Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Reply to thread

Message

Must be on the rolls of BigOil right?

I know legally that there is a distinction. You want to follow the law, we are following it. It further does not mean that our service members abroad will be treated differently. If we were in a war with Germany (as an example) then they would abide by the guidelines spelled out the Geneva Conventions to get POW status, as would we, and as we have always done.

It takes more than Congress "visiting the language" to change the Constitution. Also, the "Commander in Chief" ability given to the President in Article II is equally as compelling as any power of Congress in Article I.

The people we are currently fighting have no intention of abiding by the Geneva Conventions, regardless of how we treat anyone. Your premise is ridiculous.

Of course, I make a legal argument, and your response is I am a "paid spinbot." I have no doubt that those reading this thread see the point, and that is all that matters.

<blockquote data-quote="BigRob" data-source="post: 84734" data-attributes="member: 628">Must be on the rolls of BigOil right?&nbsp; I know legally that there is a distinction.&nbsp; You want to follow the law, we are following it.&nbsp; It further does not mean that our service members abroad will be treated differently.&nbsp; If we were in a war with Germany (as an example) then they would abide by the guidelines spelled out the Geneva Conventions to get POW status, as would we, and as we have always done.&nbsp; It takes more than Congress &quot;visiting the language&quot; to change the Constitution.&nbsp; Also, the &quot;Commander in Chief&quot; ability given to the President in Article II is equally as compelling as any power of Congress in Article I.&nbsp; The people we are currently fighting have no intention of abiding by the Geneva Conventions, regardless of how we treat anyone.&nbsp; Your premise is ridiculous.&nbsp; Of course, I make a legal argument, and your response is I am a &quot;paid spinbot.&quot;&nbsp; I have no doubt that those reading this thread see the point, and that is all that matters.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BigRob, post: 84734, member: 628"] Must be on the rolls of BigOil right? I know legally that there is a distinction. You want to follow the law, we are following it. It further does not mean that our service members abroad will be treated differently. If we were in a war with Germany (as an example) then they would abide by the guidelines spelled out the Geneva Conventions to get POW status, as would we, and as we have always done. It takes more than Congress "visiting the language" to change the Constitution. Also, the "Commander in Chief" ability given to the President in Article II is equally as compelling as any power of Congress in Article I. The people we are currently fighting have no intention of abiding by the Geneva Conventions, regardless of how we treat anyone. Your premise is ridiculous. Of course, I make a legal argument, and your response is I am a "paid spinbot." I have no doubt that those reading this thread see the point, and that is all that matters. [/QUOTE]

Verification