just a few short years - what an amazing change - Page 1

2008: "Navy Seal Team 6 is Cheney's private assassination team."  2011: "I put together Seal Team 6 to take out Bin Laden."  2008: "Bin Laden is innocent until proven guilty, and must be captured alive and given a fair trial."  2011: "I authorized Seal Team 6 to kill Bin Laden."  2008: "Guantanamo is entirely unnecessary, and the detainees should not be interrogated."  2011: "Vital intelligence was obtained from Guantanamo detainees that led to our locating Bin Laden."

hi beautiful

you really shouldn't listen to tea party friends/morons.

and now the rest of the story

Our ruling

A few of the sentiments have some link to reality – Obama did order the raid to kill bin Laden, and he did oppose Guantanamo, even though he ultimately failed to carry through on his promise to close it. The critics may have wished Obama had made these statements, but appears the statements have no basis in reality. It's clear from our research that all six quotes are fabrications. Once again a widely circulated chain e-mail is spreading ridiculous falsehoods about Obama. We rate this e-mail Pants on Fire.


dear, shame on you for spreading falsehoods and not being able to stay in reality, can't you use that brain to find real issues and not some hair brained piece of trash chain email? 12 year olds do this in school*spread falsehoods*, not grown adults, unless you belong to the tea party/moron express.
 

you voted to Obama to to prove you weren't a racist,
vote for him again and prove that you're a fool!

love

did you vote for bush twice? i guess you would probably know a thing or 2 about being a fool. 

No I didn't vote for bush twice!

SitasMom, the example you state is for the most part correct. He has flip flopped on almost everything he promised before the election, like getting out of Iraq within the first 30 days of office. He has proven to be a consummate liar.  However it is important to note that ex-nsa Wayne Madsen says Obama is from a career CIA family and has continued the policies of the Bush2 regime run by Cheney.  He is a mere puppet.  That's why they call him bush-lite inside the beltway.  Obama has started even more illegal undeclared wars than Bush 1&2, invaded Yemen and Libya with troops on the ground, using  special forces and mercenaries like Xe and dyncorp, etc.  

Bush2 was bad, Obama is worse, and both have trashed the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.  Bush2 was responsible for the illegal, unconstitutional  so-called Patriot Act, an abortion against our personal freedoms and killed habeas corpus.  He ordered the illlegal renditions (kidnappings) of many innocent victims (with some of these US citizens) to secret black prisons ships and prisons for torture and murder.  At least half of these victims were completely innocent and young teenagers, sold to the CIA by warloards that captured them from rival tribes and freceived hyuge bounties per head.  No trials, no warrants, torture declared okay by US Govt, puire 100% crimes against humanity. 

All the six mideast wars were illegal, unprovoked, unconstitutional and unaffordable (all were war crimes).  The USA is technically bankrupt and could not afford any of these six mideast wars. Now the result is excess issuing of money by the fed res. and a huge devaluation of the US dollar. (ever wonder why all prices, esp. gas and food have gone up so much?  That's why). And all these six illegal wars were started because our administration declared that 911 was done by arab terrorists when they did it themselves.  

Few have the courage to face the available facts of 911. Do you have the courage to learn the facts and find out what really happened on 9-11-01 and who actually did it?  Anybody can parrot the official govt position, but all who research it carefully find it has no support at all.  Even those on the 911 commission have said it was a fraud and coverup.  Sen Max Cleland quit the commission for the reason.  Reserach that American war hero from the Vietnam era and find out what he said publicly about the commission.  How much courage to learn the truth do you have?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26340 

  "There can be little doubt that the decision to deploy military force is "executive" in nature, and was traditionally so regarded. It calls for action and energy in execution, rather than the deliberate formulation of rules to govern the conduct of private individuals. Moreover, the Framers understood it to be an attribute of the executive. "The direction of war implies the direction of the common strength," wrote Alexander Hamilton, "and the power of directing and employing the common strength forms a usual and essential part in the definition of the executive authority." The Federalist No. 74, at 415 (Alexander Hamilton). As a result, to the extent that the constitutional text does not explicitly allocate the power to initiate military hostilities to a particular branch, the Vesting Clause provides that it remain among the President's unenumerated powers."

"Conducting military hostilities is a central tool for the exercise of the President's plenary control over the conduct of foreign policy. There can be no doubt that the use of force protects the Nation's security and helps it achieve its foreign policy goals. Construing the Constitution to grant such power to another branch could prevent the President from exercising his core constitutional responsibilities in foreign affairs. Even in the cases in which the Supreme Court has limited executive authority, it has also emphasized that we should not construe legislative prerogatives to prevent the executive branch "from accomplishing its constitutionally assigned functions." Nixon v. Administrator of General Servs., 433 U.S. 425, 443 (1977)."

" If the President is confronted with an unforeseen attack on the territory and people of the United States, or other immediate, dangerous threat to American interests and security, the courts have affirmed that it is his constitutional responsibility to respond to that threat with whatever means are necessary, including the use of military force abroad. See, e.g., Prize Cases, 67 U.S. at 635"


Source:  http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm


Looking at the above article, it appears that the middle east wars fit the described criteria.

Here's another article from Harvard with comments from David Barron (Harvard law professor):

“Though congressional war powers are not plenary,” Barron told the Senate Judiciary Committee, “neither do they limit the legislature solely to reliance upon a complete termination of funding in regulating the scope, duration or size of a military operation. To the contrary, our constitutional tradition shows that measures such as those now being considered concerning military operations in Iraq—whether they place caps on troop levels, restrictions on the introduction of new troops or establish a date certain by which troops must be redeployed—are clearly constitutional exercises of well-established congressional war powers.”

Barron has developed his views in greater depth in a two-part article, written with Martin S. Lederman, a visiting professor at the Georgetown University Law Center, that is scheduled for publication in upcoming editions of the Harvard Law Review. In that piece, the authors upend what they describe as the well-entrenched assumption that, as a matter of original constitutional intent and long-standing constitutional practice, operational or tactical matters are “for the president alone.” Constitutional history shows, they argue, that there is really only one “core prerogative” of the commander-in-chief—namely, a prerogative of superintendence when it comes to the military chain of command itself.

Source:  http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/spotlight/terrorism-and-national-security/battlegrounds.html


 

Also, regarding homland security and using forces for domestic security:

http://www.homelandsecurity.org/journal/articles/trebilcock.htm