Vernon veteran recalls time spent as prisoner

"Nobody, regardless of who it was, was going to boss us around." Those were the words of Sgt. Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
MrOwl1939

Summerfield, NC

#22 Nov 17, 2010
Let's all shuffle off to Buffalo and visit LifeCoach. There's a tear in his beer. Maybe we can give him cheer. Joyeau Noel.
MrOwl1939

Summerfield, NC

#23 Nov 17, 2010
By the by, we have some terrific friends here with whom we sometimes go and have lunch or dinner and lo and behold, guess where they are from, Sussex south of London. The lady fixes some of the best Yorkshire puddin' and Kidney pie you ever put your mouth to. I have British, Canadian, Sikh, Vietnamese, Scottish, German and other ethnic friends and they are all nice people. I have even made some, heaven forbid, Jewish friends. Ain't that a kicker. The only peoples I have had problems with, and for the life of me I can't understand why, are the muzzies. I've never had any problems with the British. Of course I have never been prisoner with them.
Scott

Newton Center, MA

#24 Nov 17, 2010
Aaron Kent wrote:
<quoted text>
To any and all, please ignore this buffoon named "Scott". He doesn't have his facts straight about the powers in this Country and has a vendetta against the proud people who serve in this Countries Armed Services. Congress does not need to declare "War" in order for our troops to be put in harms way and fund conflict. I proved this person wrong before but they continue to spread false information.
-Tell it to Congressman Ron Paul who I linked to arguing this with FOX's dips#its, he disagrees with you (as do many others including lawyers more esteemed than Bush's lawyer John Yoo) and with that 'Memorandum Opinion' that Bush's criminal Woo wrote. We now hear Bush in his book admit what we already knew, that he ignored any lawyer that said he couldn't do what he (and the *PNAC guys) wanted and he found that dirtbag shyster Yoo to write legal garbage to 'justify' even crushing the testicles of a child of a 'detainee' in front of him. Did this vet or John McCain etc. ever see THAT kind of sick s#iit overseas? Google "John warner defense act" and "military commission act"- they were both passed the same day by traitors in congress and signed by the Traitor in Chief.
John Yoo the Presidents Executioner -> http://www.infowars.com/john-yoo-the-presiden...
*PNAC was the think tank in the late 90's which planned for the military industrial complex to invade Iraq, kick out Saddam and get the oil pipeline deals etc. done and they openly wished for a 'new Pearl Harbor event' which would get Americans riled up and accept war based on lies as happened as top General Hugh Shelton just admitted was the case with Iraq! PNAC included Cheney and Wolfowitz and Rummy and Zelikow- and Zelikow also got to be on the 9/11 Commission whitewash! He and Cheney and Wolfy are CFR members but you probably see no problem with that group either.
No Aaron the 'false information' was spewed by Bush's lawyers and put in newspapers across the country and upon scrutiny proven to be a big lie. Yes I did look into your link and right away I see it even perverts and misrepresents the intents of the founders- how evil!(like Yoo's idea of crushing kid's testicles etc.)
It said : "The Founders in their wisdom made [the President] not only the Commander-in-Chief but also the guiding organ in the conduct of our foreign affairs," possessing "vast powers in relation to the outside world." Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S
-But the founders meant for the president to be the Commander in Chief of the military ONLY UPON a declaration of War by Congress- NOT simply by being elected president! They didn't even want us to have a standing military in times of peace, so they certainly didn't mean for a president to BECOME the C. in C. unless and UNTIL war is actually declared. AND they made it clear in their writings that war must not be gone into against another country for little reason, that a country must commit an act of war against us. What country attacked us on 9/11 ?? We're not at all supposed to be going to war against a friggin concept!('terrorism')
Scott

Newton Center, MA

#25 Nov 17, 2010
continued-
Aaron and others-the following is a couple points from The New American magazine, certainly not something you could call 'leftwing' as it's from the John Birch Society-
The Bush Administration's "Enabling Act"*
(*aka the 'Memorandum Opinion' you linked to Aaron)

January 24, 2005 Issue
In early December, without a word of public notice, the Justice Department placed on its website a lengthy September 25, 2001 memorandum entitled "The President's Constitutional Authority to Conduct Military Operations Against Terrorists and Nations Supporting Them." That document sets out, on behalf of the Bush administration, a plainly totalitarian view of presidential power.

Reviewing the specific text of the Constitution, the Yoo memo makes the interesting discovery that "these provisions vest full control of the military forces of the United States in the President." In fact, Congress, not the president, is authorized "To raise and support armies … To provide and maintain a navy … provide for calling forth the militia...." It is Congress, not the president, that is given the power "To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces...." Those elements of the militia that are "employed in the service of the United States" are to be trained "according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."

The Yoo memo's treatment of congressional power to declare war is similarly dishonest. "During the period leading up to the Constitution's ratification, the power to initiate hostilities and to control the escalation of conflict had long been understood to rest in the hands of the executive branch," claims the document. This is true only in the sense that the King of Great Britain — that government's chief executive — claimed and exercised that power.

As Alexander Hamilton pointed out in The Federalist, No. 69, "The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States." "In this respect," continued Hamilton, "his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it," since the British monarch's power included "the declaring of war and … the raising and regulating of fleets and armies — all which, by the Constitution … appertain to the legislature."

In defiance of the unambiguous text of the Constitution, the Yoo memo declares: "If the Framers had wanted to require congressional consent before the initiation of hostilities, they knew how to write such provisions." As noted above, the Framers of the Constitution did exactly that — and the most influential among them pointedly reiterated that principle on numerous occasions.

-Good points that shoot down Yoo's garbage and I didn't have to go to a 'liberal' source for them. Hey Aaron/anyone- How come the FBI even ADMITTED that they have NO evidence tying Osama to 9/11? Google Osama and "Rex Tomb" the name of the FBI spokesperson who said so, as does their own Ten Most Wanted page on Osama- nothing there about him being wanted for 9/11 !
Did you know that they've ADMITTED recently in the Washington Post that they faked a video of Bin Laden?
--> http://www.infowars.com/former-cia-officials-...
And how come we never saw the real Osama on any video admitting to being behind 9/11 as we're supposed to believe he did?
Scott

Newton Center, MA

#26 Nov 17, 2010
More about that 'Memorandum Opinion' by Bush shyster Yoo which you linked to Aaron which you try to claim justifies undeclared 'war', and I didn't have to go to a 'liberal' source for this as it comes from the New American magazine which is the John Birch Society->

The Bush Administration's "Enabling Act"

January 24, 2005 Issue

In early December, without a word of public notice, the Justice Department placed on its website a lengthy September 25, 2001 memorandum entitled "The President's Constitutional Authority to Conduct Military Operations Against Terrorists and Nations Supporting Them." That document sets out, on behalf of the Bush administration, a plainly totalitarian view of presidential power.
Reviewing the specific text of the Constitution, the Yoo memo makes the interesting discovery that "these provisions vest full control of the military forces of the United States in the President." In fact, Congress, not the president, is authorized "To raise and support armies … To provide and maintain a navy … provide for calling forth the militia...." It is Congress, not the president, that is given the power "To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces...." Those elements of the militia that are "employed in the service of the United States" are to be trained "according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."

The Yoo memo's treatment of congressional power to declare war is similarly dishonest. "During the period leading up to the Constitution's ratification, the power to initiate hostilities and to control the escalation of conflict had long been understood to rest in the hands of the executive branch," claims the document. This is true only in the sense that the King of Great Britain — that government's chief executive — claimed and exercised that power.

As Alexander Hamilton pointed out in The Federalist, No. 69, "The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States." "In this respect," continued Hamilton, "his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it," since the British monarch's power included "the declaring of war and … the raising and regulating of fleets and armies — all which, by the Constitution … appertain to the legislature."

In defiance of the unambiguous text of the Constitution, the Yoo memo declares: "If the Framers had wanted to require congressional consent before the initiation of hostilities, they knew how to write such provisions." As noted above, the Framers of the Constitution did exactly that — and the most influential among them pointedly reiterated that principle on numerous occasions.

Wern't we all told right after 9/11 that Osama and Al-Qeada (the CIA creation) were behind it? That's when Bush had Yoo write the memo, the PNAC group had just gotten their 'new Pearl Harbor event' that they openly wished for. Funny how no one can find Osama, yet the FBI ADMITTED that they still have NO evidence whatsoever tying him to 9/11 as we were told he was. Do you doubt that too Aaron? Look at the FBI's Ten Most wanted page on Osama- You see anything there about him being wanted for 9/11? No you don't. Hmmm. Did you notice the recent admission in the Washington Post that our CIA has faked a Bin Laden video?
tufelhunden

Youngsville, NC

#27 Nov 29, 2010
the watcher wrote:
<quoted text>
someone watches too much of that effing traitor, G.beck.
Maybe you need to watch more of Glen Beck. I served my country for 7 yrs. When I came back to VT I never told anyone I was a vet becouse they treated my fellow vets like trash. I would gladly serve another 7 yrs but I will never come back to VT! Just a bunch of self rightous jackasses in that state. Wake up and see what is happening to our country. Those vets that all of you treat like shit, make it possible for you to have the rights you think you deserve. Those rights are a privelage. Vermonters dont realize how much the rest of the country laughs at them.
jway

Florence, AL

#28 Nov 29, 2010
tufelhunden wrote:
<quoted text>Maybe you need to watch more of Glen Beck. I served my country for 7 yrs. When I came back to VT I never told anyone I was a vet becouse they treated my fellow vets like trash. I would gladly serve another 7 yrs but I will never come back to VT! Just a bunch of self rightous jackasses in that state. Wake up and see what is happening to our country. Those vets that all of you treat like ****, make it possible for you to have the rights you think you deserve. Those rights are a privelage. Vermonters dont realize how much the rest of the country laughs at them.
IT not the real Vermonters that dishonor our vets it the left wing anti American hippie ungrateful gutless trash that does it.
MrOwl1939

Summerfield, NC

#29 Nov 30, 2010
When the Vermonters and Quebecers secede and join forces, will they be Americans, Canadians or neither and if neither, what? Would Verque be good?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Vernon Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
marble ace arvidson 4 hr anonymous 5
Vermonters rank among the worst drivers 8 hr Flatlanders -Wors... 2
When ‘Religious Liberty’ Was Used To Deny All H... 8 hr VaccineRights dot... 96
Dummerston Arsonist 22 hr Community Disorga... 5
A Christian Plot for Domination (Aug '11) Tue Gott mit uns 1,206
Tectonic Shift (Dec '12) Tue evidence is beaut... 398
Truth reason knowledge (Dec '12) Tue Actual science 493
•••

Vernon News Video

•••
•••

Vernon Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Vernon People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Vernon News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Vernon
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••