The law that Obama broke

a reply to: BobAthome

Well I would... I try, unfortunately half the politically vocal people of my country would rather be outraged over things that are legal instead of joining with us icky lefties to protest what both parties get horribly wrong.

Obama could be breaking the law but it could be hidden. Since our government is so corrupt its hard to distinguish where the bad egg is coming from so to speak. Obama could've order the Sec of Defense to do this. Which means in a literal sense that the Sec of Defense did in fact break the law, so if us citizens, or the news, or social media or something talks about this it is not seen as Obama breaking the law. It could completely be his fault but none of us have evidence to factually say this.

From a World point of view, this action has put the Office of the President in jeapardy or possibly under duress.

" If you are Mohamad Whatever, u could threaten an attack, blame it on the ones released"
and ,bingo,
America becomes, riotous and the King's Peace is broken.Leading to bad Government and drastic measures.

its an old script.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

He screwed up and jeopardized the direct national security of the United States. In my personal opinion.

Yes he did.

Which is why I am skipping impeachment, and going straight to him being tried for treason.

For the record:

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

www.law.cornell.edu...

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

We normally agree on stuff....but Obama is supposed to be Commander and Chief, not CRIMINAL in Chief.

My comments above yours were without passion ... merely a legal assessment relative to this thread. Nef's comments earlier brought that to the forefront and I was bringing that to its logical conclusion. I'm sure I'm not far off the mark on the way this will be officially spun.

You want passion? I say we release all of those bastards right now ... right into the ocean where they can be closer to OBL.

You want passion? Change the ROE to: Take no prisoners!!

You want passion? I say, "End the War on Terror." and the next time a 9/11 occurs ... kill every living soul within the borders of any country that sponsors an extremist. This would of course apply to verbal sponsorship and implied sponsorship as well.

But hey, just sayin's all.

a reply to: neo96

unless your a Doctor then the Hypocratic Oath ,etc,,
or Red Cross,,
or a Nun,,
umm
ya there are exceptions to every Rule.

a reply to: BobAthome

No exception especially when the guy says this:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

originally posted by: BobAthome
a reply to: neo96

unless your a Doctor then the Hypocratic Oath ,etc,,
or Red Cross,,
or a Nun,,
umm
ya there are exceptions to every Rule.

There are exceptions to every rule.

But now we are seeing presidential exceptions to the law.

Which is in direct violation of the Constitution.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: BobAthome

No exception especially when the guy says this:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

unless your a Doctor then the Hypocratic Oath ,etc,,
or Red Cross,,
or a Nun,,

i dont think he is any of the above,,
boy scout?

a reply to: Snarl

lol... Okay.. Fair enough. I wasn't being passionate as much as becoming real firm in feeling that the law really has to exist for a reason beyond harassment of the middle and lower class. Every new outrage is a fresh opportunity to start a whole new approach to no more tolerance.

Now I could go with ya for releasing at about 10,000 feet over the ocean blue. Not all of them..but these remaining? Oh..Yeah. Obama put a directive into place in 2009 that the prisoners undergo regular comprehensive reviews to see if anything had changed with an eye to releasing them. It's been pretty effective too. Now at the end here? We're down to the ones guilty as sin or who their own country won't even take back..or both.

Sending them to say hi to Neptune would make Martyrs of them. Let them share the fate of the blind Sheikh with the eyes to see every miserable day nature gives them to experience it. I understand part of the Super-Max at Florence, Colorado is sub-surface..for the P.C. term these days. I would't object to a one way trip into a..sub surface living space for some of these last ones. They can't teleport out, after all.

a reply to: BobAthome

What is he ?

A self absorbed politician who put politics above the national security of this country.

A self absorbed politician whose delusions of self grandeur think the 'public' would love the release of guys who think:

women are their property.
women don't have the right to be educated.
a womans place is to be a servant to the men.

Those 5 who were released is the real war on women in the world.

Clinging to their guns and religion.

That's what he is.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

why dont they just drop them off in any of the vilage's that they decimated?
unarmed with no army behind them?
See if there own will have Mercy on them.

For those like Obama who have seem to have forgotten what the Taliban is all about.

Taliban

a reply to: BobAthome

Oh.. that wouldn't be terribly nice, would it? Depending on WHICH Afghanistan town they were dropped off in? You're right. No foreigners would be wanted, needed or would want to be there for the rest. Just wish 'em well and welcome home as we fly off. Smartly, as the Brits might say. Never look back or go back. Just....report they were released into the custody of local tribesman. Yup. Works for me.

a reply to: neo96

Which reminds me, how are the Boku Haron?? doing u know those girls???
that was a White House thing for 5 minutes,,
or was it just a shiny look here.
There is a lot the President's Office can accomplish.

or how about that guy in North Korea?,,and was that action by NK a direct effect of what President Oboma put out there, in the real world?
Hostages=Concessions.

a reply to: BobAthome

Which reminds me, how are the Boku Haron??

Good question.

The VA scandal kicked that from the lead.

Then the Bergdhal sham kicked the VA from the lead.

I honestly don't know.

a reply to: BobAthome

Oh.. hell.. I hadn't even considered that yet. Yes... Kim does seem to be adding to his personal collection of North Americans just recently. That might buy him some good food and fuel shipment. (sigh)

a reply to: neo96

And it shouldn't have. That tragedy matters to most Americans. We shouldn't let that one go until it's fixed, yet here we are arguing about the legalities of a situation that never should have been in the 1st place. 22 vets kill themselves per day...

a reply to: beezzer

Since the law is illegal, and in violation of mulitple US treaties which involve torture it does in fact seem that Obama broke no law at all, but in fact held up international law.