Rick Santorum Thread

[kbf1970060]

Section 1022 most certainly extends the act to American citizens. In the Senate debates it was made explicitly clear that it was intended to extend to American citizens.

Peace and God bless!

You are welcome to provide video clips of the portion of senate debates concerning the matter, and point to the act as it stands today, which you think support your claim. To the contrary is the following from the act itself: Subtitle D—Counterterrorism
SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF
THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS
PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY
FORCE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the
President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to
the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40;
50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces
of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection
(b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section
is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided
the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,
or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported
al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged
in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,
including any person who has committed a belligerent act or
has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy
forces.
… (e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed
to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of
United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States,
or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United
States.
… SEC. 1022. MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS.
(a) CUSTODY PENDING DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—
… (2) COVERED PERSONS.—The requirement in paragraph (1)
shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under
section 1021 who is determined—
… (b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL
RESIDENT ALIENS.—
](1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain
a person in military custody under this section does not extend
to citizens of the United States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain
a person in military custody under this section does not extend
to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis
of conduct taking place within the United States, except to
the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

To Whomever: this election may stimulate you, as a voter, to vote your conscience. PLEASE: inform your conscience with facts, rather than hype, hearsay, and partisian politics – before you vote, thank you!

 

[Ghosty]

It simply says that the military isn’t required to detain U.S. citizens; it does not say that they shall not detain U.S. citizens. There is a huge difference in legalese between “non required” and “shall not”.

Also, the exemption for U.S. citizens listed in section 1021 (which is nebulous to begin with, since current Executive interpretation of the laws already permits the killing of U.S. citizens without warrant or trial) does not extend to section 1022. This is why President Obama’s signing statement simply says that he will not utilize the authority to detain U.S. citizens, rather than saying that the bill doesn’t grant the authority to do so.

As for the Senate discussions, I recommend looking of the Udall Amendment, which was rejected by the Senate. It would have forbidden the detention of U.S. citizens, yet it was rejected by the Senate, showing that the intention of the Bill was indeed to allow for the detention (though not require the detention) of U.S. citizens.

Peace and God bless!

 

[kubark]

Ron Paul is a viable candidate? He is a joke - a 77 year old nut fudge fringe candidate who sees no problem with a nuclear Iran. The only thing Ron Paul is capable of (other than making a fool of himself) is helping Obama win a 2nd term.

Ishii

What charitable, logical things you say, ishii!!

I see you are avoiding responding to my last response. That’s okay. I know it must come as a shock to you that Rick Santorum actually ENDORSED the pro-death Arlen Specter over the pro-life Pat Toomey. Santorum had no problem sacrificing his pro-life values when politics beckoned. Santorum’s betrayal was unforgivable to those of us in Pennsylvania and cost him his Senate seat in 2006 where he lost to Bob Casey by the largest losing margin for an incumbent Republican senator ever. And thanks to Santorum’s betrayal, Arlen Specter was also around to cast the deciding vote for Obamacare in the Senate. Santorum was THE poster boy for everything that was and is wrong with the GOP, and subsequently got thrown out of office in 2006 along with the rest of the GOP Congress. It really shows how arrogant and power-mad Santorum is to think that he can now run for President and that those of us who have been on in the trenches of the pro-life movement will not forget how he stabbed us in the back.

As to Obama winning a second term, I suggest you take a look at the article “What the New PPP 3-Way Race Poll Shows: Only A Ron Paul Led Republican Ticket Can Beat Obama” by Jack Wagner at freeindependentsun.com/republic/what-the-new-ppp-3-way-race-poll-shows-only-a-ron-paul-led-republican-ticket-can-beat-obama/

 

[kbf1970060]

It simply says that the military isn’t required to detain U.S. citizens; … !

It says, very plainly, it does NOT extend to either U.S. citizens, or resident aliens of the U.S…

You’re being absurd.

 

[ishii]

What charitable, logical things you say, ishii!!

Thank you, Kubark. I see you’re coming around.

I see you are avoiding responding to my last response. That’s okay.

Didn’t notice it. I will look it up and respond.

I know it must come as a shock to you that Rick Santorum actually ENDORSED the pro-death Arlen Specter over the pro-life Pat Toomey. Santorum had no problem sacrificing his pro-life values when politics beckoned.

He did this to get Spector’s support for supreme court nominees Roberts and Alito. No GOP controlled senate = no Roberts or Alito. Maybe you like moderate nominees like Kennedy or Souter who the product of Democrat controlled Senate? Unfortunately Kubark, politics can be about getting what you want by compromising. Its not always worth it, but I think Roberts and Alito were worth it. Great job, Santorum!

Santorum’s betrayal was unforgivable to those of us in Pennsylvania and cost him his Senate seat in 2006 where he lost to Bob Casey by the largest losing margin for an incumbent Republican senator ever.

Only unforgivable to people who demand perfect “true believer” candidates who are unelectable.

And thanks to Santorum’s betrayal, Arlen Specter was also around to cast the deciding vote for Obamacare in the Senate. Santorum was THE poster boy for everything that was and is wrong with the GOP, and subsequently got thrown out of office in 2006 along with the rest of the GOP Congress. It really shows how arrogant and power-mad Santorum is to think that he can now run for President and that those of us who have been on in the trenches of the pro-life movement will not forget how he stabbed us in the back.

Is that why Santorum has the backing of pro-life groups? Is that why Santorum got the backing of the evangelicals who met in Texas to choose the candidate they could trust on social issues? Is that why mr. social conservative Gary Bauer endorsed him?

As to Obama winning a second term, I suggest you take a look at the article “What the New PPP 3-Way Race Poll Shows: Only A Ron Paul Led Republican Ticket Can Beat Obama” by Jack Wagner at freeindependentsun.com/republic/what-the-new-ppp-3-way-race-poll-shows-only-a-ron-paul-led-republican-ticket-can-beat-obama/

I will read it, and respond later.

Ishii

 

[kbf1970060]

… current Executive interpretation of the laws already permits the killing of U.S. citizens without warrant or trial …

Thank God!

 

[Ghosty]

Thank God!

So you disagree with the Constitution and the Due Process of Law?

A U.S. citizen who is a non-combatant should not be killed without trial, that much is made clear by the Fifth Amendment. If you disagree with that then you simply disagree with the U.S. Constitution, and there’s really no basis for discussing Constitutional Law with you.

Peace and God bless!

 

[pnewton]

Originally Posted by Ghosty

So much for the sanctity of life!

 

[kubark]

He did this to get Spector’s support for supreme court nominees Roberts and Alito. No GOP controlled senate = no Roberts or Alito. Maybe you like moderate nominees like Kennedy or Souter who the product of Democrat controlled Senate? Unfortunately Kubark, politics can be about getting what you want by compromising. Its not always worth it, but I think Roberts and Alito were worth it. Great job, Santorum!

It is never worth sacrificing one’s core principles, especially when there was a viable pro-life alternative to Specter (Toomey). Arlen Specter DENIES that such a “supreme court nominee deal” ever took place. See: pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2010/04/specter_denies_endorsement_dea.html and post-gazette.com/pg/10101/1049586-176.stm. So somebody is lying.

Only unforgivable to people who demand perfect “true believer” candidates who are unelectable.

Let me clarify: POLITICALLY “unforgivable” in the sense that someone who compromises on his BASIC, FUNDAMENTAL principles is not worth reelecting and should not be allowed anywhere near the Presidency. Compromise is sometimes necessary but in this case Santorum compromised on his pro-life priniciples. That’s why he was thrown out in 2006.

Is that why Santorum has the backing of pro-life groups? Is that why Santorum got the backing of the evangelicals who met in Texas to choose the candidate they could trust on social issues? Is that why mr. social conservative Gary Bauer endorsed him?

Gary Bauer!? LOL! I can’t but respond with the following article by true conservative and fellow Catholic Michael Scheuer, “Mr. Gary Bauer — The Supposed Christian as Slanderer, Israel-Firster, and War-Monger”:

I just watched a television commercial paid for by the “Emergency Committee for Israel” in which Mr. Gary Bauer spends a minute or so defaming Dr. Paul as: a spinner of 9/11 conspiracies, an America-hater, an opponent of the U.S. military, a friend of Iran, and — that most lethal of all sins — a foe of “our ally Israel.” Now, that is a lot of lies to pack into a minute, but as a crazed-Christian one cannot expect the war-mongering Mr. Bauer to know that one of God’s commandments is “Thou shall not lie.”

The Republican Party’s fear of the potentially enormous popular appeal of Dr. Paul’s truth-telling in regard to foreign policy is palpable and understandable. Listen to Mr. Bauer’s commercial and you will know what the Republican establishment wants:

– (a) war with Iran, although Iran is no threat to the United States unless we or Israel attack Iran first

–(b) all the U.S. blood and treasure needed to ensure Israel is free to do what it wants to Palestine, although both Israel and Palestine are irrelevant to the economic and national-security interests of the United States except in the negative sense that both entities bleed the U.S. Treasury and keep us mired in their endless religious war

–(c) a popular belief that the U.S. military approves of Washington’s relentless, war-causing, and bankrupting interventionism, even though almost all campaign contributions from U.S. military personnel go to Dr. Paul

–(d) complete popular faith in the fallacy that 9/11 has been fully explained, although the 9/11 Commission’s archive has yet to be released and so Americans do not know how easily Osama bin Laden could have been killed in 1998-1999

– (e) Americans to hold the racist, counter-intuitive, and, indeed, brain-dead-Santorum-ite belief that Muslims are attacking us because of our freedom, gender equality, and liberty, a position the depends not on empirical evidence — there is none — but on the need of U.S. politicians to convince voters that their interventionism does not cause wars, which is as silly a belief as one that holds actions do not prompt reactions

After listening to Mr. Bauer, I think FOX television would be missing a bet if it did not create a program called “Lets Kill U.S. Kids and Bankrupt America.” The show could feature Bauer, Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, and John Bolton explaining why America needs more and more wars and why the president is above the Constitution and can legally take the country to war without a declaration of war by Congress.

Two or three episodes of such a show would demonstrate the obvious to all Americans; that is, Dr. Paul is both the defender of the U.S. Constitution and the only Republican presidential candidate who champions America’s interests first, last, and always. Needless to say, it would also expose Mr. Bauer’s ignorance of the Lord’s prohibition against lying."

 

[kbf1970060]

So you disagree with the Constitution and the Due Process of Law?

A U.S. citizen who is a non-combatant should not be killed without trial, that much is made clear by the Fifth Amendment. If you disagree with that then you simply disagree with the U.S. Constitution, and there’s really no basis for discussing Constitutional Law with you.

Peace and God bless!

Law enforcement officials, soldiers, and others, have a right to kill other people without first bringing anyone to court.

I have a very clear responsibility to protect, and defend, my life, and the lives of others, if needs be and therefore, I have a right to arm myself.

Your posts are deeply offensive to common sense, and the responsibility to do what is morally right in order to maintain what freedoms we have in this country. To me, they are deeply insulting as well.

 

[pnewton]

Law enforcement officials, soldiers, and others, have a right to kill other people without first bringing anyone to court.

Only in cases of imminent threat. A citizen who kills another over a perceived future threat to life or limb is called a murderer.

 

[kbf1970060]

Only in cases of imminent threat. A citizen who kills another over a perceived future threat to life or limb is called a murderer.

I’m glad we agree that due process is not always applicable.

 

[pnewton]

To me, they are deeply insulting as well.

I thought the same of your earlier post, pot, kettle, black and all.

If Ron Paul is such a strong Constitutionalist, then he perhaps ought to go back to TX, and adhere to The Constitution of his own country, TX. … a story from him, about The Alamo, might be appropriate. A story about Rednecks, may be even better, …

 

[Ghosty]

Law enforcement officials, soldiers, and others, have a right to kill other people without first bringing anyone to court.

I have a very clear responsibility to protect, and defend, my life, and the lives of others, if needs be and therefore, I have a right to arm myself.

Your posts are deeply offensive to common sense, and the responsibility to do what is morally right in order to maintain what freedoms we have in this country. To me, they are deeply insulting as well.

Anyone has the right to defend themselves with lethal force against an imminent threat of lethal force. Sometimes they even have an obligation to do so (see my post on the thread about the 19-year-old mother who shot and killed an intruder on this very forum). A police officer has a duty to protect themselves and others and can and should use deadly force in the case of an imminent threat. We’re not talking about such scenarios, however.

Killing a U.S. citizen, even abroad, when they pose no imminent threat to anyone and there is no warrant or trial is against the Fifth Amendment. I don’t see how the Constitution is insulting, but you must have extremely thin skin gainst civil rights.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

I’m glad we agree that due process is not always applicable.

It is always applicable. A police officer defending public safety against an imminent threat is part of the due process. It’s when someone is killed when there is no imminent threat that there is a problem.

Peace and God bless!

 

[pnewton]

I’m glad we agree that due process is not always applicable.

Absolutely, but I think we** all** agree with the concept of self-defence in the case of* imminent* danger.

 

[Ghosty]

Absolutely, but I think we** all** agree with the concept of self-defence in the case of* imminent* danger.

Actually, due process in the case of an imminent threat is simply the evaluation of the competent authority of the question “is this person an imminent and deadly threat?” and responding accordingly. So, in the case of imminent threat and a police officer shooting, due process still applies, but due process in such circumstances is different than in the case of a non-violent drug suspect for example.

The Executive Branch doesn’t owe a court hearing to a U.S. citizen who is holding a gun and threatening to kill civilians, as that would be a burden on due process and would be a failure of the government in its duty to protect others. The real problem is that our government currently argues that an imminent threat is not required, and that the Executive Branch has the right to kill a U.S. citizen without presenting evidence even after the fact, and without revealing the process by which such a decision is made, on the grounds that such information constitutes “state secrets” and would endanger national security if it were revealed.

So, when the law says that it should not be construed to further infringe on the protections of citizens, it must be understood in the context of a government that already considers citizens to be unprotected from Executive killings on undisclosed accusations and evidence. Furthermore this is not conspiracy theory, this is the actual argument the DOJ used in the case Aulaqi vs. Obama. (warning: PDF)

Peace and God bless!

 

[ishii]

It is never worth sacrificing one’s core principles, especially when there was a viable pro-life alternative to Specter (Toomey). Arlen Specter DENIES that such a “supreme court nominee deal” ever took place. See: pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2010/04/specter_denies_endorsement_dea.html and post-gazette.com/pg/10101/1049586-176.stm. So somebody is lying.

In Santorum’s calculation, supporting Spector over Toomey was in the best long-term interests of the pro-life cause. Disagree with his calculation if you want, but remember that we did get Alito and Roberts on the supreme court and Spector did support both. Had it been up to me, I’m not sure what I would’ve done, but Santorum made his decisions with the interests of getting good supreme court justices in mind. You are wrong to say that he compromised his fundamental principles in supporting Spector. It was his fundamental pro-life principles that guided him in this decision. But remember, he has a brain and sometimes you need to make compromises to get things done. The difference is the decision is now convenient for you to use it to bash Santorum’s pro-life credentials in a most unfair and shameless manner. That Ron Paul resorts to this tactic shows how desperate he and his supporters are.

Let me clarify: POLITICALLY “unforgivable” in the sense that someone who compromises on his BASIC, FUNDAMENTAL principles is not worth reelecting and should not be allowed anywhere near the Presidency. Compromise is sometimes necessary but in this case Santorum compromised on his pro-life priniciples. That’s why he was thrown out in 2006.

I don’t think you really understand politics, Kubark. President Bush was polling a whopping 38% in Pennsylvania at the time of Santorum’s loss. Also, Santorum’s opponent Casey was considered to be a pro-life Democrat which took away a lot of Santorum’s appeal to socially conservative Democrats. All of that added up to a loss for SAntorum - and it probably would have been all but impossible for him to win - even without the votes of the “true-believers” who expect perfection from their candidates.

Gary Bauer!? LOL! I can’t but respond with the following article by true conservative and fellow Catholic Michael Scheuer, “Mr. Gary Bauer — The Supposed Christian as Slanderer, Israel-Firster, and War-Monger”:

I would add “nutty conspiracy theorist” to Gary Bauer’s criticisms of Ron Paul. I heard a clip in which Ron Paul was heard talking about how the Bilderburgers want to control all of the money and resources in America. I would like to discuss more of your interesting diatribe against Gary Bauer, but I’m due back on planet earth. Bye.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

The only shameful thing worth speaking of is that an allegedly pro-life, so-called Catholic like Rick Santorum would ENDORSE the pro-death Arlen Specter over the pro-life Pat Toomey. The only “asterisk” (actually more like an exclamation point) worth speaking of is that Ron Paul AUTHORED the Sanctity of Life Act in 2005.

I read the above post and what came before it. I would respond if I thought your borderline calumnious post (calumnious toward the good pro-life catholic Rick Santorum) was worthy of a response.

Ishii

 

[estesbob]

I read the above post and what came before it. I would respond if I thought your borderline calumnious post (calumnious toward the good pro-life catholic Rick Santorum) was worthy of a response.

Ishii

Hang in there. Only a few more weeks (maybe less) and we at done with Ron Paul. Thank God he has said this is his last race.