Comments on: Drag Queen Obama http://www.hillaryis44.org/2009/04/27/drag-queen-obama/ We started this website because we believe Senator Hillary Clinton will be an excellent 44th President of the United States. Sat, 20 Mar 2010 06:34:20 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: admin http://www.hillaryis44.org/2009/04/27/drag-queen-obama/#comment-248553 admin Tue, 28 Apr 2009 20:11:54 +0000 http://www.hillaryis44.org/?p=1058#comment-248553 NEW ARTICLE IS UP. NEW ARTICLE IS UP.

]]> By: wbboei http://www.hillaryis44.org/2009/04/27/drag-queen-obama/#comment-248552 wbboei Tue, 28 Apr 2009 19:56:19 +0000 http://www.hillaryis44.org/?p=1058#comment-248552 SHV Says: April 28th, 2009 at 3:28 pm ------------------------------- Why am I not surprised. This one is a tar baby for the Administration. The interests favor sweeping it under the rug, but the dymanics do not. They want to lay this one at the feet of the Republicans, when the truth is there is no immaculate conception here. The release of this information to the ACLU who will use it to sue people, the initial impression that this is a case of immaculate conception when it was really bi-partisanship at its worst, the fact that Pelosi has been caught in a lie, the obsession of the far left to get bush, their furor over his position of FISA, the schandenfruede of our enemies over the release of this information and other factors make a Gotterdamerung over this issue more probable than not. All the news coverage of the pandemic which does not alarm Bimbo will distract for only so long. SHV Says:

April 28th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
——————————-
Why am I not surprised. This one is a tar baby for the Administration. The interests favor sweeping it under the rug, but the dymanics do not. They want to lay this one at the feet of the Republicans, when the truth is there is no immaculate conception here. The release of this information to the ACLU who will use it to sue people, the initial impression that this is a case of immaculate conception when it was really bi-partisanship at its worst, the fact that Pelosi has been caught in a lie, the obsession of the far left to get bush, their furor over his position of FISA, the schandenfruede of our enemies over the release of this information and other factors make a Gotterdamerung over this issue more probable than not. All the news coverage of the pandemic which does not alarm Bimbo will distract for only so long.

]]> By: SHV http://www.hillaryis44.org/2009/04/27/drag-queen-obama/#comment-248551 SHV Tue, 28 Apr 2009 19:28:57 +0000 http://www.hillaryis44.org/?p=1058#comment-248551 The thing that is "fun" about 18,2441 is that it is the product of Republican wing-nuts and it is turning around and biting them and the Dems in the ass. IIRC, the legislative history is that a former POW went to Rep Jones of NC and pointed out that the Geneva War Crimes conventions are not "self enabling" and therefor war criminals couldn't be prosecuted under US law. The idea was that they wanted to be able to execute Vietnamese prison guards if they were found in the US or were brought to the US. Jesse Helms loved it. Some how the US military got involved and added the language that the law would also apply to US citizens who engage in War Crimes not jut the US victims. The law was passed by voice vote in the HR and by unanimous consent in the Senate and then was promptly forgotten until Albeto Gonzales figured out that he Bush/Cheney et al could get strapped to a gurney for their behavior. He tried to give them retroactive immunity in the Military Commissions Act of '06. It all needs to be sorted out in court and not by Rahm Emanuel and Robert Gibbs saying no one will be prosecuted by order of King Obama. The thing that is “fun” about 18,2441 is that it is the product of Republican wing-nuts and it is turning around and biting them and the Dems in the ass. IIRC, the legislative history is that a former POW went to Rep Jones of NC and pointed out that the Geneva War Crimes conventions are not “self enabling” and therefor war criminals couldn’t be prosecuted under US law. The idea was that they wanted to be able to execute Vietnamese prison guards if they were found in the US or were brought to the US. Jesse Helms loved it. Some how the US military got involved and added the language that the law would also apply to US citizens who engage in War Crimes not jut the US victims. The law was passed by voice vote in the HR and by unanimous consent in the Senate and then was promptly forgotten until Albeto Gonzales figured out that he Bush/Cheney et al could get strapped to a gurney for their behavior. He tried to give them retroactive immunity in the Military Commissions Act of ‘06. It all needs to be sorted out in court and not by Rahm Emanuel and Robert Gibbs saying no one will be prosecuted by order of King Obama.

]]> By: SHV http://www.hillaryis44.org/2009/04/27/drag-queen-obama/#comment-248550 SHV Tue, 28 Apr 2009 19:15:02 +0000 http://www.hillaryis44.org/?p=1058#comment-248550 Under US law 18,2441...War Crime: (c) Definition.— As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct— (1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party; (2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907; (3) which constitutes a grave breach of common Article 3 (as defined in subsection (d)) when committed in the context of and in association with an armed conflict not of an international character; or (this is where Gonzales tried to weasel out of the law by saying Geneva didn't apply to the WOT..SCOTUS shot that down with Hamdan) (IANAL but I have slept in a Holiday Inn Express, once) Under US law 18,2441…War Crime:
(c) Definition.— As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct—
(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;
(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;
(3) which constitutes a grave breach of common Article 3 (as defined in subsection (d)) when committed in the context of and in association with an armed conflict not of an international character; or (this is where Gonzales tried to weasel out of the law by saying Geneva didn’t apply to the WOT..SCOTUS shot that down with Hamdan)
(IANAL but I have slept in a Holiday Inn Express, once)

]]> By: SHV http://www.hillaryis44.org/2009/04/27/drag-queen-obama/#comment-248548 SHV Tue, 28 Apr 2009 19:08:07 +0000 http://www.hillaryis44.org/?p=1058#comment-248548 wbboei Says: SHV: I agree that command responsibility applies to members of the Military establishment, but when it comes to political leaders (I am using the term loosely) could they not assert an absolute defense of sovereign immunity? ********** Who knows.... that why this stuff needs to be litigated and not decided because applying the law would interfere with Obama's political agenda. Common Article 3...command responsibility: In the discussion regarding "command responsibility" the term "command" can be defined as A De jure (legal) command, which can be both military and civilian. The determining factor here is not rank but subordination. Four structures are identified:[4][5] 1. Policy command: heads of state, high-ranking government officials, monarchs 2. Strategic command: War Cabinet, Joint Chiefs of Staff 3. Operational command: military leadership; in Yamashita it was established that operational command responsibility cannot be ceded for the purpose of the doctrine of command responsibility – operational commanders must exercise the full potential of their authority to prevent war crimes, failure to supervise subordinates or non-assertive orders don’t exonerate the commander. 4. Tactical command: direct command over troops on the ground wbboei Says:
SHV: I agree that command responsibility applies to members of the Military establishment, but when it comes to political leaders (I am using the term loosely) could they not assert an absolute defense of sovereign immunity?
**********
Who knows…. that why this stuff needs to be litigated and not decided because applying the law would interfere with Obama’s political agenda.
Common Article 3…command responsibility:
In the discussion regarding “command responsibility” the term “command” can be defined as

A De jure (legal) command, which can be both military and civilian. The determining factor here is not rank but subordination. Four structures are identified:[4][5]

1. Policy command: heads of state, high-ranking government officials, monarchs
2. Strategic command: War Cabinet, Joint Chiefs of Staff
3. Operational command: military leadership; in Yamashita it was established that operational command responsibility cannot be ceded for the purpose of the doctrine of command responsibility – operational commanders must exercise the full potential of their authority to prevent war crimes, failure to supervise subordinates or non-assertive orders don’t exonerate the commander.
4. Tactical command: direct command over troops on the ground

]]> By: wbboei http://www.hillaryis44.org/2009/04/27/drag-queen-obama/#comment-248546 wbboei Tue, 28 Apr 2009 18:48:58 +0000 http://www.hillaryis44.org/?p=1058#comment-248546 SHV: I agree that command responsibility applies to members of the Military establishment, but when it comes to political leaders (I am using the term loosely) could they not assert an absolute defense of sovereign immunity? If I were inclined to do the research that is the first question I would ask. There may indeed be exceptions to that doctrine or this statute may make provision for it. The old Watergate cannon that it is not the crime but the cover-up applies to Pelosi here. SHV: I agree that command responsibility applies to members of the Military establishment, but when it comes to political leaders (I am using the term loosely) could they not assert an absolute defense of sovereign immunity? If I were inclined to do the research that is the first question I would ask. There may indeed be exceptions to that doctrine or this statute may make provision for it. The old Watergate cannon that it is not the crime but the cover-up applies to Pelosi here.

]]> By: SHV http://www.hillaryis44.org/2009/04/27/drag-queen-obama/#comment-248544 SHV Tue, 28 Apr 2009 18:15:53 +0000 http://www.hillaryis44.org/?p=1058#comment-248544 That should be Title 18..2441. That should be Title 18..2441.

]]> By: SHV http://www.hillaryis44.org/2009/04/27/drag-queen-obama/#comment-248543 SHV Tue, 28 Apr 2009 18:14:34 +0000 http://www.hillaryis44.org/?p=1058#comment-248543 Pelosi War Criminal cont: The idea of "Command Responsibility" used in Common Article Three is in US law as the Yamishita Doctrine and in Hamdan v Rumsfeld, the SCOTUS said Common Article Three applied to the "War on Terrorism". No wonder she is lying her ass off....If convicted under Title 1..2441, she and the rest of these clowns could get the death penalty. Pelosi War Criminal cont:

The idea of “Command Responsibility” used in Common Article Three is in US law as the Yamishita Doctrine and in Hamdan v Rumsfeld, the SCOTUS said Common Article Three applied to the “War on Terrorism”. No wonder she is lying her ass off….If convicted under Title 1..2441, she and the rest of these clowns could get the death penalty.

]]> By: SHV http://www.hillaryis44.org/2009/04/27/drag-queen-obama/#comment-248541 SHV Tue, 28 Apr 2009 18:05:21 +0000 http://www.hillaryis44.org/?p=1058#comment-248541 wbboei Says: April 28th, 2009 at 1:12 pm NANCY PELOSI–THE HITS KEEP COMING HOT UPDATE: John Boehner is taking it right to Nancy, proving that “what goes around comes around,” and that Obama just did NOT think through the torture memo “blowback.” ********** Then stupidity of the Obama "inner circle" is amazing. Boehner knows that most of the Bush admin. are war criminals under US Code Title 18...2441....Obama opened the door for Boehner to use a strategy of mutual assured destruction with the Democrats. The fact that he is asking for the release of the CIA briefing minutes, indicates that he knows what Pelosi and the other Dems knew about torture and that they enabled it or didn't try to stop it. Pelosi and the other members of Congress are war criminals based on the laws re: "Command Responsibility". Under common Article three, she falls into the category of policy command. wbboei Says:
April 28th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
NANCY PELOSI–THE HITS KEEP COMING
HOT UPDATE: John Boehner is taking it right to Nancy, proving that “what goes around comes around,” and that Obama just did NOT think through the torture memo “blowback.”
**********
Then stupidity of the Obama “inner circle” is amazing. Boehner knows that most of the Bush admin. are war criminals under US Code Title 18…2441….Obama opened the door for Boehner to use a strategy of mutual assured destruction with the Democrats. The fact that he is asking for the release of the CIA briefing minutes, indicates that he knows what Pelosi and the other Dems knew about torture and that they enabled it or didn’t try to stop it. Pelosi and the other members of Congress are war criminals based on the laws re: “Command Responsibility”. Under common Article three, she falls into the category of policy command.

]]> By: wbboei http://www.hillaryis44.org/2009/04/27/drag-queen-obama/#comment-248538 wbboei Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:59:17 +0000 http://www.hillaryis44.org/?p=1058#comment-248538 The so called media watchdogs are not merely heeling for Bambi. They are actively shilling for him. And that is far worse. It is conduct worthy of Goebbels. The so called media watchdogs are not merely heeling for Bambi. They are actively shilling for him. And that is far worse. It is conduct worthy of Goebbels.

]]>