Is Our Leadership About To Commit Treason?

The tricky situation of balancing the demands of Congress, the UN and the US constitution is a tough thing to sort though. It could be said that Bush became guilty of treason when he ordered the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because war was never actual declared. All Bush had was approval from congress to use military force(an opened ended approval at that).

I know what this is all about. It is the usual August `There is nothing going on in Washington so the news cycle is getting too slow from DC. We need something to stir up the news cycle and have some politics to talk about.` This happens every year during August. This is when the crazies in Congress get the most attention.

The only way that Obama could seriously be accused of treason is if he order the military to take action for more than 30 days with out getting approval from Congress to do so. He can order the military to fight in any nation in the world for 30 days without anyone`s approval.

Originally posted by Em2013

Originally posted by rockoperawriter
he's been committing treason since day 1. seriously

Day 1? I remember him working as "president" before he was inaugurated. Remember how as soon as he won, he got his posse to join him at a round table I think at the white house and just plan things? Sure, I get we were all tired of Bush but that's just rude.

All incoming administrations do that. It's not rude, it's being practical. You want the prez to be ready BEFORE day one

Originally posted by rockoperawriter
he's been committing treason since day 1. seriously

Somehow you're the only person in the world with this knowledge...

Claims like that require proof; not opinions or links to blogs.

I won't hold my breath

Originally posted by neo96
While I think this is treason.

I honestly think if any action to be taken in Syira. The US should just bomb the hell out of both sides.

Both are enemies, BUT We should not even be involved there.

In the span of 1 decade we went to fighting AQ to aiding and abetting them.We truly have messed up 'leadership'.

Throw up a wall around Syria and keep throwing guns and ammo up over the top until you hear silence.

Do NOT allow it to become a region conflict that will put Russia and America on opposite sides of a shooting-war.

This may sound selfish, but I am not willing to risk my family for what should be a Civil war between two despicable foes. There is no good-guy in this conflict.

reply to post by CaptainNemo


Yes, Muslims are people, too. We should do them the courtesy of not interfering in their own internal problems. We should be neighborly enough to allow them to sort out their own house, and not impose a goddamned thing on them, which will only create resentment somewhere, for one group or the other, and perpetuate the cycle.

If we are decent neighbors, we do not impose our own ideas on how the neighbor should run HIS house, If we are even half way intelligent we do NOT interfere in a neighbor's dispute with his wife, or a neighbor's dispute with his own brother.

"Civil wars" are brother on brother. They are purely internal disputes. Outside interlopers are not generally welcomed, and if they are, as soon as the issue is resolved, your assumed "friends" will turn on you in a heartbeat.

A far better course of action in this instance, since there are no good guys involved, would be to simply let them sort it out on their own terms, and then deal with the weakened "victor" accordingly. If Assad wins, then leave him be since he's not in the habit of bothering his neighbors much. His messes are all internal. If the Muslim Brotherhood wins, he will have weakened them in Syria so that they can be dealt with there before they grow back into a danger (to Lebanon, to Jordan, to Iraq, ad infinitum - there is a reason these "Arab Springs" are popping up like weeds in an over burn).

In any event, it make no sense at all to enter the fray and support the Muslim Brotherhood against the government. If they become the government, you can expect more hell to break loose along the lines of what's going on in Egypt, and what goes on in Libya. It is nonsensical to support your declared enemy against someone who wants to erase them. The MB are Wahabbis, and are merely the political wing of the same philosophy al Qaida is the militant wing of.

Wahabbism is a radical branch of Sunni Islam. The short-term goal of Wahabbism is to establish a new Caliphate from al-Andalus (we call that "Spain", but the wahabbis still call it al-Andalus, and claim it as Islamic territory) to Indonesia. Not just any Caliphate will do - it must be a Wahabbi-led Caliphate. Their long term goal is nothing less than the Islamization of the entire planet, converting dar al Harb into dar al Islam, by forced conversion if necessary. Wahabbism is expansionist - it is the form of Islam "spread by the sword" if no other means work.

Wahabbis are what most western people think of immediately when they hear the word "Muslim". The fact that Wahabbis are at present a minority in Islam makes no difference in the popular perception - most westerners have been conditioned to think like that. Perversely, Wahabbis would tend to support that thought process, since they think they are the only "true" Muslims, and all other Muslims must be either killed or converted, same as the rest of us in this planetary rat race. Wahabbis claim they have the only pure form of Islam, unchanged from the days of Mohammed. I've seen way too many posters here at ATS who back them up in that contention, and it makes me wonder whose side those posters are really on.

Likewise, I have to wonder whose side the posters urging intervention in the Syrian civil war are on. Some, I'm sure, actually believe they are on the side of the Syrian people by supporting the Wahabbis. It's a clever trick they have bought into - guerrilla warfare 101. Foster the impression that the rebels are actually "for the people". It worked in innumerable communist insurgencies in the 1960's, 70's, and 80's. It works the same now. Brand yourself as a "champion of the people", and watch the assistance roll in from the unsuspecting.

As it always happens, once those "champions of the people" achieve victory, they immediately turn on the same people they claim to have championed, and the new boss is inevitably worse than the old one. In the case of Syria, the wahabbis have promised to eradicate the Christians, Shiites, Alawites, and any other non-wahabbi-ites to keep the revolution "pure" - to leave nothing there but Wahabbis.

Such are the "champions of the people" whom the unsuspecting are championing in this little rebellion. They think they are "supporting the Syrian people", but in reality are signing the death warrants of a vast number of those same people. it boggles the mind.

Don't just take MY word for it. Research it for yourself and find the truth on your own, independently. Deny ignorance. I'm not going to tell you how I know these things. truth is indeed sometimes stranger than fiction, and if I ever wrote that story, I'd only be able to sell it as fiction, because no one would believe it.

What you CAN believe is your own research. Research Wahabbism, the Muslim Brotherhood, al Qaida, etc, and connect the dots on your own. I've given you the road map.

presidents bloodline.


not a government.

A secret society/Cult!!!


STOP VOTING!

Originally posted by AlienScience

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by AlienScience

 

"On September 18, 2001, Congress enacted into law, and President George W. Bush signed, what is arguably the broadest declaration of war in our nation’s history. “Whereas on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States,” begins the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF),

The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons.

Constitutionally, the 9-18-01 Act is a Declaration of War. Combining the links in the chain of legal authorization opened up by the AUMF, the declaration of war reaches any person, organization, or nation connected in a supportive or protective (harboring) fashion, directly or indirectly, with the persons, organizations, or nations responsible for 9-11. It is a war on a network, or web, of interconnected, supportive persons, groups, and nations. It is a war on al Qaeda and its allies and affiliates and on any and all nations and groups that support them."

www.thepublicdiscourse.com...

edit on 29-8-2013 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)

You missed some key words in the AUMF.

"HE DETERMINES"

Key words there.

This is why I have been asking all thread "Who defines who the enemy is?". I was waiting for someone to post this AUMF, because I knew the exact wording of it. According to the AUMF, the PRESIDENT determines who the enemy is. And since the President determines who the enemy is, it is literally impossible for him to aid the enemy since it is up to him to declare who the enemy is.

It took awhile, but that was the point.

edit on 29-8-2013 by AlienScience because: (no reason given)

Yes the president decides "who" the enemy is, and our president has publicly stated that Al Qaeda is our enemy, and acknowledged that al Qaeda has a strong presence among the rebels in Syria.... yet the president is not in Syria fighting them, he is wanting to go in Syria to help them come to power.....

Therefore it IS treason unless the president gets to say on what day al Qaeda is our enemy and what day they are our friend...

It's treason if America goes ahead against its own people. Treason is against the sovereignity of a nation. You mean the leadership is committing treason by doing what people are loyal to. Is that's the case of it?

By the way, Al-Qaeda is one of the enemies of America. There is a possibility that America is going to destroy all Islamic countries and unite them under it. Is it true?

Is anyone else expecting a "Syrian" attack on US abroad or on the mainland that happens magically right before the congress vote?

reply to post by Dreine


That's the difference between a democracy and a republic. With a democracy every citizen has a say in the decisions made. With a republic we vote in officials to make decisions on our behalf.

Thus any president of the USA is therefore no different from the Roman emperor who has the final veto on all decisions made.