RoR: Forum

In the first place, Article II Section 1 of the Constitution reads:
Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"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."

The President does not promise to unconditionally defend the United States. He promises to unconditionally defend the Constitution. The Founders of our Republic were cognizant of the fact that the National government could be wrong. The best moral judgment of the President might be to not defend the United States and that would be perfectly consonant with the Constitution.

Second: Withdrawing American embassies is good idea. Diplomatic missions are earned by trust. The USA too easily grants its tacit approval to too many nations. I understand the value in open exchange and I see the need to maintain diplomatic channels during the worst of times, but at some level, it must be admitted that for the moment, we have nothing in common. (Let trade continue. Let private individuals do as they please.) America would do herself well to be more selective of her bed partners.

That said....

"This report is republished with permission of STRATFOR"
The Christmas Day Airliner Attack and the Intelligence Process
January 4, 2010 | 1840 GMT
By George Friedman
[...]

The incident drove home a number of points.
[...]
This terror attack made another point, intended or not. U.S. President Barack Obama recently decided to increase forces in Afghanistan. A large part of his reasoning was that Afghanistan was the origin of 9/11, and the Taliban hosted al Qaeda. Therefore, he reasoned the United States should focus its military operations in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan, since that was the origin of al Qaeda. But the Christmas Day terror attempt originated in Yemen, a place where the United States has been fighting a covert war with limited military resources. It therefore raises the question of why Obama is focusing on Afghanistan when the threat from al Qaeda spinoffs can originate anywhere.

http://www.stratfor.com/

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 1/04, 4:43pm)

Post 1

Monday, January 4, 2010 - 5:21pm

I think it sounds like aid and comfort to our enemies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, the third day of January, two thousand and one,

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United a States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

(a) IN GENERAL- That 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.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

http://www.usafricaonline.com/obama-mutallab-terrorism-alqaeda/

U.S President Barack Obama is expanding his views on the failed attack and role of the Al Qaeda network.

�We know that he traveled to Yemen, a country grappling with crushing poverty and deadly insurgencies. It appears that he joined an affiliate of al Qaeda, and that this group � al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula � trained him, equipped him with those explosives and directed him to attack that plane headed for America�, he said on Saturday in his weekly radio and internet address.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_3:_Treason

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Post 2

Tuesday, January 5, 2010 - 2:28am

Can I quote laws passed by Congress and signed by the President? The Income Tax is in the Constitution. I am sure that you pay yours and do so with patriotic pride. The Supreme Court ruled that local governments can seize private property and sell it to anyone they want.

What you are saying is that you want this thing to be done. You do not need Congressional acts or whatever. Just make your case.

Do you know how we got the War Powers Act?

During Viet Nam, Congress passed it.
Nixon vetoed it.
Congress passed it over his veto.

Declaring war is the responsibility of Congress under the Constitution. Suppose Congress passed a law giving the President the right to coin money and set the value thereof. See the problem? Same thing with War Powers. War Powers belong to Congress. They cannot give them away.

All of that aside. You do not care about the Constitution. You regard it as a flawed document with "contradictions" that violate "Objective Law." So forget the patriot pose, unwrap youself from the flag and just make your case based on principles of Objectivism. Tell us what you think the problem is and what ought to be done about it.

Post 3

Tuesday, January 5, 2010 - 2:26pm

What does income tax have to with treason? Obama says al qaeda is attacking us and says he won't fight back. I don't have to be an objectivist to understand that that is aid and comfort to our declared enemy. Are you for the constitution or against it? I don't understand a word you are saying Mr. Marotta.

Post 4

Tuesday, January 5, 2010 - 5:36pm

Ann, I'm intrigued -

Pacifism is the same as offering aid and comfort? Or are you saying Obama's obvious surrender isn't pacifism at all?

Mike, be nice. Please?

Post 5

Tuesday, January 5, 2010 - 8:48pm

Hi, Theresa!

Pacifism? I don't think Obama is a pacifist or he would have pulled out of Afghanistan. (I think he is just a creep with no principles one way or the other.)

This is the point. Threatening an embassy or an ambassador is an act of war. Like Leonidas kicking the persian ambassador in the well in 300. (Doesn't Obama watch movies? And he's a lawyer, isnt he?) We have a declaration under the war powers act that the president is authorized to use force against our enemies who attacked us on 9-11 and to prevent further international terrorism. If this isn't further international terrorism, what is? So I could understand that maybe Obama doesn't think that now is the best time to attack forces in Yemen. That's one thing. But you don't announce that you have no plans to defend yourself! It's like the police telling the mafia ahead of time they don't plan to patrol the west side of town. And this is war, and Obama has determined that this is al qaeda! Read the law I quoted above when I thought Mr. Marotta cared about the law. (Is he for or against the constitution? Does he hate me because I am not an objectivist, or does he hate objectivism? That flag stuff sounds like Janine Garoffallo. LOL)

THE LAW:

IN GENERAL- That 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.

OBAMA:

We know that he traveled to Yemen, a country grappling with crushing poverty and deadly insurgencies. It appears that he joined an affiliate of al Qaeda, and that this group � al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula � trained him, equipped him with those explosives and directed him to attack that plane headed for America�, he said on Saturday in his weekly radio and internet address.

Whatever the objectivist position is on treason, I think according to his oath and the law, Obama should be impeached.

Post 6

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 - 3:01am

Well, the Embassy did open, on Monday I think. The U.S. declared that the Yemeni goverment had the situation in hand. It is not always an act of war to threaten an Embassy: it happens all the time by disgruntled socialists and the like. But when al Qaida does it, that is an act of war. But Yemen did take steps, and they are letting us help with drones and CIA spies and the like.

But last night Obama spoke with more resoluteness than normal for him. However, he made one glaring mistake that I know of (because I didn't hear the entire speech!) He said the reason he was still closing Gitmo was because it was one of the things "al Qaida In The Arabian Peninsula" and other cells were angry about!

Well if that is the case, then we must fix whatever caused the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole; fix whatever caused the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon; fix whatever caused both attacks on the Twin Towers; fix whatever caused the shoe bomber to make his attempt; fix whatever any nutjob with a bomb, who calls himself a "jihadist", claims is his grief with the West.

Obama justified the actions of any terrorist by claiming that the things we do "cause" the actions of the terrorists.

Post 7

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 - 10:25am

I think that whole "Guantanamo is an Al Qaida recruiting tool" line of reasoning is being grossly overblown, and used as a poor excuse.

Al Qaida has no problem convincing people to blow themselves up just to fight Western Cultural values. Relatively speaking, how important could Guantanamo really be to fanatics who already think they'll be 'rewarded in heaven' for killing innocent people.

Personally, I'd be more happy if we publicly assured Al Qaida that we intend to fill Guantanamo to capacity, and will add new structures on as needed.

And there should be military tribunals, nothing more.

jt
(Edited by Jay Abbott on 1/06, 10:31am)

Post 8

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 - 1:18pm

No treason just more lies from the liar in chief. He promised and promised these negotiations would be televised.

(Edited by Ann Ominous on 1/07, 9:21am)

Post 9

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 - 4:02pm

Jay, when you say, "I think that whole "Guantanamo is an Al Qaida recruiting tool" line of reasoning is being grossly overblown, and used as a poor excuse," you yourself give it credence as a tool of argument. I know you don't agree with the argument. But that is beside the point.

Obama justified the actions of any terrorist by claiming that the things we do "cause" the actions of the terrorists.

That is what is important. When you declare that argument to be "overblown" or a "poor excuse" you mean if it wasn't overblown it might be valid; and you validate the idea that there are "good" excuses.

This is how we Objectivists make our own mistakes and allow the opposition to argue with us. We ourselves justify their arguments with us when we don't reject the concept out of hand as irrational.

"Fanatics who already think they'll be 'rewarded in heaven'" don't need the excuses that Obama and others give them. You're right that that isn't important.

But just as Ayn Rand said we must listen to our opposition and "take him at his word," so our opposition will do the same with us. Do not justify the thoughts of men like Obama by claiming they use "overblown" or "poor" excuses. Their thoughts are irrational and you can't fight that with mistaken logic.

Post 10

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 - 4:25pm

Excellent!

Thursday, January 7, 2010 - 4:19am

(Takes a bow, thank you.)

Post 12

Thursday, January 7, 2010 - 4:57am

Ann:

At 1:37, he clearly says "Not everyone will be watching."

That must be the part he really meant.

So, it wasn't all a pre-election pose-fest for the cameras.

I loved the part where he earnestly threw in the gratuitous "it will be streaming on the In-ter-net."

Made me want to grow dreadlocks and throw my earbudds on, do my hipster dufus iPod/iPhone/iYiYiYiYi dance in solouette against a flourescent green background; Now that's -my- President...

This is going to be a busy year for Obama: last train out of the station, and fols are already jumping off the train... Free people should all get ready to duck.

When it comes to transparency and open government and sunshine and criticising the closed doors policy of the CLinton administration and so on, maybe he didn't mean to include 'the most imporant social legislation in generations' in that.

This has been a proud moment in tribal constructivist hubris. It doesn't get much better than what we're not witnessing.

Post 13

Thursday, January 7, 2010 - 5:19am

Curtis,

Point well taken. I agree.

jt

Post 14

Tuesday, April 6, 2010 - 7:25pm