US Government negotiates with Taliban

[The UK in Exile]

It's 200,000 hectares of poppies. You can't stuff it under a mattress. Plus, why would they lie about it exactly? Not a crime to grow poppies.

When the UN is pressuring you to cut it out, you just say "Sure, I cut it out." and stop telling them how much you are growing.

Fine, so even humoring your temper tantrum and assuming the UN somehow lost track of 75,000 hectares during 2001. production has increased consistently since occupation up until 2008 and we've had an new record last year. We've clearly done fuck all to opium production in the last 12 years.

[Pacific Independence]

According to Harvard professor and CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.



http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/02/pro-obama-harvard-professor-president-clearly-broke-the-law-with-gitmo-prisoner-transfer/

Pretty surprising accusation, and coming from a Harvard law professor it seems credible. Especially since the man is (was?) pro-Obama.

I think this will just be swept under the rug and ignored, since the Prez is too big to fail, but what say you, NSG?

Well, I myself supported Obama in the 2012 elections and probably defend him the most at my school. But this is irrefutable in my opinion. The President is required, by law, to give Congress thirty days notice, and he did not. Therefor, he overstepped his boundaries as President and SHOULD be held accountable. He is the man that made the decision, and as the leader, is responsible for it. It broke a clearly defined law and therefor he should be held accountable for it. It's called the balance of powers because each branch has balanced power. When one branch oversteps its boundaries, it is the duty of the other branches to put it back in line.

I really wish they did this with other presidents. We would have been spared so many mistakes, Iran-Contra Affair, etc.

[Murkwood]

He did break the law. However, some rule breaking is justified. The Obama Admin said it was "urgent". I will withhold judgement until It is known what the circumstances were.

[United Prefectures of Appia]

Well, I myself supported Obama in the 2012 elections and probably defend him the most at my school. But this is irrefutable in my opinion. The President is required, by law, to give Congress thirty days notice, and he did not. Therefor, he overstepped his boundaries as President and SHOULD be held accountable. He is the man that made the decision, and as the leader, is responsible for it. It broke a clearly defined law and therefor he should be held accountable for it. It's called the balance of powers because each branch has balanced power. When one branch oversteps its boundaries, it is the duty of the other branches to put it back in line.

I doubt American mainstream media would've batted an eye if Bush did the same thing.

[Kelinfort]

Free POW's they said. It will boost your popularity they said.

[New switz empire]

It's Obama, this doesn't shock me any.

I take that back.. I'm shocked he didn't send a hand written apology back along with the five released rag heads.

Perhaps he did and did not tell anyone.

[Murkwood]

Well, I myself supported Obama in the 2012 elections and probably defend him the most at my school. But this is irrefutable in my opinion. The President is required, by law, to give Congress thirty days notice, and he did not. Therefor, he overstepped his boundaries as President and SHOULD be held accountable. He is the man that made the decision, and as the leader, is responsible for it. It broke a clearly defined law and therefor he should be held accountable for it. It's called the balance of powers because each branch has balanced power. When one branch oversteps its boundaries, it is the duty of the other branches to put it back in line.

I doubt American mainstream media would've batted an eye if Bush did the same thing.

Are you serious? The mainstream media hated Bush, especially late into his term. They would have 24/7 analysis of it.

[MERIZoC]

He did break the law. However, some rule breaking is justified. The Obama Admin said it was "urgent". I will withhold judgement until It is known what the circumstances were.

Basically this.

[Ostroeuropa]

When the UN is pressuring you to cut it out, you just say "Sure, I cut it out." and stop telling them how much you are growing.

Fine, so even humoring your temper tantrum and assuming the UN somehow lost track of 75,000 hectares during 2001. production has increased consistently since occupation up until 2008 and we've had an new record last year. We've clearly done fuck all to opium production in the last 12 years.

Except for those years where we apparently did.

[MERIZoC]

Well, I myself supported Obama in the 2012 elections and probably defend him the most at my school. But this is irrefutable in my opinion. The President is required, by law, to give Congress thirty days notice, and he did not. Therefor, he overstepped his boundaries as President and SHOULD be held accountable. He is the man that made the decision, and as the leader, is responsible for it. It broke a clearly defined law and therefor he should be held accountable for it. It's called the balance of powers because each branch has balanced power. When one branch oversteps its boundaries, it is the duty of the other branches to put it back in line.

I doubt American mainstream media would've batted an eye if Bush did the same thing.

Low expectations, y'know?

[New switz empire]

According to Harvard professor and CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.

telling a surprised Wolf Blitzer that Preident Barack Obama “clearly broke the law” by failing to provide Congress 30-days notice before releasing five high-level Taliban prisoners from the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.

“You’ve looked at the law, you’ve looked at the signing statement, you’ve gone through it,” Blitzer asked Toobin. “Did the president break the law?

“Oh, I think he clearly broke the law,” Toobin replied. “The law says 30 days’ notice. He didn’t give 30 days’ notice.”

“Now it’s true he issued a signing statement,” the law professor continued, “but signing statements are not law — it’s the president’s opinion about what the law should mean. Now, it may be that the law is unconstitutional, a violation of his power as commander-in-chief, but no court has held that. The law is on the books and he didn’t follow it.”

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/02/pro-obama-harvard-professor-president-clearly-broke-the-law-with-gitmo-prisoner-transfer/

Pretty surprising accusation, and coming from a Harvard law professor it seems credible. Especially since the man is (was?) pro-Obama.

I think this will just be swept under the rug and ignored, since the Prez is too big to fail, but what say you, NSG?

Impeach!!!

[Condunum]

Fine, so even humoring your temper tantrum and assuming the UN somehow lost track of 75,000 hectares during 2001. production has increased consistently since occupation up until 2008 and we've had an new record last year. We've clearly done fuck all to opium production in the last 12 years.

Except for those years where we apparently did.

Oh yes, we made tons of progress putting little dents in production. It's not like they bounced back or anything.

[Ucropi]

Bush broke the law when he illegally invaded two countries that had no WMDs and nothing to do with 9/11

[Kelinfort]

I doubt American mainstream media would've batted an eye if Bush did the same thing.

Are you serious? The mainstream media hated Bush, especially late into his term. They would have 24/7 analysis of it.

They were quite pro Iraq invasion.

[Murkwood]

Are you serious? The mainstream media hated Bush, especially late into his term. They would have 24/7 analysis of it.

They were quite pro Iraq invasion.

So was 90% of the American population.

[Sulania]

Well, I myself supported Obama in the 2012 elections and probably defend him the most at my school. But this is irrefutable in my opinion. The President is required, by law, to give Congress thirty days notice, and he did not. Therefor, he overstepped his boundaries as President and SHOULD be held accountable. He is the man that made the decision, and as the leader, is responsible for it. It broke a clearly defined law and therefor he should be held accountable for it. It's called the balance of powers because each branch has balanced power. When one branch oversteps its boundaries, it is the duty of the other branches to put it back in line.

I doubt American mainstream media would've batted an eye if Bush did the same thing.

They probably wouldn't. The mainstream media is too focused on reporting bullshit when it comes to politics, that they barely ever do anything informational anymore.

Of course your going to have FOX bashing Obama claiming he should be impeached because he broke the law, and your going to have CBS (I think CBS is liberal, can't remember) saying he brought back a POW and that makes him the greatest thing ever. We need to focus on facts. Obama traded several highly dangerous terrorists for a POW without giving Congress a thirty day notice. He broke the law. PERIOD. It is unconstitutional, and therefor cannot be done and he must be punished for his blatant disregard for the law. I am not suggesting impeachment, but something else. I leave it to the courts to decide, if they ever.

[The American Natives]

He did break the law. However, some rule breaking is justified. The Obama Admin said it was "urgent". I will withhold judgement until It is known what the circumstances were.

Bush broke the law when he illegally invaded two countries that had no WMDs and nothing to do with 9/11

So between the cult of personality and the hatred of Bush, the consensus is "fuck the law" now?

[Murkwood]

Bush broke the law when he illegally invaded two countries that had no WMDs and nothing to do with 9/11

All available evidence pointed to Saddam Hussein having WMD. Almost every agency who looked at the case confirmed that.

If what he did was illegal, why hasn't he been taken to the ICC? I'll tell you why. Because what he did wasn't illegal. You would do the same, given the circumstances.

[Valaran]

They were quite pro Iraq invasion.

So was 90% of the American population.

I thought it was only 72% at best, which declined to under fifty by mid 2004

source: http://www.pewresearch.org/2008/03/19/p ... -20032008/

[Ostroeuropa]

Except for those years where we apparently did.

Oh yes, we made tons of progress putting little dents in production. It's not like they bounced back or anything.

Those dents in production translate into years where the Taliban was underfunded and unable to properly gain ground or resist attack.
They bounce back?
Fine by me. It wasn't about the opium in the first place. The dead and captured Taliban soldiers certainly don't bounce back.
And so long as we keep up those little dents, soon there won't be any of them left.

At that point, the opium crop can get as productive as it likes.

[Murkwood]

He did break the law. However, some rule breaking is justified. The Obama Admin said it was "urgent". I will withhold judgement until It is known what the circumstances were.

Bush broke the law when he illegally invaded two countries that had no WMDs and nothing to do with 9/11

So between the cult of personality and the hatred of Bush, the consensus is "fuck the law" now?

No. If it turns out not to have been urgent, he should be held accountable. But sometimes, you need to bend the laws. 24 is a great example of that.

[Kelinfort]

They were quite pro Iraq invasion.

So was 90% of the American population.

I didn't know 62% was 90%.

[Ucropi]

He did break the law. However, some rule breaking is justified. The Obama Admin said it was "urgent". I will withhold judgement until It is known what the circumstances were.

Bush broke the law when he illegally invaded two countries that had no WMDs and nothing to do with 9/11

So between the cult of personality and the hatred of Bush, the consensus is "fuck the law" now?

No it's more of a problem of America's lack of hindsight.

[The Floating Island of the Sleeping God]

It's called an executive order. Bush used it too.

[Occupied Deutschland]

So between the cult of personality and the hatred of Bush, the consensus is "fuck the law" now?

No. If it turns out not to have been urgent, he should be held accountable. But sometimes, you need to bend the laws. 24 is a great example of that.

I'd prefer we didn't base the applicability of laws off of daytime television.
Seems like a really bad foundation.

This doesn't surprise me, though I didn't know about the law I'd assumed there must be something at least borderline about this whole situation. Very little will come of it, though.