Rick Santorum Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Semper_Zelare
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What is an affiliated force? And who determines who falls into that catergory?

How long exactly will the duration of the “Global War on Terror” be?

Even assuming you are correct, and this act will only be used against suspected terrorists…don’t people accused of terrorism have the same constitutional rights as people accused of rape or murder or any other crime? Except that in this case the “belliigerents” aren’t actually accused- that is charged- with anything.

I fail to see anything other than two possibilities for those who support the measure:

A) They don’t know what the Constitution says

B) They don’t care what the Constitution says

If there is a 3rd, please explain to me how indefinite detention of American citizens without trial is reconciled with the Bill of Rights?

Pax
I’ll do what I can, both to answer your questions, and repeat, what I believe has already been provided, if not patiently, then kindly.

Q1 What is an affiliated force? A1 Assumption: Hamas, and any other “force” satisfying what is specified in the act, as mentioned in the previous post.

Q2 Who determines who falls into that category? A2 That would depend on the act commited, and by whom, and for whom, again as specified in the act, as mentioned in the previous post.

Q3 How long exactly will the duration of “The Global War on Terror” be? A3 Again, see the previous post, and the act: when hostilities against The U.S., and coalition forces, stop.

Q4 … don’t people accused of terrorism have the same constitutional rights as people accused of rape or murder or any other crime? A4 It seems apparent, that you neither have assumed, that I am correct, nor have you checked the matter for yourself; however, I will answer your question. The answer is the following: no. Please read The U.S. Constitution, particularly the section, concerning the constitutionality of the act, according to Article I, Section 8. Both U.S. citizens, and resident aliens of The U.S., whom have commited some offense in The U.S., retain their constitutional rights. Those whom aid, support, harbor, The Taliban, Al-Qaeda, affiliated forces with The Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and those whom planned, supported, etc., the attacks against America, of Sep. 11th, 2001, may be detained according to the public law mentioned in the previous post, or they may be transfered to a different court, a different country, or to their country of origin. (This answer is not absolute, but reflects in part, the act.)

The third option is plain: you are wrong either on A, or B, or both A and B, and I believe it is the last option, that is pertinent to you: you are wrong both with respect to your options A and B; although, you are correct, that you do fail to see, which is your own responsibility, and the remedy would be to read those sections of the act, some 5?? pages in length, and, again, review the authority exercised by not only the executive branch of The U.S. governemnt, but also the legislative branch of The U.S. government, with respect to the employment of our U.S. Armed Forces, as granted by The U.S. Constitution. Unless your preference(s) either are to be ignorant of what The U.S. Constitution says, or apathetic about what The U.S. Constitution says, or both ignorant, and apathetic, about what The U.S. Constitution says.

There is nothing in the act, to state: a U.S. citizen may be detained indefinitely without trial, unless it is done according to The U.S. Constitution, and subsequent amendments. If you wish to differ on the matter, then reference the same act, that I have cited, and provide section(s), and quotes, briefly. Unless, you would like your actions on this site to be regarded as both belligerent, and in support of The Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and whomever supported, planned, facilitated the attacks against America, during Sep. 11th, 2001. (I’m kidding, although, the questions make me scratch my head, in a suspicious manner, as I read your post(s).)

A failure to see must be driven toward the success of seeing, at some point, as you will it. You may gain further respect for what those whom serve our country do, and have done, during this War Against Terrorism: when you read and consider those sections of the act, pertinent to what we are discussing, and Article, and Section, of The U.S. Constitution, which delineates authority for such an act, to exist. Thank you for your questions, and the link, and previous quote of yours, to which I replied. I gained further insight into the matter. I hope, that you will as well.
 
I fail to see how indefinite detention of anyone without trial is compatible with any law in any realm, but maybe that’s just me…
I doubt, that it’s “just” you; however, consider prisoners of war. War is indefinite. Contrary to the opinion, that war is a game: it is not, and I’ll explain that by saying, when you lay down a board game, or cards on a table, there’s a limited number of spaces on the board, or cards to hold in your hand. Wars are not limited by a definite end to a game, but by resources. Prisoners of war, pretty much the same as prisoners in your town, city, metropolis, go to jail without a trial. They are detained. They are innocent, until proven guilty; nonetheless, war is different. An enemy is not a criminal, but an enemy. When you are imprisoned as an enemy: the prison serves as a place to end war by removing enemies from war. The detention is indefinite, because no one knows who’s going to win. Viet Nam existed as a communist country. North or south, it was communist: we failed to make it anything different. Although hostilities appeared to end well before the 1980’s, we nonetheless, saw prisoners of war, return home, after an indefinite detention. Military law has to conform to war, and the nature of war. It doesn’t conform to justice in some form of government, whether it’s a monarchy, a democracy, or despotic government, or various hybrids of those governments mentioned. War crimes exist, true enough, still: who are the judges? I read an article recently about Iran. A statement was made: the enemy gets a vote. In other words, no one expects “play” by our U.S. Constitution. Certainly we are not expected to “play” according Sharia Law. We don’t try enemies according to our U.S. Constitution, because they are not criminals, but enemies. There’s a huge difference. They have no right to a fair and speedy trial, because they are prisoners of war. There is no crime per se on their part. They are enemies. When you are a prisoner even in this country, you are a slave. Upon release, you may not function again in society with the same U.S. Constitutional rights, that you had before going into prison. It depends on the state where you live. I may be mistaken, but as I understand it: someone who goes to prison in the state of California, loses their right to vote. They have no U.S. Constitutional right to vote, and its a right of each state, to deny the citizen(s) of their own “country”, or state, that right, after having been imprisoned. I hope, that made things more clear.
 
I’m with Rick on this one.
  1. A nation that does not/can not control its borders is no longer a nation
  2. It is unfair to legal immigrants-to-be to legalize illegal immigrants.
He’s part right. The thing is that one of the causes of rampant illegal immigration is that it’s very difficult to come legally. You can spend the better part of 5 years trying, and even then, there’s no guarentee. It just doesn’t work to tell people not to hire a border sherpa if there are no legal options. As to those who crossed illegally, I would require some sort of service to the nation for citizenship. Maybe a stint in the military or police forces, teaching in a school for poor kids (assuming they speak good English), working for the forestry service – just something to prove that you have good intentions. If you really want to be American and are not just here to milk us for benefits, I don’t think a form of national service is that much of a burden. If you just want to live off of our system and send lots of money to Mexico, then it’s a problem. And it’s a huge problem if you want to sell drugs in America.
 
I don’t see anything in Article 1, Section 8 that allows for detentioon without legal counsel or trial, even for supporters of Al Qaeda. What’s more, your assumption about the meanining of “associated forces” is nothing more than your personal assumption, and does not reflect the nebulous legal nature of the terms used.

Peace and God bless!
 
I don’t see anything in Article 1, Section 8 that allows for detentioon without legal counsel or trial, even for supporters of Al Qaeda. What’s more, your assumption about the meanining of “associated forces” is nothing more than your personal assumption, and does not reflect the nebulous legal nature of the terms used.

Peace and God bless!
I apologuise for not being specific, but I’ll go ahead and provide what I had in mind: Article I, Section 8, item [11] To declare war, grant letters of maque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; … . I think it’s pretty obvious, that we’re looking at an act, that deals with captures on land, or water. Furthermore, there’s item [14] of the same section, and article, To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; … . That doesn’t say, the rules for land and naval forces are already enumerated in The U.S. Constitution. Nonetheless, it does say, against our own citizens, in item [15] To provide for calling forth the milita to execute the laws of The Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions … . And in [16] … the authority of training the milita according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. … And in [17] … and in [18] … To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, … vested by this Constitution … or any department or officer thereof. …
 
I apologuise for not being specific, but I’ll go ahead and provide what I had in mind: Article I, Section 8, item [11] To declare war, grant letters of maque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; … . I think it’s pretty obvious, that we’re looking at an act, that deals with captures on land, or water. Furthermore, there’s item [14] of the same section, and article, To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; … . That doesn’t say, the rules for land and naval forces are already enumerated in The U.S. Constitution. Nonetheless, it does say, against our own citizens, in item [15] To provide for calling forth the milita to execute the laws of The Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions … . And in [16] … the authority of training the milita according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. … And in [17] … and in [18] … To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, … vested by this Constitution … or any department or officer thereof. …
Your argument might have merit if it were not for the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Although I disagree with some of your interpretations of the powers grated by Article I, section 8, it is not necessary to dispute them because they are trumped by the Bill of Rights. Specifically the Fifth Amendment forbids people being denied their liberty without due process of law, and due process of law for a citizen would include a 1) warrant, 2) legal representation, and 3) a trial. The NDAA suspends the Fifth Amendment and gives all authority to the Executive Branch to determine the danger of someone’s associations and to arrest/detain them without reference to the Judicial Branch that is required by the Fifth Amendment.

Since the law is unconstitutional it could be overturned by the Supreme Court, but there is a delicate problem: you must have standing to bring a court case. Anyone with standing, namely those affected by this law, are specifically kept out of court and therefore their cases could not make it up the chain of appeals to the Supreme Court for review of the law. It remains to be seen if other avenues of challenge are available.

Peace and God bless!
 
Very sad news.

For the pro-life cause.

And for the Constitution and the rule of law.

And it doesn’t speak well for Romney at all. I mean, it really goes to show how much Evangelicals distrust a Mormon when they have to rally behind a warmongering Catholic like Santorum over a genuine pro-life, pro-constitution Evangelical like Ron Paul. LOL!!

But there is some good news to counter this story with: Ron Paul picked up a major evangelical endorsement from Dr. James Linzey, president and founder of the Military Bible Association. In a statement to Congressman Paul declaring his endorsement, Lizney said, “Having thoroughly examined your political philosophy and finding that your platform is 100% in line with the Constitution of the United States of America, and examining your political record to find that you have consistently upheld the Constitution and thereby faithfully represented your constituency, and studying your statement of faith to find that your faith and religious experience is 100% compatible with Evangelical Christianity and Orthodox Christianity, I hereby endorse you for the Office of the President of the United States of America. I wish you Godspeed!"

He went on to say that while Texas governor, Rick Perry, was also an evangelical, the deciding factor for his endorsement was fidelity to the Constitution. “The tell-tale sign of being qualified for the presidency is not faith, but loyalty to the Constitution which defends the open expression of faith. Ron Paul seems to be the candidate most loyal to the Constitution according to the records.”

Add to this endorsement the fact that it is now being reported that leading South Carolina conservative and Tea Party champion, State Senator Tom Davis, will endorse Ron Paul in the coming days, and I think that Ron Paul will be in good shape in SC. The latest ARG poll also shows Ron Paul surging in South Carolina.
 
Your argument might have merit if it were not for the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Although I disagree with some of your interpretations of the powers grated by Article I, section 8, it is not necessary to dispute them because they are trumped by the Bill of Rights. Specifically the Fifth Amendment forbids people being denied their liberty without due process of law, and due process of law for a citizen would include a 1) warrant, 2) legal representation, and 3) a trial. The NDAA suspends the Fifth Amendment and gives all authority to the Executive Branch to determine the danger of someone’s associations and to arrest/detain them without reference to the Judicial Branch that is required by the Fifth Amendment.

Since the law is unconstitutional it could be overturned by the Supreme Court, but there is a delicate problem: you must have standing to bring a court case. Anyone with standing, namely those affected by this law, are specifically kept out of court and therefore their cases could not make it up the chain of appeals to the Supreme Court for review of the law. It remains to be seen if other avenues of challenge are available.

Peace and God bless!
I don’t know, that you’ve ever served within The U.S. Armed Forces, but when serving in The U.S. Armed Forces: a soldier is subject to the laws made by The U.S. Congress, which govern The U.S. Armed Forces. The relevance of The U.S. Constitution to The U.S. Armed Forces is in the power, granted, for such services to exist, and aside from this, both The U.S. Constitution, and The Bill of Rights, are essentially irrelevant: the same holds true for those, whom are captured as a matter of military law.

Although it was U.S. Forces, whom captured Saddam Hussein: he was transferred to his own country, and tried by his own country.

An alleged criminal is just that “alleged”: there is no proof, no evidence, until the trial is done to prove innocence. Nonetheless, alleged criminals are brought into custody. It’s hardly a point to argue.
 
I doubt, that it’s “just” you; however, consider prisoners of war. War is indefinite…
That is for enemy combatants, not one’s own citizens. It is not only anti-American, but anti-Christian to fight evil by becoming evil. When we start justifing pre-emptive strikes and indefinite internment, we are not better than any other fascist nation or Islamic dictatorship. The leader that support such actions is not better than any of the others we have opposed through the years.

I would still consider voting for Santorum, but this is one area in which I believe him to be woefully deficient.
 
That is for enemy combatants, not one’s own citizens. It is not only anti-American, but anti-Christian to fight evil by becoming evil. When we start justifing pre-emptive strikes and indefinite internment, we are not better than any other fascist nation or Islamic dictatorship. The leader that support such actions is not better than any of the others we have opposed through the years.

I would still consider voting for Santorum, but this is one area in which I believe him to be woefully deficient.
It’s also important to point out that there has been no declaration of war and nobody is operating with a letter of marque. The authority to make regulalations regarding “captures” would be for those captured during a lawful military activity. The idea that the Constitution authorizes the Congress to pass laws that permit the “capture” of US citizens, within the US, without charging them with a crime, and then to hold them indefinitely is certainly a novel one.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Pax Christi
 
Code:
Very sad news.
For the pro-life cause.
Rick Santorum is pro-life.
And for the Constitution and the rule of law.
Please.
And it doesn’t speak well for Romney at all. I mean, it really goes to show how much Evangelicals distrust a Mormon when they have to rally behind a warmongering Catholic like Santorum over a genuine pro-life, pro-constitution Evangelical like Ron Paul. LOL!!
Romney and Santorum are similar in their foreign policy beliefs. Evangelicals generally support the post-Cold war foreign policy of not giving in to isolationism, and confronting the evil of radical islamic terrorism and terrorist supporting regimes - such as the one in Iran that Ron Paul seems to have no problem with. So your assertion that it was a compromise for evangelicals to support Santorum over Romney because of foreign policy is false.
But there is some good news to counter this story with: Ron Paul picked up a major evangelical endorsement from Dr. James Linzey, president and founder of the Military Bible Association. In a statement to Congressman Paul declaring his endorsement, Lizney said, “Having thoroughly examined your political philosophy and finding that your platform is 100% in line with the Constitution of the United States of America, and examining your political record to find that you have consistently upheld the Constitution and thereby faithfully represented your constituency, and studying your statement of faith to find that your faith and religious experience is 100% compatible with Evangelical Christianity and Orthodox Christianity, I hereby endorse you for the Office of the President of the United States of America. I wish you Godspeed!"
Ron Paul will need much more than the support of James Ninzey. Looking at the polls, he seems to be in 4th place in S. Carolina and 4th in Florida (single digits!). Anyone who thinks Ron Paul to be a serious, viable candidate is seriously deluded.
He went on to say that while Texas governor, Rick Perry, was also an evangelical, the deciding factor for his endorsement was fidelity to the Constitution. “The tell-tale sign of being qualified for the presidency is not faith, but loyalty to the Constitution which defends the open expression of faith. Ron Paul seems to be the candidate most loyal to the Constitution according to the records.”
Isn’t it the duty of the president to defend our country from threats from abroad? Ron Paul would fail in that task, imo.
Add to this endorsement the fact that it is now being reported that leading South Carolina conservative and Tea Party champion, State Senator Tom Davis, will endorse Ron Paul in the coming days, and I think that Ron Paul will be in good shape in SC. The latest ARG poll also shows Ron Paul surging in South Carolina.
Ron Paul deserves to be voted against - his shameful attacks against Santorum’s proven pro-life record are example of this. About twenty years from now he will be an asterisk - smaller than that other guy from Texas, Ross Perot who gave us president Bill Clinton.

Ishii
 
I don’t know, that you’ve ever served within The U.S. Armed Forces, but when serving in The U.S. Armed Forces: a soldier is subject to the laws made by The U.S. Congress, which govern The U.S. Armed Forces. The relevance of The U.S. Constitution to The U.S. Armed Forces is in the power, granted, for such services to exist, and aside from this, both The U.S. Constitution, and The Bill of Rights, are essentially irrelevant: the same holds true for those, whom are captured as a matter of military law.

Although it was U.S. Forces, whom captured Saddam Hussein: he was transferred to his own country, and tried by his own country.

An alleged criminal is just that “alleged”: there is no proof, no evidence, until the trial is done to prove innocence. Nonetheless, alleged criminals are brought into custody. It’s hardly a point to argue.
The way that the Constitution is enforced with regards to the U.S. military is completely irrelevant to how it is enforced with non-military citizens. I honestly don’t see why you are bringing this up.

Alleged criminals are brought into custody through the due process of law; they are either caught committing a crime or in pursuit after a crime, or a warrant is issued by the Judicial branch for their arrest. This is not the case with those arrested under the NDAA, who are subject only to the Executive branch for both arrest and trial. Furthermore, such criminals are presumed innocent and given a trial and legal representation, and both of these things are side-stepped by the NDAA.

These are serious violations of the Fifth Amendment.

Peace and God bless!
 
Anyone who thinks Ron Paul to be a serious, viable candidate is seriously deluded. i
Seriously, deluded? 😦
We going there again, as if the cult comment by someone earlier today wasn’t bad enough.
 
That is for enemy combatants, not one’s own citizens. It is not only anti-American, but anti-Christian to fight evil by becoming evil. When we start justifing pre-emptive strikes and indefinite internment, we are not better than any other fascist nation or Islamic dictatorship. The leader that support such actions is not better than any of the others we have opposed through the years.

I would still consider voting for Santorum, but this is one area in which I believe him to be woefully deficient.
I've got to say, most Americans believe that the world is as they wish it to be, not as it is. When the most powerful weapon was a sword, or even a gun, preemptive strikes would be morally unthinkable. Now that weapons exist that can wipe out millions in a strike, it is high horse mentality to think that first strikes are NEVER in order. What will you tell the peripheral survivors if you knew that you could have stopped mass annihilation, but chose not to act in time b/c of "noble" Pyrrhic ideals. :blush: Rob
 
Just what is it Ron Paul has accomplished in his political career ?
He has accomplished his goal of creating a personality cult which has hurt the cause of every real conservative candidate who might have had a chance of saving our dying nation. :(
 
Seriously, deluded? 😦
We going there again, as if the cult comment by someone earlier today wasn’t bad enough.
Do you think he is a viable candidate - as opposed to a kind of protest candidate that one supports to make a point or advance a set of ideas?

Ishii
 
He has accomplished his goal of creating a personality cult which has hurt the cause of every real conservative candidate who might have had a chance of saving our dying nation. 😦
My understanding is he inroduced exactly one bill that passed into law in his entire career in congress.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top