Obama Admits he Violates the Constitution

Best case scenario is Obama has no clue, which is what he was saying in the speech.. Questions are raised and he's not so sure this is all legal and constitutional. It's apparently not important enough for him to know for sure. He'll continue demolishing people while he scratches his head over whether or not this is all kosher.

So he's clueless but who gives a (*)(*)(*)(*) he's still going to do it all the same regardless, or he knows damm well he's using the constitution for toilet paper. Either way you have to point a finger.

It's like the Benghazi attack, there's no way you can spin all the known facts in which the president isn't somehow guilty of something... We always let anyone slide on incompetence so we probably can this time too. We have for decades let our presidents get away with whatever crimes they want. We even let the law be changed to excuse presidents for laws they broke in an ex post-defacto manner like we did for Bush and his torture pals... We now sign off on extrajudicial assassinations of US citizens if we signed off on that we did so for everything.. Self-destructive US policies rubber-stamped by the public... It's really sad if you think about it. But every single last scrap of the government blank check is there for them. Maybe because their campaigns were expensive enough to impress thanks to all their corporate pals.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah exactly it's the same excuse used by the hypocrite piece of (*)(*)(*)(*) to demolish any "associated forces" he wants. Except for himself.

 

I stopped listening to Obama long ago. He, like all those in his administration know nothing, and are investigating everything and will get back to us. No one takes any responsibility, no one gets fired, and nothing is ever revealed.

 

Welcome to the real world. Stay a while.

 

Not only does Obama admit to violating the constitution, but he's very proud of it. He abuses the constitution just to spite and thumb his mischievous nose at conservatives. He enjoys riling up conservatives.

Nevertheless, the constitution belongs to Obama, so can do whatever he wants with it.

 

Are you assuming that the government doesnt' know either?

this is a completely disengenous argument. It has been pointed out time and again that "fast and furious" was a plan (not much of one I grant you) that originated and was approved during Bush's presidency. the fact that it was a clustermuck can not be taken as a measure of the "administrations" incompetence, but it can be taken as a measure of the FBIs and homeland's security's.

You seem to be operating under a veil of innuendo and unsubstantiated accusations when you claim the rebels are using chemical weapons. Suicide car bombs are high profile but not very effective from a military standpoint. And of course, why level the playing field since its far better to let the baathists be the only one's with night vision.

Interesting what you consider the best case scenerio. A guilty administration. Not a successful revolution or even a resounding victory for the fascists. you'll forgive me if I totally disagree with that partisan wet dream. Have you stopped to consider the arab saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"?
Since the secular rebels outnumber AQ by thousands to one, could it be that upon victory over the baathists, the secularlists might simply wipe out the AQ members, since they will know who they are, where they are, and what they are armed with.? Is that a possibility you have considered and discarded and if so by what rationale?

Ummmm. His daddy and his murderous policies and virtual annexation of Lebanon "for their own protection", support for the operation responsible for the death of over 200 marines? Juniors own support and aid to hezbollah, the support of Hamas, the harbouring and training of known terrorists, covert involvement in Iraq, and a couple dozen other possible reasons? Naaaaah, I heard its really because he has bad breath.

For a rag tag group of mostly illiterate religious fanatics, they sure as heck scare some americans out of all proportion.

 

Really? This is the defense? Fast and Furious was Bush's fault again? Putting dog crap in a bag, lighting it on fire on an old persons doorstep and then knocking on the door and watching them stamp it out is all fun and games until someone's house gets burned down. Can we blame Bush for all of those incidents also?

 

We should blame Bush for getting Osama.

 

Reality is that Obama took full credit for killing Bin Laden and then fully disclosed the unit that actually did his dirty work. Of course, we all know about the 20+ dead Navy Seals killed by an RPG BECAUSE OF OBAMA. Or do we? Has the mainstream media kept this information out of the grasp of the average Forrest Gump in the USA?

 

The only one saying anything "partisan" is you..

Now you haven't answered, why are the Syrian regime enemies to the United States as you claimed? In fact, how are they worse enemies than A.Q ?!?!

 

Bwaaaaaahahahaha !!!!!

 

the sad thing is I think you actually believe that.

I thought I provided you with a list of minor infractions that friends don't do to friends.
I don't recall a request for a value judgement on "who is a worse enemy?.

I would have to say that a nation state is slightly more powerful than an amorphous rag tag collection of poorly armed and financed terrorist/guerilla fighters, whose agenda is essentially single issue religious in nature.

 

what a crock. I guess Obama wanted the murderous seal scum dead so they couldn't reveal love letters found beside binnies bedside in a box labeled O & O forever.

navy seals get killed because they are in combat, doing their jobs.

 

Quote me then. The only one who keeps crying "partisan" is you.. Quote my partisan statement if you want to sit here and accuse me of it.

It's crucial for your argument. Obama is okay to sign off on Al Qaeda and associated forces getting military hardware because they are on the same team as the mortal enemy to America, Assad.

So you explaining how Assad is an enemy to America, even worse than AQ considering we are subordinating the enemy status of AQ in order to get rid of Assad, is critical to your own argument.

I don't see any reason to give these "rebels" military hardware, or any way to know that the equipment won't wind up in even worse hands.

But you think it's okay and justified in ousting Assad as he's an enemy, so you must make that case about how he's a threat to the United States or why there is any necessity to provide military hardware to terrorists to get him overthrown.

Why aren't we siding with Assad since he's fighting AQ? AQ is our enemy so we should allied with Assad per that "enemy of my enemy" principle. Explain why AQ are not the enemy compared to Assad.

It's your argument, so make your case against Assad.

 

if in re=reading your OP you cannot identify your partisanship, it seems a waste of time to engage in a school yard "did to, did not" scenerio.

a total mischaracterization. Obama is not okay to sign off on AQ getting weapons. Perhaps you can explain why you whinge about him killing AQ all over pakistan, afghanistan, Yemen, etc and then whinge about him supporting AQ in syria. Seems Obama is completely inconsistent, and not at all like you who consistently whinges about everything he does.

You insist on mischaracterizing what is going on is Syria.
You seem to know all about what is happening there and how AQ is such a monster presence influencing and dominating the rebel side. You seem to know that anything done to assist the rebels in overthrowing a meddling totalitarian fascist regime is in actuality aiding a rag tag bunch of semi-literate religious fanatics.

very narrow intpretation of the geopolitical situation not based on fact, but based on conjecture.

I have. His regime is totalitarian. His security apparatus murders and tortures its own citizens. He harbours all kinds of terrorists including Hezbollah, Hamas, IJ and an alphabet of others, providing the safe haven, intelligence, training and $$. He has covert operatives in Iraq stirring up trouble in conjunction with Iran. Syria is on the wrong side of the balance of power, which is deterimental to US interests. Syria smuggles arms to hamas and openly arms hezbollah and others. Syria is also involved in destabilization efforts of their old nemisis in the arab world - egypt. Their position and their belligerence towards the west makes them an enemy and a potential threat to american interests and allies. Notice how they are trying desperately to get Turkey involved in the mess?

But none of this is going to persuade you, as you have drunk the koolaid on the how massive a threat AQ is. The big buggaboo enemy that has no state, has a few thousand fighters and americans quiver in their boots about the ghost of Binnie rising up to bite them in their arse.

 

Not if you simply prove the "did it". Show where I mentioned any political party please.

I'm not convinced all his drone strike targets are AQ. His list is secret. He releases the odd terrorist name here and there thinking this will cause us to assume that ALL of hist targets are.

God only knows who he's blowing up.

Bradley Manning didn't give any documents to AQ, just Wikileaks. But he's being charged like a traitor for assisting the enemy.

Surely Obama can be held to his OWN standards.

 

So simple.. No. If someone chooses to leave these borders to go fight elsewhere, I hardly consider that choosing to betray this country and kill us. Some Al Qaeda member over in, say, Yemen is hardly a threat to me. He is, however, a threat to American occupiers.

 

You'll just get the 9/11 card by saying this.. They are a huge threat somehow because of 9/11, even though we have since learned our lesson about letting people bring weapons onto planes.

You're right. The threat to the homeland is small. If protecting the homeland and citizens in it were the agenda, then they would invest more money into anti-street gang task forces and law enforcement grants to fight these violent gangbangers. THEY are the ones spilling the blood of the innocent all across the major cities. MANY 9/11s worth.

 

Good for you, you are not convinced. So not convinced that you insinuated that Obama is not just targeting terrorists, but ?? civilian/religious/political?? take your pick, without a single shred of evidence to indicate anything of the kind.
It is laughable that the Commander in Chief doesn't know who his security/military apparatus are killing on foreign soil. There are dozens possibly hundreds of individuals who know exactly what the results of every drone attack are. So god ain't the only one who knows, jackie.

By any measure the good corporal broke his oath and would appear to have committed a crime in the process. We shall see. Hopefully this case might shape a modification for whistleblowers, but as clouseau said " de lowah is de lowah".

 

He's the President. That's right at the top of the job description.

 

First of all, sorry this is from ages ago... (mods can move the post if necessary... This isn't any worse than a waltky bump though!) But this one must have flown under my radar.

I'm not claiming, or insinuating who Obama is or is not targeting. I don't know. You don't know. The public don't know. The courts don't know. I admit I don't know. That's why, I'm not going to assume Obama only targets terrorists, considering he has been lying about the program, and also considering that specifying the deceased can't possibly be a security problem. (The terrorists would ALREADY know which of their men have been blown up. Obama telling a court or the congress at large or anyone else merely who was targeted wouldn't be any new information for the terrorists.) So why else would you refuse to say which terrorists you've been killing, if you've only been killing terrorists. I am forced to speculate due to secrecy, and offered it. What do you think. Why would the list of deceased targets need to be secret, if in fact they were known terrorists?

Obama has his forces execute "signature strikes" that is where the drone operator gets to make the decision, in real-time, based on "suspicious behavior", whatever that may be. So that is proof that Obama doesn't know all his targets.

As for Obama selected targets, I never said Obama didn't know who they are. I said nobody else knows who they are.

Sounds like conjecture. Who else must know? Obama's CiC.. He can give latitude and longitude of any place on the map and say here, fire a missile at it. Fire another missile at it fifteen minutes later. Orders are carried out.

Who are the hundreds of people that need to know? HE WON'T EVEN TELL THE COURTS!!!! So you want to suggest that HUNDREDS of people would be in the loop, NONE of which are even a single judge?!?!?

That right there says it all!

First of all, I agree with you that Manning did indeed break his oath, and the law, the same as Snowden, the same as Obama.. How much accountability you are held to appears to be related to how high up on the ladder you are.

Like you, I as well shall await the trial results.

 

I thought I had completed the story of this the last time I was here.

The constitution is no longer in power. The constitution is a piece of paper. Since FDR voided the constitution and was given executive powers in 1933 the constituion has no teeth.

Once the crisis he moved the US beyond was over he did not recind the executive powers order. The truth is that every president who has led your country since then can do whatever they want, and with some additions by some of the most recent presidents, the ability to reinitiate teh constituions effectiveness, has been so corrupted none of your citizens for teh next century will ever have the legal cover of the constitution to ensure their freedoms are not impinged upon.

Good luck with your republic! And democracy well you can forget that!

 

The financial elite and their representatives at the Conservative Fraudcasting Network thank you.

 

So we are only drone striking Afghanistan? Not Libya or Pakistan or Somalia or Yemen or Algeria? So if we leave then these drones strike would stop?

 

Muslims need to realize that if they get uppity to us, we WILL kill them and ruin their country. Leave us alone, stop coming here and mind your own business and we won't get involved in yours. When was the last time you heard about us bombing or destabilizing Indonesia?

Mess with us and we give it back tenfold.

BTW, international laws apply to small countries, not us. Enforce them against us...go on, try it. I think we will just laugh and bomb you. Allah loves us and hates you, obviously.

 

I'm not saying the situation on the Afghan-Pakistani border is the only context for when drone strikes occur.

I'm saying that the strikes occur specifically in that case because of the lack of control Pakistan has over their own border.

Yemen's situation was different in many respects, because the Yemeni government was pretending that they were the ones doing the strikes. It was only through Wikileaks that we discovered the US government was doing the strikes there. The fallout from this revelation put the Yemeni government in a very awkward position.

As for Libya, we provided support in that war more than actual firepower.

I'm not as familiar with our involvement in Somalia, unless you're talking about the conflict back in the 90s.

As far as I know, we haven't been involved in Algeria recently.