- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Obama breaks law by not notifying congress before taliban swap
Posted on 6/1/14 at 11:44 am to mmcgrath
Posted on 6/1/14 at 11:44 am to mmcgrath
quote:
That law would be dead on delivery if it was challenged to the USSC
I don't see a federal agency attempting to limit the rights of congress. The ones who hold said agency's purse string in their hands.
1
Posted on 6/1/14 at 11:48 am to mauser
quote:
He's too stupid to know that he's stupid.
That would be the majority of American voters.
Posted on 6/1/14 at 11:57 am to wilfont
quote:Congress doesn't have the power to threaten the USSC like that.
I don't see a federal agency attempting to limit the rights of congress. The ones who hold said agency's purse string in their hands.
Posted on 6/1/14 at 12:08 pm to mmcgrath
quote:
Congress doesn't have the power to threaten the USSC like that.
How often do you see federal agencies deliberating attempting to limit the scope of one of the three branches of government? The USSC may be considered independent but they report to congress and there is no way they're going to impede on that group's right to inclusion in this matter.
This post was edited on 6/1/14 at 12:10 pm
Posted on 6/1/14 at 12:25 pm to wilfont
I can sleep better knowing we got a traitor back.
Allah Akbar!
Allah Akbar!
Posted on 6/1/14 at 12:59 pm to gthog61
quote:
I can sleep better knowing we got a traitor back.
Definitely has Ernie Broglio for Lou Brock written all over it.
Posted on 6/1/14 at 1:39 pm to Godfather1
I am curious to know how many of us read this news and thought the exact same thing, that nothing is going to be done about this except political grandstanding.
If, and I mean only if laws were broken, does it matter to our representatives?
If, and I mean only if laws were broken, does it matter to our representatives?
Posted on 6/1/14 at 1:55 pm to BestBanker
I am sure eric holder will get right on the investigation of this.
Posted on 6/1/14 at 1:59 pm to gthog61
quote:
I am sure eric holder will get right on the investigation of this.
Susan Rice said today that the administration got the go-ahead from the Justice Dept. (aka Eric Holder) as to the legality of the "exchange" prior to going through with it. So Justice is already on record.
Posted on 6/1/14 at 2:02 pm to Layabout
quote:
The constitution trumps statutes.
what does the constitution say about having detainee's at gitmo?
Posted on 6/1/14 at 2:04 pm to NHTIGER
So EH has enough years in service to qualify for his lifetime of government pension and healthcare benefits? Next to go?
Posted on 6/1/14 at 6:31 pm to wilfont
quote:The checks are in Congress' ability to approve the court appointees made by the President. There are laws set up to protect the Supreme Court from being manipulated by the "purse strings" of Congress.
How often do you see federal agencies deliberating attempting to limit the scope of one of the three branches of government? The USSC may be considered independent but they report to congress and there is no way they're going to impede on that group's right to inclusion in this matter.
Posted on 6/1/14 at 6:33 pm to monsterballads
quote:This is the larger issue. I view it as 5 less people that we were holding illegally and didn't have enough legally gathered intelligence to make a criminal case against. We should be trading the lot of them away like for whatever we can, maybe European hockey players...
what does the constitution say about having detainee's at gitmo?
Posted on 6/1/14 at 9:06 pm to mmcgrath
why didn't obama just get rid of all of them? didn't he promise to shut gitmo down?
Posted on 6/1/14 at 9:27 pm to mmcgrath
quote:
We should be trading the lot of them away like for whatever we can,
Well some of them are wanted by others for international crimes. So it's interesting that we would at least turn them over to them for prosecution.
Posted on 6/1/14 at 9:36 pm to C
quote:It seems like anyone who was in the Taliban army is being charged under trumped up UN sanctions for the internal strife against the Northern tribes in Afghanistan. Before we needed their help, I think the Northern Tribes were considered to be gun running, drug smuggling terrorists.
Well some of them are wanted by others for international crimes. So it's interesting that we would at least turn them over to them for prosecution.
Also it will be difficult to try the detainees under international law when they can go in front of the courts and tell everyone how the US tortured them.
Posted on 6/1/14 at 9:38 pm to monsterballads
quote:We just traded 5 of them to get a serviceman back and a ton of Obama haters are calling Obama a traitor. What would they say if we released them for nothing?
why didn't obama just get rid of all of them? didn't he promise to shut gitmo down?
I think its a ticking time bomb, as soon or later some of them will die in custody. Then the public outrage will begin. I think it is better to dump them now.
Posted on 6/1/14 at 9:39 pm to mmcgrath
quote:How?
soon or later some of them will die in custody.
Posted on 6/1/14 at 9:41 pm to mmcgrath
quote:
ell everyone how the US tortured them.
Why do you think they won't be able to do this as free men?
Posted on 6/1/14 at 9:57 pm to C
quote:They might, I am just saying that any prosecution of them will be tougher after they bring up the torture.
Why do you think they won't be able to do this as free men?
And to answer JBird, people eventually die of natural causes.
Page 3 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News