Obama waives ban on arming terrorists to allow aid to Syrian opposition

[Arbo]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-waives-ban-on-arming-terrorists-to-allow-aid-to-syrian-opposition/article/2535885


President Obama (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/section/barack-obama) waived a provision of federal law designed to prevent the supply of arms to terrorist groups (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/section/terrorism) to clear the way for the U.S. to provide military assistance to "vetted" opposition groups fighting Syrian dictator Bashar Assad. (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/section/bashar-assad)Some elements of the Syrian opposition are associated with radical Islamic terrorist groups, including al Qaeda, (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/section/al-qaeda) which was responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks in New York, Washington, D.C., and Shanksville, Pa., in 2001. Assad's regime is backed by Iran and Hezbollah.

F'n idiot!

[aboutime]

Will this be Fast & Furious II, or SYRIA...HOLDER STYLE?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Will this be Fast & Furious II, or SYRIA...HOLDER STYLE? He has by doing this openly shown his true colors just as I've stated he would. However he'll get by with it. You want to know why? Because he truly is a messiah, a savior for the majority of brain dead, lazy ass, indifferent and vastly undereducated people in this country. The bastard can openly give arms to our avowed enemies and be praised for it! If he gets by with this our nation is done for. May take a few years but this surely seals the deal IMHO.-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

He has by doing this openly shown his true colors just as I've stated he would. However he'll get by with it. You want to know why? Because he truly is a messiah, a savior for the majority of brain dead, lazy ass, indifferent and vastly undereducated people in this country. The bastard can openly give arms to our avowed enemies and be praised for it! If he gets by with this our nation is done for. May take a few years but this surely seals the deal IMHO.-Tyr Openly voiding a Federal law to aid our enemies! Told you people what his true motive was and it damn sure wasn't about chem weapons use. He has openly stated he intends on aiding Al Qaeda. So when did Al Qaeda stop being our enemy? That's right they haven't so Obama by doing that commits treason. Say it real slowly, T-R-E-A-S-O-N... JUST LIKE HE HAS DONE BEFORE. Can anybody tell me how long a nation lasts when it openly aids it's own enemies to become stronger? I tell ya who shares blame with the dems/libs/leftists and Obama and that's those too unconcerned, stupid or gullible to speak out and raise hell about Obama for the last 4+ years. Yes sir, I truly like the list that I've made --just in case.. you know, in case justice ever comes around. -Tyr

[fj1200]

Openly voiding a Federal law to aid our enemies!

Not exactly.


The law allows the president to waive those prohibitions if he "determines that the transaction is essential to the national security interests of the United States."
Under section 40(g) of the AECA, the Obama team must also provide Congress — at least 15 days before turning over the weapons — "the name of any country involved in the proposed transaction, the identity of any recipient of the items to be provided pursuant to the proposed transaction, and the anticipated use of those items," along with a list of the weaponry to be provided, when they will be delivered, and why the transfer is key to American security interests.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Not exactly. haha, National security. As if Syria going to radical muslims is a national security plus for us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SOB is a GD lying mmfferrrr. What a bogus claim!!!! Say, where and when did he lay out the national security reasons you say he can use!???? He strikes Syria he should be impeached for treason, found guilty and given the max sentence possible.. Sure, will never happen because he is actually a dictator now... --Tyr

[Larrymc]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-waives-ban-on-arming-terrorists-to-allow-aid-to-syrian-opposition/article/2535885



F'n idiot![/FONT][/COLOR]His intent on starting the third World War, in a bid to keep his job!

[revelarts]

Not exactly.

FJ c'mon man.

do really think arming Syrian/Alqaeda rebels qualifies by ANY stretch of the imagination as Vital or Essential to our country?

I can site Several laws that show that Obama should be in jail. without ANY stretch of the definition in the text.

not to mention the NDAA which he signed but "won't abuse the power it gives" in it ANYONE that aids Alqaeda can be a target of the military. suitable for "death, detention and prosecution" without a lawyer.

TYR's right in that it's just another treasonous act on Obama's part.

<iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/9ni-nPc6gT4?feature=player_embedded" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>

Graham and McCain Both voted for this rope that have hung THEMSELVES on.

[fj1200]

haha, National security. As if Syria going to radical muslims is a national security plus for us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SOB is a GD lying mmfferrrr. What a bogus claim!!!! Say, where and when did he lay out the national security reasons you say he can use!???? He strikes Syria he should be impeached for treason, found guilty and given the max sentence possible.. Sure, will never happen because he is actually a dictator now... --Tyr

A more accurate response would have been that he did not openly void a Federal law but that he used a waiver provision as allowed by legislation yada, yada, yada... And I didn't say he wasn't a bumbling fool or that he had laid out valid reasons for striking Syria but even if he does he unfortunately still has not committed an impeachable act.


FJ c'mon man.

You're overreading a bit. So far nothing he has done has been a crime or against any particular statute much to the chagrin of some.

[cadet]

Will this be Fast & Furious II, or SYRIA...HOLDER STYLE?


I'll give you a hint, it ends with a "III" and starts with a "world war."

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

FJ c'mon man.

do really think arming Syrian/Alqaeda rebels qualifies by ANY stretch of the imagination as Vital or Essential to our country?

I can site Several laws that show that Obama should be in jail. without ANY stretch of the definition in the text.

not to mention the NDAA which he signed but "won't abuse the power it gives" in it ANYONE that aids Alqaeda can be a target of the military. suitable for "death, detention and prosecution" without a lawyer.

TYR's right in that it's just another treasonous act on Obama's part.

<iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/9ni-nPc6gT4?feature=player_embedded" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>

Graham and McCain Both voted for this rope that have hung THEMSELVES on. I've been right about the lying traitor for over a year here now. Before that for over 3 years at my old forum. By no stretch of the imagination can he make the case that its in our national security interests and since that's not the case he is indeed engaging in a treasonous act. I have to wonder why many intelligent people simply refuse to admit that!--Tyr

[fj1200]

I've been right about the lying traitor for over a year here now.

I don't know if I'd rely on rev so much. He's said same about every POTUS since Lincoln. :poke:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I don't know if I'd rely on rev so much. He's said same about every POTUS since Lincoln. :poke: Well, Lincoln got shot didn't he? :poke:

[fj1200]

Well, Lincoln got shot didn't he? :poke:

Damning evidence indeed.


By no stretch of the imagination can he make the case that its in our national security interests and since that's not the case he is indeed engaging in a treasonous act. I have to wonder why many intelligent people simply refuse to admit that!--Tyr

Um, on second read here. That's not the definition of treason.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Um, on second read here. That's not the definition of treason. Really? Aiding this nation's sworn enemies , enemies currently on a hit list isn't treason. ! Do tell, I'm all ears and eyes too. -Tyr

[fj1200]

Really? Aiding this nation's sworn enemies , enemies currently on a hit list isn't treason. ! Do tell, I'm all ears and eyes too. -Tyr

You're moving the goal posts.


By no stretch of the imagination can he make the case that its in our national security interests and since that's not the case he is indeed engaging in a treasonous act.

Your stated argument is that if can't make the case it's treason, logically if he could make the case it wouldn't be treason. The proof for treason doesn't rely on his ability to make the case.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You're moving the goal posts.



Your stated argument is that if can't make the case it's treason, logically if he could make the case it wouldn't be treason. The proof for treason doesn't rely on his ability to make the case. Sure it does as it points to intent. He is to be held to a far higher standard than the one you are giving with this IMHO. Deliberately AIDING THE ENEMY ISNT TREASON! OK, by that reasoning FDR could have armed the japs during WW2 AND IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TREASON-- DO YA REALLY THINK THAT SHAT WOULD HAVE FLOWN? 70 YEARS LATER THE PRINCIPLE HASN'T CHANGED. -Tyr

[fj1200]

Sure it does as it points to intent. He is to be held to a far higher standard than the one you are giving with this IMHO. Deliberately AIDING THE ENEMY ISNT TREASON! OK, by that reasoning FDR could have armed the japs during WW2 AND IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TREASON-- DO YA REALLY THINK THAT SHAT WOULD HAVE FLOWN? 70 YEARS LATER THE PRINCIPLE HASN'T CHANGED. -Tyr

It doesn't go to intent at all. If you want to prove treason the standard isn't his ability to "make the case," the standard is the enemy and aiding. Prove that and you're case is made.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

It doesn't go to intent at all. If you want to prove treason the standard isn't his ability to "make the case," the standard is the enemy and aiding. Prove that and you're case is made. Well actually to get the conviction our dear politicians casting the votes would have to believe his intent was to aid our enemies so they could win against us--otherwise they would not find him guilty . So proving true intent is a must IMHO. Can not properly cook the turkey unless you pluck the feathers off. ;)-Tyr

[revelarts]

I don't know if I'd rely on rev so much. He's said same about every POTUS since Lincoln. :poke:
HEY!
not Lincoln...
....Since W. Wilson maybe sure.
but these last 2 have really set the imperial presidency consistently over the congress, the courts and the constitution like no others. ...couughexceptmaybeFDRcough..

And FJ here's my question.
If i run a red light am i guilty of a crime/infraction/whatever if i caught or not?
And If the cops let me go every time they catch me, because of bribes, my position and/or lame legal excuses that my position give me authority in SOME situations. But i'm NEVER really in those situations. Have i broken the law even if no one calls me one it?

Bush and Obama have done exactly that.
If people would stop assuming presidents are above the law and their -out of their cracks- interpretations of half unconstitutional laws are some how like the law of Moses that shouldn't be questioned.
we'd be in a lot better shape than we are.

Arming these rebels wouldn't even be a topic of discussion.

[Kathianne]

Constitution defines. Art.3, Section 3:


Section 3 - Treason defined. Proof of. Punishment of. 1. Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

2. The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture, except during the life of the person attainted.

[aboutime]

HEY!
not Lincoln...
....Since W. Wilson maybe sure.
but these last 2 have really set the imperial presidency consistently over the congress, the courts and the constitution like no others. ...couughexceptmaybeFDRcough..

And FJ here's my question.
If i run a red light am i guilty of a crime/infraction/whatever if i caught or not?
And If the cops let me go every time they catch me, because of bribes, my position and/or lame legal excuses that my position give me authority in SOME situations. But i'm NEVER really in those situations. Have i broken the law even if no one calls me one it?

Bush and Obama have done exactly that.
If people would stop assuming presidents are above the law and their -out of their cracks- interpretations of half unconstitutional laws are some how like the law of Moses that shouldn't be questioned.
we'd be in a lot better shape than we are.

Arming these rebels wouldn't even be a topic of discussion.



rev. Far as I can tell from reading here. It's not the people who think Presidents are above the law. It's the people who call themselves Our President. Namely Obama, since we only have One at a time. The people who care...know about the abuses, and how our Constitution is being ignored. Yes. A large percentage of the people...simply don't care, because they aren't honestly..smart enough to care. INSTANT GRATIFICATION, and the "ME and I" syndrome has taken over the FREEBIE STATES OF AMERICA.

[Gaffer]

Before they start giving arms to the jihadist they should take note of recent history. assad allowed and even sent many of these same jihadists through his border into iraq to fight the US troops there. Many of these jihadists are now coming back into syria to over throw him. Nothing like being bitten on the ass by your own dogs.

Give the jihadist weapons and they will eventually turn on us.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Constitution defines. Art.3, Section 3:

Constitution defines. Art.3, Section 3:






Section 3 - Treason defined. Proof of. Punishment of.

1. Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

2. The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture, except during the life of the person attainted. Fighting to help those enemies of this country gain far greater strength by conquering another nation definitely qualifies in the bolded part above. If not , then no such thing as treason exists IMHO..-TYR

[fj1200]

Well actually to get the conviction our dear politicians casting the votes would have to believe his intent was to aid our enemies so they could win against us--otherwise they would not find him guilty . So proving true intent is a must IMHO. Can not properly cook the turkey unless you pluck the feathers off. ;)-Tyr

How well he makes the argument does not speak to intent. But you're right about one thing; that he intended to aid them or aided them by the stumbling of his own idiocy would be helpful. First step is to still prove treason.


HEY!
not Lincoln...
....Since W. Wilson maybe sure.

...

And FJ here's my question.

:laugh: Ok, Wilson. But let's not misinterpret my position; Syria is not a national threat, or at least has not been proven to be, but the question at hand was proof of treason. Bumbling stupidity is not proof of treason or impeachability especially as long as some on both sides are yelling the same argument.

[logroller]

You're moving the goal posts.



Your stated argument is that if can't make the case it's treason, logically if he could make the case it wouldn't be treason. The proof for treason doesn't rely on his ability to make the case.
Lets assume he's innocent. He then arms rebels and incidentally known enemies of the US also, but done by accident. Id say he's in the clear. reagan had a similar issue with iran contra. but then why would he ahead of time waive the action. That's makes it seem pretty overt an act and then it becomes his burden to prove it was justified-- same as any crime really.

If I shoot someone and witnesses say, 'yep, he shot him' it seems I should then have to defend the act as justified. Presumed innocence only goes so far before one need justify their actions. We'll see if congress is persuaded. Somehow I doubt they will be.

[revelarts]

Ok
lets put it in clear terms.

Do we have an ongoing war on terror?
Is Al Qaeda the primary enemy in that "war"?
Is Obama supplying weapons and other clandestine Aid to al Qaeda?

Seems to me we have treason.

If the day after 9/11 any of us sent $3000 & 3 shot guns to a known Al qaeda cell anywhere in the world. Do you think you might get put on a bus to jail, after some -itsnot-torture?

If you still wore a uniform and did the same, wouldn't you be tried for treason and sent to Leavenworth, gitmo or maybe even hanged?

It's 12 years after 9/11 and al qaeda's Al Zawaherihehe is calling for lone wolf strikes but al qadea Syria is getting weapons, aid and moral support from Obama
Seems to me that's Treason.

is there a flaw in my reasoning here?
Can we get a special prosecutor on this please?

[fj1200]

Lets assume he's innocent. He then arms rebels and incidentally known enemies of the US also, but done by accident. Id say he's in the clear. reagan had a similar issue with iran contra. but then why would he ahead of time waive the action. That's makes it seem pretty overt an act and then it becomes his burden to prove it was justified-- same as any crime really.

If I shoot someone and witnesses say, 'yep, he shot him' it seems I should then have to defend the act as justified. Presumed innocence only goes so far before one need justify their actions. We'll see if congress is persuaded. Somehow I doubt they will be.

As I understand he had to waive the action to legally arm what is considered a terrorist group by some part of the government. Having said that you need to also state who is the enemy and did it result in directly aiding them. If you give guns to the "freedom fighting good guys" but some of them happen to filter to the "12th Imam caliphate bad guys" then did you aid the enemy? Even by accident?

BTW, you can't say presume he's innocent and then he... :slap: We're all innocent until then I...

[fj1200]

Ok
lets put it in clear terms.

...

is there a flaw in my reasoning here?
Can we get a special prosecutor on this please?

At least some Congressional hearings so we can think our elected officials are doing their jobs. It would also be nice if those hearings were based on truth and fact and not conjecture.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

At least some Congressional hearings so we can think our elected officials are doing their jobs. It would also be nice if those hearings were based on truth and fact and not conjecture. ff the hearings , how about some real investigations into Fast/Furious, Benghazi, IRS scandal, his refusing to enforce immigration law, DOMA etc. ? Good God , you people haven't a clue about what the damn guy is! --Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

As I understand he had to waive the action to legally arm what is considered a terrorist group by some part of the government. Really? Some part of the government!?? We have a Federal law forbidding it and you say some part of the government as if Al Qaeda isn't the number one group the law was enacted to cover. As if Al Qaeda is not a major part of the rebels. So lets just help 2 of the 5 bank robbers= no harm/ no foul, we only helped 2 damn it , not like we helped the other three! So we are legal! Sure that's sound reasoning and perfectly legal. :laugh:--Tyr

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/gmc11230520130918033700.jpg

[fj1200]

ff the hearings , how about some real investigations into Fast/Furious, Benghazi, IRS scandal, his refusing to enforce immigration law, DOMA etc. ? Good God , you people haven't a clue about what the damn guy is! --Tyr

I would have thought you would know how things work in Congress. :dunno: Besides, the people don't hate BO enough for the Congress to follow through.

[fj1200]

Really? Some part of the government!?? We have a Federal law forbidding it and you say some part of the government as if Al Qaeda isn't the number one group the law was enacted to cover. As if Al Qaeda is not a major part of the rebels. So lets just help 2 of the 5 bank robbers= no harm/ no foul, we only helped 2 damn it , not like we helped the other three! So we are legal! Sure that's sound reasoning and perfectly legal. :laugh:--Tyr

Yeah, I was going to look up the specifics but I didn't want to make you look bad. :poke: Of course I already linked to the relevant part of the OP's link but I guess details don't compare to, "Aack! al Quaeda, Aack!"

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Yeah, I was going to look up the specifics but I didn't want to make you look bad. :poke: Of course I already linked to the relevant part of the OP's link but I guess details don't compare to, "Aack! al Quaeda, Aack!" ok, just tell me when Federal law were designated to be recognized only by --some part of the government? no hurry, I can wait. --------- I know quite well how Congress works , also know they aren't doing their job on opposing and stopping the number one threat to this nation= Obama. "Aack! Obama bin Lyin , Aack!" --Tyr

[fj1200]

ok, just tell me when Federal law were designated to be recognized only by --some part of the government? no hurry, I can wait. --------- I know quite well how Congress works , also know they aren't doing their job on opposing and stopping the number one threat to this nation= Obama. "Aack! Obama bin Lyin , Aack!" --Tyr

I'm dubious about that because Congress was the institution that gave the power to the Executive to waive certain sections of the law in the first place.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'm dubious about that because Congress was the institution that gave the power to the Executive to waive certain sections of the law in the first place. That may be but surely the stipulation was with just cause. Has he put forth a just cause? Other than his so-called desire to stop chem weapons use by warring nations on foreign soil? That one doesn't fly as a national security issue even more so when he wants to back the side filled with our avowed and recognized terrorist enemies! No sir, you'll have to give me better justification than that.. For that's the same bull shat that Obama bin Lyin' is peddling.-Tyr

[fj1200]

That may be but surely the stipulation was with just cause. Has he put forth a just cause? Other than his so-called desire to stop chem weapons use by warring nations on foreign soil? That one doesn't fly as a national security issue even more so when he wants to back the side filled with our avowed and recognized terrorist enemies! No sir, you'll have to give me better justification than that.. For that's the same bull shat that Obama bin Lyin' is peddling.-Tyr

Apparently a requirement as laid out in the OP's link:


Not exactly.


The law allows the president to waive those prohibitions if he "determines that the transaction is essential to the national security interests of the United States."
Under section 40(g) of the AECA, the Obama team must also provide Congress — at least 15 days before turning over the weapons — "the name of any country involved in the proposed transaction, the identity of any recipient of the items to be provided pursuant to the proposed transaction, and the anticipated use of those items," along with a list of the weaponry to be provided, when they will be delivered, and why the transfer is key to American security interests.

I wonder if we'll be privy.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Apparently a requirement as laid out in the OP's link:



I wonder if we'll be privy.


The law allows the president to waive those prohibitions if he "determines that the transaction is essential to the national security interests of the United States."
Under section 40(g) of the AECA, the Obama team must also provide Congress — at least 15 days before turning over the weapons — "the name of any country involved in the proposed transaction, the identity of any recipient of the items to be provided pursuant to the proposed transaction, and the anticipated use of those items," along with a list of the weaponry to be provided, when they will be delivered, and why the transfer is key to American security interests.
and why the transfer is key to American security interests. Ten to one says he can not actually meet this requirement but his bull shat reasons will be accepted because we have a legislative branch truly scared of this ffing tyrant.

[Gaffer]

Apparently a requirement as laid out in the OP's link:



I wonder if we'll be privy.

Don't hold your breath.

[revelarts]

I'm dubious about that because Congress was the institution that gave the power to the Executive to waive certain sections of the law in the first place.

----The law allows the president to waive those prohibitions if he "determines that the transaction is essential to the national security interests of the United States."
Under section 40(g) of the AECA, the Obama team must also provide Congress — at least 15 days before turning over the weapons — "the name of any country involved in the proposed transaction, the identity of any recipient of the items to be provided pursuant to the proposed transaction, and the anticipated use of those items," along with a list of the weaponry to be provided, when they will be delivered, and why the transfer is key to American security interests.------


how many tracers does he have to knock over before it's a foul FJ?

the 1st one is down, you want to wait and see if he want to break other parts of the law too?

I sense I'm just hearing more of the same ol "well it wouldn't be good for the country we do xyz to the president" trying to make up some justification here.

the congress, neither right or left, have the will to deal with it.
and the AMerican people are like families that make excuses why its OK for THEIR son to do drugs and steal but not go to jail , he might be able to go to college!
While those other kids (other countries leaders) need the book thrown at them.

[fj1200]

Don't hold your breath.

I certainly won't.


how many tracers does he have to knock over before it's a foul FJ?

the 1st one is down, you want to wait and see if he want to break other parts of the law too?

The first one would be helpful but let's not jump to crying "impeachment" over a waiver option that Congress gave him in the law itself.

[red states rule]

http://www.newsoverload.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/syria.jpg

[DragonStryk72]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-waives-ban-on-arming-terrorists-to-allow-aid-to-syrian-opposition/article/2535885



F'n idiot![/FONT][/COLOR]

Cause it worked so fucking well when we armed the Taliban fighters, and the Saddam's people when they were going for power.... Oh wait.

[Gaffer]

http://www.newsoverload.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/syria.jpg

That is the absolute best solution I have seen. :clap:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

That is the absolute best solution I have seen. :clap: Hell, he is one of them and they'd still chop off his head is my guess.

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/mrz092013dAPR20130919114548.jpg