign soil; they should not have the privilege of being tried under the UCMJ.



4. You are still denying the genocide that the Serbian Christians inflicted upon the Bosnian Muslims? You are an idiot.



5. There is an entire appeals process within the ICC. I trust the ICC to be no more biased than the U.S. Judicial System.



6. So, you think that greater than 50% of the GOP Senators are Republicans in Name Only? If that is the case, then wouldn't be more likely that you are the fringe of the GOP Party, not them?



7. I still do not understand what you are trying to say. You are simply trying to hold on to your f***ed up definition of liberty so that you can say you are pro-liberty and anti-immigrant; yet, you cannot reconcile your definition of liberty with your opposition to the ratification of these treaties.



8. Preferably flogged; but, yes, someone who assaults an unarmed individual who poses no direct threat should be tried as a criminal.



9. After Romney's incredibly hawkish speech yesterday, I would not be so sure of that probability.

1. What does that have to do with the present discussion?

2. Suit yourself but you might just learn something. I havn't read the book but did listen to an intereview with the author, he is quite articulate on the topic.

3. The UCNJ, I disagree with your opinion.

4. If there is an idiot in this discussion it isn't me.
Srebrenica and the subsequent bombing of Serbia was based on false propaganda.
The Serbian army advanced on Srebrenica because of muslim atrocities in the area including the brutal killing of thousands of Serbian civilians, even the eradicate and destruction of whole villiages.
The mujahideen forces of 8,000+ withdrew from Srebrenica and went to a UN protected area before the Serbs arrived.
The murder of 8,000+ muslim civilians was a lie put forth by the islamic fundamentalist president of Bosnia and never happened, that's why the UN despite over a decate of searching and investigating, has not found those bodies and why not even eyewitness to the so-called masacre has been located.

5. I don't!!!

6. I don't claim to be a member of the Republican party.

7. You are sort of like a dog chasing his own tail.
I oppose ratifying those treaties period.

8. Again we are diametrically opposed, he saved his men from walking into an ambush that would probably resulted some of his men being killed, you of course would have done just the opposite.

9. Yoy could pick a name out of the phone book and beat Obama, people are sick and tired of his BS.

 

[therealUT]

1. What does that have to do with the present discussion?

The Lieber Code stated that it was U.S. Military policy for members of the U.S. Armed Forces who commit heinous crimes during war to be tried under the system that has more severe punishments (it says nothing about fairness): the military code or the local laws where the crime was committed.

It was a great law and it was mostly re-instituted under the 2009 Status of Forces Agreement between the U.S. and Iraq (in which, U.S. Military Personnel that committed crimes against Iraqis from mid-July 2009 forward were to be tried in the Iraqi Judicial System).

2. Suit yourself but you might just learn something. I havn't read the book but did listen to an intereview with the author, he is quite articulate on the topic.

"You might learn something from reading this book...I have not read it." Classic.

3. The UCMJ, I disagree with your opinion.

I believe the UCMJ agrees, though.

4. If there is an idiot in this discussion it isn't me.
Srebrenica and the subsequent bombing of Serbia was based on false propaganda.
The Serbian army advanced on Srebrenica because of muslim atrocities in the area including the brutal killing of thousands of Serbian civilians, even the eradicate and destruction of whole villiages.
The mujahideen forces of 8,000+ withdrew from Srebrenica and went to a UN protected area before the Serbs arrived.
The murder of 8,000+ muslim civilians was a lie put forth by the islamic fundamentalist president of Bosnia and never happened, that's why the UN despite over a decate of searching and investigating, has not found those bodies and why not even eyewitness to the so-called masacre has been located.

And, the Holocaust never happened.

5. I don't!!!

I know; you place blind, jingoistic trust in America...well, in radical-right wing Americans.

6. I don't claim to be a member of the Republican party.

Of course you don't.

7. You are sort of like a dog chasing his own tail.
I oppose ratifying those treaties period.

On what grounds? Do they take away your liberties? What was your definition of liberty, again?

8. Again we are diametrically opposed, he saved his men from walking into an ambush that would probably resulted some of his men being killed, you of course would have done just the opposite.

I would not have beaten on an unarmed man who posed no direct threat to myself or my Soldiers. He did not save his men from anything. When I had greater reason to believe we were prone to a catastrophic IED (or, worse yet the AAIEDs that were in Bayji), we dismounted and walked ahead of the trucks; we did not beat on unarmed men that were posing no direct threat.

9. Yoy could pick a name out of the phone book and beat Obama, people are sick and tired of his BS.

Yoy could.

 

[gsvol]

1. The Lieber Code stated that it was U.S. Military policy for members of the U.S. Armed Forces who commit heinous crimes during war to be tried under the system that has more severe punishments (it says nothing about fairness): the military code or the local laws where the crime was committed.

It was a great law and it was mostly re-instituted under the 2009 Status of Forces Agreement between the U.S. and Iraq (in which, U.S. Military Personnel that committed crimes against Iraqis from mid-July 2009 forward were to be tried in the Iraqi Judicial System).



2. "You might learn something from reading this book...I have not read it." Classic.



3. I believe the UCMJ agrees, though.



4. And, the Holocaust never happened.



5. I know; you place blind, jingoistic trust in America...well, in radical-right wing Americans.



6. Of course you don't.



7. On what grounds? Do they take away your liberties? What was your definition of liberty, again?



8. I would not have beaten on an unarmed man who posed no direct threat to myself or my Soldiers. He did not save his men from anything. When I had greater reason to believe we were prone to a catastrophic IED (or, worse yet the AAIEDs that were in Bayji), we dismounted and walked ahead of the trucks; we did not beat on unarmed men that were posing no direct threat.



9. Yoy could.

1. I thought we are pulling ALL of our forces precisely because Iraq wouldn't agree to letting US servicemen be tried in US military courts?

UCMJ is one of the finest documents ever written.

It does allow the death penalty, how much more severe than that?

2. I'll get around to it somethime, in the meanwhile you still might just learn something if you read it.

3. That we should bypass the UCMJ and go to the ICC, I doubt it.

4. The holocaust happened and the moslems furnished three divisions of SS troops that were so sadistic in carrying out the genocide that some of Hitler's top generals complained to him about moslem atrocities.

The leadership if Iran does deny the holocaust and they furnished at least $50 million and shipments of arms and ammunition to Yugoslavia and in turn the top muslims in Bosnia sent severed Serbian heads to Iran to demonstrate they had won the victory.

As Canadian general McKenzie said; "We bombed the wrong side."

5. There you go with the name calling.
Actually I do trust the American system of justice far more than the utterly corupt ICC.
You, OTOH believe just the opposite.

6. The last time I talked with a representative of the RNC I told them where to get off and just exactly why!
Of course that doesn't mean I buy into the crap put out by the democrat socialist party though.

7. Different reasons for each treaty.
In the case of the small arms treaty it would definately infringe on American second amendment rights.

8. In the first place he didn't beat on the guy.
In the second place he did avert a planned ambush of his patrol.

9. Oi! Probably even some small minded nitpick could beat BHO in November.

 

[therealUT]

1. I thought we are pulling ALL of our forces precisely because Iraq wouldn't agree to letting US servicemen be tried in US military courts?

Negative.

2. I'll get around to it somethime, in the meanwhile you still might just learn something if you read it.

Blind faith in a book you have not even read? Again, this is classic.

3. That we should bypass the UCMJ and go to the ICC, I doubt it.

No. The UCMJ believes that a soldier who commits a crime off-post may be tried under the jurisdiction of the local authorities. As I stated, how is that different from what Robert Bales did when he walked off base, on his own, not under orders, and murdered 16 people?

4. The holocaust happened and the moslems furnished three divisions of SS troops that were so sadistic in carrying out the genocide that some of Hitler's top generals complained to him about moslem atrocities.

The leadership if Iran does deny the holocaust and they furnished at least $50 million and shipments of arms and ammunition to Yugoslavia and in turn the top muslims in Bosnia sent severed Serbian heads to Iran to demonstrate they had won the victory.

As Canadian general McKenzie said; "We bombed the wrong side."

Don't stop believing, GS.

5. There you go with the name calling.
Actually I do trust the American system of justice far more than the utterly corupt ICC.

And, there you go completely justifying my name-calling. You are a jingo; you trust the American system simply because it is the American system.

7. Different reasons for each treaty.
In the case of the small arms treaty it would definately infringe on American second amendment rights.

Why do you want the right to bear arms?

8. In the first place he didn't beat on the guy.
In the second place he did avert a planned ambush of his patrol.

1. He had the prisoner beaten in his presence.
2. It had nothing to do with any ambush; he thought that their was a plot to assassinate him. It was not about his troops; it was about himself.

There was one unexpected bit of fallout from this inquiry: Investigators learned that Lt. Col. Allen West...had threatened one night in August to kill an Iraqi prisoner, fired his pistol next to the man's head, and been present while the man, a policeman, was beaten. Trying to obtain information about an alleged assassination plot against him...West had personally questioned the policeman..."We're here for one reason, and that's to find out who's trying to kill me," West said as he entered the detainee's cell, according to the young soldier who served as the gunner on West's Humvee.

Everyone questioned by investigators agreed that West then removed his 9 millimeter from its holster and "told the detainee he would be shot if he did not provide information."

First the female interpreter kicked the man. Then the gunner grabbed him and shouted, "Who the **** is trying to kill him?" Then, according to several accounts, everyone in the room but West beat the man for some time--"about an hour or so," according to one private.

West then took the man outside. "Either you answer the questions, or die tonight," West said, according to his gunner. He then had two soldiers hold the man's head inside a clearing barrel..."If you don't start giving answers, I will kill you," West said, according to one of the soldiers who held the man. West then fired one or two shots past the prisoner's ear into the barrel. "As Lieutenant Colonel West pulled the trigger, the individual went stiff," this soldier added.

At that point, the senior sergeant present decided he had seen enough, "Sir, I don't think he knows," he said to West. ("It was something I had never experienced before and don't care to again," the Sergeant First Class added in his statement.)

"Put him back in the cell," West responded.

West then reported his actions to his commander, but nothing happened until the officers conducting the general investigation of the climate of command in the brigade stumbled across the incident...[West] was charged with aggravated assault, fined five thousand dollars, removed from his position as commander, and then retired from the military.

Fiasco pp. 280-281
Tom Ricks

West is a piece of ****.

 

[gsvol]

1. Negative.



2. Blind faith in a book you have not even read? Again, this is classic.



3. No. The UCMJ believes that a soldier who commits a crime off-post may be tried under the jurisdiction of the local authorities. As I stated, how is that different from what Robert Bales did when he walked off base, on his own, not under orders, and murdered 16 people?



4. Don't stop believing, GS.



5. And, there you go completely justifying my name-calling. You are a jingo; you trust the American system simply because it is the American system.



6. Why do you want the right to bear arms?



7. 1. He had the prisoner beaten in his presence.
2. It had nothing to do with any ambush; he thought that their was a plot to assassinate him. It was not about his troops; it was about himself.



West is a piece of ****.

1. Then I have been misinformed, how many bases are we going to keep open and how many men will be stationed there.

2. You make some of the most silly statements.
I said nothing about blind faith.
I said you might learn something.
And I said I had listened to an interview with the author who was very articulate.

3. I understand that much about the UCMJ.
The difference being Bales would be tried in a sharia court and denied his rights under the UCMJ. You assume Bales to be guilty do you not?

4. Let's hope you too believe some day.

5. Geez, you assume way too much.

6. Why not?

7. We'll have to agree to disagree.
Tom Ricks is a ****!

Here is another book from which you might learn something.

Book Review: The Great Destroyer | RedState

Limbaugh organized The Great Destroyer into a dozen chapters analyzing the various ways Barack Obama and his administration have embarked on all-out assaults against American ideals, his political foes, sound economic principles, domestic energy production, American business, and national security. In quiet mockery of the left’s persistent use of the terminology of war to describe everything but war, the individual chapters are titled “The War on America’, “The War on the Right” and so on, each examining the course of the disastrous administration from the perspective of a different Obama target.
---------------

“But from the beginning he has been one of the most partisan and divisive presidents in our history. Because his extremist liberal agenda has been unpopular with the electorate, he has demonized his opponents as a means of diverting attention from the substance of the legislation or policy in question and making it a contest about personalities. … He has always picked out one or more groups to target with each initiative…” (p. 37, emphasis added)
-------------------

Highlighting one of the worst ways in which the Obama administration attacks the American economy and system of laws, Limbaugh notes the system of “collusive jurisprudence” employed by the EPA and other federal agencies. The agencies use their budgets to fund dozens of environmentalist groups, many of whom — with tacit agency approval — use their funding to sue the very agency doing the funding. The agency then quietly settles out of court in favor of the suing group — often agreeing to a cash settlement. In this manner liberal bureaucrats can accomplish through the courts what they cannot through legislation.

Here is a previous book by Limbaugh:

An Interview With David Limbaugh About His #1 Best Selling Book “Crimes Against Liberty: An Indictment of President Barack Obama” | Right Wing News

You said and I quote, “The Barack Obama presidency is young, but is already the most destructive in American history.” That’s a pretty bold statement, so can you give us a sweet, short synopsis of why you believe that’s the case?

I, of course, don’t set out to empirically prove that he’s worse than some of the past failed presidents. I’m making a statement that he is single handedly driving America over a cliff financially and economically — and if he keeps going on paths that he’s deliberately set us on, he will bankrupt the nation. That alone will make him the worst president because once we reach that tipping point of bankrupting the nation, there is no returning.
--------------

I think Obama is a committed Alinskyite. He’s committed to undermining America’s founding principles. He’s committed to doing it by deceit. His whole campaign was a deceit where he claimed to be post partisan, post racial, and post grievance and all that. He was anything but what he appeared to be. He was the opposite of what he held himself out as being. So I believe that he will do anything in order to accomplish his ends.
-------------

I’m not advocating it, but if you’re asking me in the purest sense. When he threatens Arizona with withholding its stimulus funds because Senator Kyl had the audacity to suggest to him that he implement an across the board freeze on stimulus spending, he had four cabinet secretaries simultaneously send threatening letters saying we’re going to withhold your Arizona stimulus money if that’s the way you want to be. So these people think it’s their money and they can withhold stimulus money from Arizona because a senator innocuously suggests that Obama be prudent and quit bankrupting us.
--------------------------

These guys are tyrannical, dictatorial Stalinists and I would be remiss if I didn’t say that in answer to your question. So if anybody was of a mind to look at high crimes and misdemeanors, I think they’re certainly there.

 

[therealUT]

1. Then I have been misinformed, how many bases are we going to keep open and how many men will be stationed there.

You have been misinformed; the reason we pulled our combat troops from Iraq is because the Iraqi Government did not want out combat troops in Iraq anymore.

3. I understand that much about the UCMJ.
The difference being Bales would be tried in a sharia court and denied his rights under the UCMJ. You assume Bales to be guilty do you not?

Bales admitted to leaving the FOB, by himself, and killing people that night.

6. Why not?

Why do you want the right to bear arms? It is a simple question; there is no natural human right to firearms (since firearms are not natural), thus it must be a derivative of another right. Do you believe it is a derivative of the right to liberty? What is your definition of liberty?

7. We'll have to agree to disagree.
Tom Ricks is a ****!

Ricks' is a **** because he simply reported the results of the 15-6 investigation? But, West is okay because he beat on an unarmed individual who was posing no threat, never got any information from the individual, and stopped when an E-7 said that enough was enough? West's actions did not make anyone safer; did not result in avoiding any ambushes; and were judged, by the U.S. military, to be aggravated assault. Whether you agree or disagree with Ricks, he is simply reporting; West was physically harming unarmed individuals that posed no direct threat. Among Combat Veterans, I am not alone in being repulsed by West's actions.

 

[gsvol]

1. You have been misinformed; the reason we pulled our combat troops from Iraq is because the Iraqi Government did not want out combat troops in Iraq anymore.



2. Bales admitted to leaving the FOB, by himself, and killing people that night.



3. Why do you want the right to bear arms? It is a simple question; there is no natural human right to firearms (since firearms are not natural), thus it must be a derivative of another right. Do you believe it is a derivative of the right to liberty? What is your definition of liberty?



4. Ricks' is a **** because he simply reported the results of the 15-6 investigation? But, West is okay because he beat on an unarmed individual who was posing no threat, never got any information from the individual, and stopped when an E-7 said that enough was enough? West's actions did not make anyone safer; did not result in avoiding any ambushes; and were judged, by the U.S. military, to be aggravated assault.


5. Whether you agree or disagree with Ricks, he is simply reporting; West was physically harming unarmed individuals that posed no direct threat. Among Combat Veterans, I am not alone in being repulsed by West's actions.

1. So then Iraq didn't want us and therefore refused to agree to allow the continued practice of trying Americans in American courts?

2. I don't think the US has a confession from Bales.
He probably did do it. If that is true then he will be convicted and receive a harsh sentence.

3. Why would I want to give up that right or any other right established in the Constitution as amended?

4. Reporting or rewriting, his account doesn't agree with the account I've read. And what was the reason al-Qaeda had in for West? Because he was so effective winning over the locals to our side, it was they who voluntarily tipped him off to the terrorist plot.

5. Ricks is a radical left winger who wants to close West Point and also end the volunteer military and reinstate the draft. (compulsory military service.)
If what West did was so out of line why wasn't his commander prosecuted for not reporting the incident at the time it happened.

More on what we were originally talking aoubt, the treaties:

Ex-Defense chief Rumsfeld to face off with military brass over Law of the Sea - The Hill's Global Affairs

Rumsfeld's testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is especially relevant because he was former President Reagan's emissary against the treaty back in 1982, when international momentum was for it. Proponents of the treaty have been trotting out former Reagan officials — former Secretary of State George Shultz, former Deputy National Security Adviser John Negroponte — to argue that changes to the treaty would have met with Reagan's approval, but Rumsfeld's appearance throws a wrench in that strategy.

Critics say it would curtail the U.S. military's freedom of navigation while allowing a UN agency to directly tax U.S. oil-and-gas companies.
--------------------

“The so-called United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was designed to codify navigation rights in international waters,” he writes in his memoir, Known and Unknown. “But it had grown into something considerably more ambitious, with a proviso that would put all natural resources found in the seabeds of international waters … into the hands of what was ominously called the International Seabed Authority.”

Reagan's attorney general, Edwin Meese, has also been leading the charge against ratification of the treaty.

"With the treaty again under consideration by the Senate,” Meeks wrote in the Los Angeles Times this week, “it's important to note that Reagan's objections to it were anything but trivial.”

 

[therealUT]

1. So then Iraq didn't want us and therefore refused to agree to allow the continued practice of trying Americans in American courts?

You have lost yourself.

2. I don't think the US has a confession from Bales.
He probably did do it. If that is true then he will be convicted and receive a harsh sentence.

Insofar as multiple soldiers have stated that Bales came back and told them that he went out and killed those people, there is a confession from Bales. The only thing he will not admit to is killing women and children.

3. Why would I want to give up that right or any other right established in the Constitution as amended?

And, if there is enough support one day to amend the Constitution and repeal the Second Amendment, what argument are you going to make? Simply that you like guns? Or, that the right to bear arms is somehow derivative of the right to liberty?

4. Reporting or rewriting, his account doesn't agree with the account I've read. And what was the reason al-Qaeda had in for West? Because he was so effective winning over the locals to our side, it was they who voluntarily tipped him off to the terrorist plot.

His account is accurate and it is based upon the sworn statements made in the 15-6 Investigation.

5. Ricks is a radical left winger who wants to close West Point and also end the volunteer military and reinstate the draft. (compulsory military service.)

These are radical, left-wing stances? They seem quite reasonable to me and were stances held by many of the Founding Fathers (not closing the military academy, but of never having one nor a professional military). In fact, some could argue that having a standing Army is unConstitutional.

If what West did was so out of line why wasn't his commander prosecuted for not reporting the incident at the time it happened.

The military does not like bad press. If the My Lai massacre was so out of line, then how come Calley was only sentenced to house arrest? Hell, how come Colin Powell ended up as CJCS?

 

[gsvol]

1. You have lost yourself.



2. Insofar as multiple soldiers have stated that Bales came back and told them that he went out and killed those people, there is a confession from Bales. The only thing he will not admit to is killing women and children.



3. And, if there is enough support one day to amend the Constitution and repeal the Second Amendment, what argument are you going to make? Simply that you like guns? Or, that the right to bear arms is somehow derivative of the right to liberty?



4. His account is accurate and it is based upon the sworn statements made in the 15-6 Investigation.



5. These are radical, left-wing stances? They seem quite reasonable to me and were stances held by many of the Founding Fathers (not closing the military academy, but of never having one nor a professional military). In fact, some could argue that having a standing Army is unConstitutional.



6. The military does not like bad press. If the My Lai massacre was so out of line, then how come Calley was only sentenced to house arrest? Hell, how come Colin Powell ended up as CJCS?

1. What's so hard for you to understand? In every country where we have troops stationed we have an agreement with that country to try our troops for any crime with which they are charged in a court of our own choosing. The Iraqi government wouldn't agree to that and this was the reason we didn't keep a major base or so open for the purpose of containing potential Iranian agression.

2. I've only heard of one such statement and it was far more cryptic and less detailed than your account. For the sake of argument let's say your statement is true and Bales actually killed some guys responsible for the then recent spate of IED attacks, then who killed the woment and children?

3. Your dispatches from la la land are becoming tiresome and boring.

4. So you say.

5. Central banking is far more dangerous to the republic than a standing army.

6. During the Vietnam conflict on Army Major was questioned by a reporter in the field and asked about field reports. (This was when the press was trying to prove that military spokesmen were over stating the number of enemy killed in any particular battle.) The Major asked; "What good is a field report when it is going to end up on the desk of some communist in Washington?" The Secretary of the Army remended him to his home in Denver, Colo. and when his enlistment ran out he was quietly dismissed from the Army. Politicians don't like bad press either.

7. The are a common problems with all these treaties, they diminish US national sovereignty and they empower those over which we have no control. For instance who is going to run the international seabed authority. You can count on it being someone about like the murderous scroundrel that is now head of the UN tourism board.

Then too, once the treaty is ratified then come the amendments. Just as the Federal Reserve Act didn't appear to be too objectional in 1913, over 300 amendments since then have given it complete control of American money supply and the system is majority controlled by people who aren't even US citizens.

If Americans don't consider these treaties objectional now, it won't take long for them to become objectional and then it will be too late to do anything about it.

 

[therealUT]

1. What's so hard for you to understand? In every country where we have troops stationed we have an agreement with that country to try our troops for any crime with which they are charged in a court of our own choosing. The Iraqi government wouldn't agree to that and this was the reason we didn't keep a major base or so open for the purpose of containing potential Iranian agression.

Interesting, since we signed the SOFA with Iraq:

Article 12
Jurisdiction
In recognition of Iraq's sovereign right in defining and enforcing the principles of criminal and civilian law on its land and in view of Iraq's request for temporary assistance from U.S. forces as explained in article 4 and as is consistent with the obligation of U.S. forces' and the members of the civilian element to respect Iraqi laws, traditions, customs and values, both parties agreed to the following:

Iraq has the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over members of the U.S. forces and members of the civilian element regarding major and premeditated crimes, according to item 8, when these crimes are committed outside installations and areas agreed upon and off duty.

Iraq has the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over private contractors which have contracts with the United States and their employees.

The United States has the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over members of the U.S. forces and members of the civilian element regarding matters that take place inside the installation and areas agreed upon and during duty outside the installations and areas agreed upon and circumstances not included in the text of item 1.

You might argue that the "off duty" statement is quite ambiguous; however, in our pre-deployment JAG briefing in 2009, our JAG made it quite explicit that if we committed, outside of our FOB or COP, in Iraq we would be charged and tried in Iraq.

2. I've only heard of one such statement and it was far more cryptic and less detailed than your account. For the sake of argument let's say your statement is true and Bales actually killed some guys responsible for the then recent spate of IED attacks, then who killed the woment and children?

If he killed only the men, he still murdered them. Bales does not have the authority to carry out summary executions.

3. Your dispatches from la la land are becoming tiresome and boring.

You have no argument for the right to bear arms other than that it was granted in the Constitution.

4. So you say.

And others.

5. Central banking is far more dangerous to the republic than a standing army.

They are equally dangerous, in my opinion.

7. The are a common problems with all these treaties, they diminish US national sovereignty and they empower those over which we have no control. For instance who is going to run the international seabed authority. You can count on it being someone about like the murderous scroundrel that is now head of the UN tourism board.

How would sovereignty be diminished? Sovereignty and liberty are analogous, yet liberty is defined, by you, as constrained by just law. So, unless these treaties are unjust (of which, restricting liberty could not be an argument against them because that would be absurd from your point of view), then how do they diminish sovereignty?

 

[gsvol]

1. Interesting, since we signed the SOFA with Iraq:


2. You might argue that the "off duty" statement is quite ambiguous; however, in our pre-deployment JAG briefing in 2009, our JAG made it quite explicit that if we committed, outside of our FOB or COP, in Iraq we would be charged and tried in Iraq.



3. If he killed only the men, he still murdered them. Bales does not have the authority to carry out summary executions.



4. You have no argument for the right to bear arms other than that it was granted in the Constitution.



5. And others.



6. They are equally dangerous, in my opinion.



7. How would sovereignty be diminished? Sovereignty and liberty are analogous, yet liberty is defined, by you, as constrained by just law. So, unless these treaties are unjust (of which, restricting liberty could not be an argument against them because that would be absurd from your point of view), then how do they diminish sovereignty?

1. But then we are pulling our troops out, are we not?

2. That's a shame. Did that apply to enlisted men?
Do you advocate also for the ending of the all volunteer military and the reinstatement of compulsory military duty?

3. Of course but it hasn't been assertained beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it. My thoughts are that the ricidulous ROEs we are opperating under may have led to the incident. Specifically that if a soldier recieves fire from an area where there may be women and children that he cannot return fire.

Maybe 7th Army can correct me if I'm wrong.

Remember a couple of things, women and children can kill you also and our enemy is quite adept at the cowardly tactic of using human shields in this asymetrical war in which we are engaged.

Technically everyone we are fighting are civilians.

4. Although you may not, I do have at least three more.

5. Other whats?

6. I'll stick with what Jefferson said, if you think they are equal then you havn't studied the swubject enough just yet.

7. When our national sovereignty is diminished then our individual sovereignty is also diminished, or would you say otherwise?

Here are a couple more books you might consider:

Amazon.com: Crimes Against Liberty: An Indictment of President Barack Obama (9781596986244): David Limbaugh: Books

As Americans, liberty is an inalienable right that is granted to us by God, protected by the Constitution, and upheld by our government. Yet, Barack Obama doesn’t seem to share that view. To him, liberty is a threat to the government’s power and something to be squashed by any means possible, as bestselling author David Limbaugh shows to devastating effect in his new book, Crimes Against Liberty. In Crimes Against Liberty, Limbaugh issues a damning indictment of President Barack Obama for encroaching upon and stripping us of our individual and sovereign rights. Laying out his case like he would a criminal complaint, Limbaugh presents the evidence—count-by-count—against Obama. From exploiting the financial crisis for political gain, to restricting our personal freedoms through invasive healthcare and “green” policies, to endangering America with his feckless diplomacy and reckless dismantlement of our national security systems, Limbaugh proves—beyond a reasonable doubt—that Obama is guilty of crimes against liberty. Comprehensive and compelling, this is Limbaugh’s most powerful book yet.

The Great Destroyer: Barack Obama's War on the Republic: David Limbaugh: Amazon.com: Kindle Store

When it comes to our prosperity, our freedom tradition, and our constitutional government, President Barack Obama has been the great destroyer—knocking down the free-market economy and principles of limited government that have made America the envy of the world.


As New York Times bestselling author David Limbaugh documents in chilling detail in his new book, The Great Destroyer, the Obama administration has waged a relentless, nearly four-year-long war to transform our nation into a country where federal bureaucrats have more power over our lives than we do; where leftist crony capitalism dependent on government subsidies is replacing the real thing; where, in an Orwellian inversion of meaning, a savagely weakened national defense somehow makes us stronger and trillions in deficit spending on counterproductive government “stimulus” and welfare programs somehow makes us richer.


Limbaugh unveils the reality behind the administration’s rhetoric. In The Great Destroyer you’ll learn:



The true costs of Obama’s crony capitalism scandals—it’s even worse than you think

How Obama spends our economy into oblivion while relentlessly demonizing those who try to stop the bleeding

How the Obama administration has repeatedly, almost systematically, violated the Constitution to achieve its goals

How the Obama administration has empowered shadowy unelected bureaucrats to determine how we live, and the successes they already have in doing that

And much more …

 

[Scotty's Flat Top]

Can we all just agree that gsvol and therealut are sociopaths?