Obama Should Order the CIA to Assassinate Snowden...
- Thread starter AlabamaRedneck
- Start date
Hydrotech364
Well-Known Member
Well that means you are a douchebag.Congratulation's on being the RIU Douchebag of the Month.As a complimentary gift you will recieve worse healthcare, constant monitoring and a Kenyan writing checks to foreign country's.
Doer
Well-Known Member
That is unique oath of President, the most simple of all. It is also in the Oath of Congress. However, lower Oaths are for lower responsibleness and like gun salutes are formal and strict in wording.
So, as I understand this, Defending is replaced with Upholding in the lower Oaths.
When Snowden began his work for Booz Allen, he took two oaths. The first oath was to keep secret the classified materials to which he would be exposed in his work as a spy; the second oath was to uphold the Constitution.
http://www.wnd.com/2013/06/edward-snowdens-2-oaths/
Bretz
Member
Unclebuck,
You pasted that off wiki. Two can play at that game.
I am not going to go point by point on all this stuff you copied of the internet, especially with my cell phone. I will just paste, kinda like you, info off the net and watch you justify them away (Cognitive dissonance).
http://www.globalresearch.ca/its-not-fascism-when-we-do-it-u-s-government-claims-that-truth-is-too-complicated-and-dangerous-to-disclose-to-the-public/5319012
http://m.guardiannews.com/world/2007/apr/24/usa.comment
These ten steps, each of which has been taken at the time of this writing, are:
Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy.' (Eg. "terrorists," mainly Muslim terrorists).
Create secret prisons where torture takes place.' (Eg: Offshore secret hell-holes plus on US soil including 44 solitary confinement torture units where presently, 100,000 Americans are secretly tortured daily.)
Develop a thug caste or paramilitary force not answerable to citizens (Eg: Police and military police are operational plus an Executive Order signed by President Obama for "targeted killings," to assassinate Americans on U.S. soil.)
Set up an internal surveillance system (Eg: Cell phones and cell phone towers, paid neighborhood snitches...)
Harass citizens' groups (Eg: Such as Targeted Individuals including whistleblowers, rights defenders, peace and justice workers).
Engage in arbitrary detention and release. (Eg: National Defence Authorization Act 2012)
Target key individuals (Eg: Innocent Self-identified Targeted Individuals now report but officials refuse to aid).
Control the press (Eg: Black-out most of what is in best interest of the public and manipulate viewers to watch what is in bets interest of the corporate government)
Treat all political dissidents as traitors (Eg: President George Bush's doctrine - 'You are either with us or with the terrorists..." that Preisdent Obama is furthering.)
Suspend rule of law (Eg: The U.S. has done this so many times in recent years, it is known around the globe as a nation state believing it is above the law, a rogue state).
Wolf details how this pattern was implemented in Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and elsewhere. She analyzes the pattern's emergence and application in American political affairs since the September 11 attacks by both the Bush and the Obama administrations.
From Hitler to Pinochet and beyond, history shows these same steps of a blueprint as Wolf calls is, are those any would-be dictator must take to destroy constitutional freedoms.
On August 9th, 2009, Wolf published an editorial in which she compared Obama's "Guantanimo Promise" with the hard facts created by Bush-era policies, New Boss Same as Old.
You pasted that off wiki. Two can play at that game.
I am not going to go point by point on all this stuff you copied of the internet, especially with my cell phone. I will just paste, kinda like you, info off the net and watch you justify them away (Cognitive dissonance).
http://www.globalresearch.ca/its-not-fascism-when-we-do-it-u-s-government-claims-that-truth-is-too-complicated-and-dangerous-to-disclose-to-the-public/5319012
http://m.guardiannews.com/world/2007/apr/24/usa.comment
These ten steps, each of which has been taken at the time of this writing, are:
Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy.' (Eg. "terrorists," mainly Muslim terrorists).
Create secret prisons where torture takes place.' (Eg: Offshore secret hell-holes plus on US soil including 44 solitary confinement torture units where presently, 100,000 Americans are secretly tortured daily.)
Develop a thug caste or paramilitary force not answerable to citizens (Eg: Police and military police are operational plus an Executive Order signed by President Obama for "targeted killings," to assassinate Americans on U.S. soil.)
Set up an internal surveillance system (Eg: Cell phones and cell phone towers, paid neighborhood snitches...)
Harass citizens' groups (Eg: Such as Targeted Individuals including whistleblowers, rights defenders, peace and justice workers).
Engage in arbitrary detention and release. (Eg: National Defence Authorization Act 2012)
Target key individuals (Eg: Innocent Self-identified Targeted Individuals now report but officials refuse to aid).
Control the press (Eg: Black-out most of what is in best interest of the public and manipulate viewers to watch what is in bets interest of the corporate government)
Treat all political dissidents as traitors (Eg: President George Bush's doctrine - 'You are either with us or with the terrorists..." that Preisdent Obama is furthering.)
Suspend rule of law (Eg: The U.S. has done this so many times in recent years, it is known around the globe as a nation state believing it is above the law, a rogue state).
Wolf details how this pattern was implemented in Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and elsewhere. She analyzes the pattern's emergence and application in American political affairs since the September 11 attacks by both the Bush and the Obama administrations.
From Hitler to Pinochet and beyond, history shows these same steps of a blueprint as Wolf calls is, are those any would-be dictator must take to destroy constitutional freedoms.
On August 9th, 2009, Wolf published an editorial in which she compared Obama's "Guantanimo Promise" with the hard facts created by Bush-era policies, New Boss Same as Old.
Bretz
Member
The US Constipation (Constitution) is factually just 4 pieces of paper, everything else is just opinion in black ink. Even King George II agrees.http://m.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/11/171129/-Bush-on-the-Constitution-quot-just-a-goddamned-piece-of-paper-quotSupreme Court decisions are OPINIONS.They all now its just a PR scam. (Constitution)Churches are now corporations with charters issued by the state. 1st amendment gone.Gold standard gone. Payments to be made to government by gold or silver coinage.Direct tax. April fools day the 15th.4th amendment gone. Current debacle.2nd amendment gone, going or severely restricted. Depends on the jurisdiction. Get a bogus drug charge and see what happens to your gun rights.I have not seen evidence Snowden has an oath. Either way he has a duty to report crimes and he reported it to everyone.Waterboarding is not torture to US agents.Renditions.
You are correct. However, I think it is reasonable to consider "uphold" and "defend" to be similar in their meaning. These two oaths, in Snowden's case, are in conflict. I think that the duty to uphold the constitution outweighs the duty to not disclose. Since Snowden was not in a position to change policy, he did the only thing he could do, inform the public about the illegal activities.
Now, are these activities illegal? I feel they are, but unfortunately for Snowden, the limits of the federal governments power are decided by the federal government.
The most eye opening experience I had to this was the Federal Income Tax class I took in law school. In criminal or civil cases, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff or the prosecution. In income tax cases, the presumption is in favor of the IRS, and the defendant has to prove he is not guilty. And in reading many of these cases, the holding of the court could be simply paraphrased as follows - "Well, the tax payer is actually within the law in this case, but the interest of the IRS/federal government are better served if we rule in favor of the government, so thats what we're going to do."
Bretz
Member
On that issue the courts rule on policy not law. If they ruled on law that issue would have died at its start. They laugh at you if you bring up the constitution. That issue is one of many that me to believe the document never legally existed.
Congress shifted the burden of proof back to the IRS in the 1980s, so long as taxpayers substantiated their claims, maintained records, and cooperated with the IRS in the process. I found a 2005 article stating this was still accurate, so I presume it still is today.
Of course, I think the burden of proof made sense in tax cases, since it was really just about administrative convenience. If you force the IRS to prove that taxpayers were deficient, they must expend substantially more effort investigating, which makes collecting revenue more expensive. Since the IRS already has scant resources, they would presumably have no choice but to conduct fewer audits, which presumably would hit collections and reduce compliance. If the IRS has the burden of proof, presumably plaintiffs would win their cases more often, which would again reduce revenue collection and encourage the further use of questionable tax strategies by other taxpayers.
I think congress solved some of these problems in setting conditions for the burden to shift to the IRS. Basically, you need to have credible and complete records, and you have to be cooperative, so in order to have the burden shifted to the IRS, you have to hand them all of the information they need to prove you were deficient, and you have to cooperate with them as they're making that determination.
As for tax cases: the problem with tax is that the federal government has at best a few thousand lawyers to crunch tax laws, and those people don't get paid particularly well. On the other side, the private sector has hundreds of thousands of tax attorneys and accountants, many of whom are paid several times as much as government employees who do comparable work. Given this horrible balance, taxpayers can work incredible magic that the government never imagined, avoiding paying huge amounts of money and remaining within the letter of the law. If we permitted this, it would drain federal revenues and encourage other taxpayers to employ the same tactics.
Letting people get away with gaming the tax system is bad for everyone. It encourages further gaming, and if everyone is gaming, who's actually going to pay? No one. The tax system would not function like that, and the federal government could not function like that. The courts are understandably hostile in tax cases when people claim to have invented new ways to reduce their tax liability under exactly the same law.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
FAIL.
your claim was that "this IS 1930's germany!!!!1!!one!!!eleven!!111!!!"
so i posted some things that actually occured in 1930's germany.
the list you just presented shows no comparable similarities between what they did and what is going on here.
we have not gotten rid of freedom of assembly, we have not started executing political groups, we have not set up concentration camps, the constitution is still the law of the land.
hell, not even the list you just copied and pasted from globalresearch.ca, the left wing's equivalent of WND (in other words, a nutty rag with no credibility) is accurate with respect to what's going on here, as rule of law is still what goes on.
come get me when there are concentration camps and opposing political parties being killed en masse and the freedom of press and assembly is gone.
until then, your claim that ""this IS 1930's germany!!!!1!!one!!!eleven!!111!!!" is demonstrably bullshit.
sorry.
say, were you a big aficionado of rawn pawl by any chance?
i bet you were.
Bretz
Member
Do I have income. The cases below, that are still standing say no.
Oliver v. Halstead, 86 S.E. Rep 2nd 85e9 (1955):
"There is a clear distinction between `profit' and `wages', or a compensation for labor. Compensation for labor (wages) cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. The word `profit', as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business or investment -- a different thing altogether from the mere compensation for labor."
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930):
"The claim that salaries, wages, and compensation for personal services are to be taxed as an entirety and therefore must be returned by the individual who has performed the services which produce the gain is without support... it is not salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services that are to be included in gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services."
Conner v. U.S., 303 F Supp. 1187 (1969):
"... whatever may constitute income, therefore, must have the essental feature of gain to the recipient. This was true when the 16th Amendment became effective, it was true at the time of Eisner v. Macomber Supra, it was true under Section 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1938, and it is likewise true under Section 61(a) of the I.R.S. Code of 1954. If there is not gain, there is not income ... Congress has taxed income not compensation."
Edwards (vs) Keith, 231 F110, 113 (1916):
"The phraseology of form 1040 is somewhat obscure .... But it matters little what it does mean; the statute and the statute alone determines what is income to be taxed. It taxes only income "derived" from many different sources; one does not "derive income" by rendering services and charging for them... IRS cannot enlarge the scope of the statute."
Lauderdale Cemetary Assoc. v. Mathews, 345 PA 239; 47 A. 2d 277, 280 (1946):
"... reasonable compensation for labor or services rendered is not profit."
WillyBagseed
Active Member
It is not being a traitor informing US citizens that their Government is spying on them (aka fucking over the 4th amendment) it is called patriotism to support the constitution.
as long as you read the whole constitution and not pick and choose from it, as in ....different subject but you "libertarians" know what I am talking about ,
Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
You mean do you have income in receiving money for goods or services? None of these cases say the answer is no.
The congress shall have power to provide for general welfare.It is not being a traitor informing US citizens that their Government is spying on them (aka fucking over the 4th amendment) it is called patriotism to support the constitution.
as long as you read the whole constitution and not pick and choose from it, as in ....different subject but you "libertarians" know what I am talking about ,
Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Bretz
Member
Unclebuck,FAIL.
your claim was that "this IS 1930's germany!!!!1!!one!!!eleven!!111!!!"
so i posted some things that actually occured in 1930's germany.
the list you just presented shows no comparable similarities between what they did and what is going on here.
we have not gotten rid of freedom of assembly, we have not started executing political groups, we have not set up concentration camps, the constitution is still the law of the land.
hell, not even the list you just copied and pasted from globalresearch.ca, the left wing's equivalent of WND (in other words, a nutty rag with no credibility) is accurate with respect to what's going on here, as rule of law is still what goes on.
come get me when there are concentration camps and opposing political parties being killed en masse and the freedom of press and assembly is gone.
until then, your claim that ""this IS 1930's germany!!!!1!!one!!!eleven!!111!!!" is demonstrably bullshit.
sorry.
say, were you a big aficionado of rawn pawl by any chance?
I want you to focus, concentrate....OK?
Here's what I said:
"I'm telling you it's pre-war Germany. History repeats itself."
Yes or no? Be honest...be responsive. Yell it out when it comes to you. Come on you can do it!
Does the Person DBA United States President have the authority to assassinate anyone he wants in the world deemed by him to be an Enemy Combatant.
Yes or No?
Did the OP promote this?
Yes or No?
Did the government of Germany, private people or groups assassinate their enemies after 1918 but before 1939?
Yes or No?
If you answer no your just fooling yourself. It is just like I say it is. The other similarities that you deny are true.
The original statement I made in response to the redneck is correct. The rabbit hole you went down is also proving to be true. Secret prisons and renditions are not OK. Contrary to your beliefs, water boarding is torture. Being belligerent and attacking other countries in violation of international law is not acceptable.
I know the US Citizen has been convinced that this is acceptable in modern society but most of the of the world will argue against that mentality.
You are wrong. These things are happening and are only getting worst.
Are you a United States Citizen Unclebuck?
Doer
Well-Known Member
Oh really? A traitor cuts and runs.
A Patriot say, as the noose goes on, "I regret I have but one life to give for my country."
Bretz
Member
Maybe you. No offense but I have no allegiance to whatever this thing is? That is my right. I am supposed to be secure in that right. Whoever they are, they have no right getting into my business without probable cause that I have committed a crime. They broke that agreement....and others. Deals over.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
listen, child.
i listed some of the things that occurred in pre war germany, and it was an incomplete list to be sure that did not even include some of the more horrendous actions of the third reich.
what they did and what we are doing now are not even comparable.
hitler had opposing political parties slaughtered. has obama been slaughtering tea partiers?
hitler revoked freedom of assembly and press. has obama revoked freedom of assembly and press?
hitler was above all laws, he was the law. why does obama use his DOJ to fight laws in the courts?
these are just a very limited, very few examples of where your statement falls apart.
i have no doubts that you spammed for rawn pawl all last year, calling people "sheeple" and telling them to "wake up" and "open their eyes".
i told you the comparison broke down upon examination, and based on a very small glimpse into the actions of pre war germany, it fell apart. no slaughtering of opposing political factions, the constitution is still the law of the land, no concentration camps, no krystallnacht, freedom of assembly and press intact, artists can create whatever art they want, women are still able to pursue careers...
you fail. you're not the first pawlbot i've gone over this with.
kpmarine
Well-Known Member
Saying the current state of the US is like pre-war Germany is like saying that an unwelcome pat on the ass is just like rape. Sure, they are both wrong, but they're vastly distant in how wrong they are. All your doing is trivializing what ACTUALLY happened in pre-war Germany while exaggerating what's actually going on currently.