Spy on Your Neighbors for Homeland Security

[Aurielius]

I'm willing to bet that during the Revolutionary War, Washington didn't bother to detain British POWs when he crossed the Delaware River to attack the Hessian encampment at Trenton, NJ.[/color]

 

I'm a little confused by this statement, are you saying the Americans didn't take prisoners during the war? Didn't hold them during the war? Didn't question them?

I second the motion, am not clear as to the point, am reasonably sure that the Hessians were taken prisoner then transported to Pennsylvania for interment.

[RZ1029]

I was thinking more along the lines of I doubt he bothered to make sure they had their due process, it was just poorly communicated.

[marharth]

Our 'In house' Constitutional 'Scholar' Excerpt

"The third amendment protects against housing soldiers in a house without the owners consent (which I am almost postitive has been done in Iraq and Afgan). This is not only for US citizens seeing as it states "ANY HOUSE.""

 

 

LMAO, the US Constitution applies ONLY to to the United States, the concept that the founding fathers would create a document that had legal weight in the internal affairs of a foreign country is ridiculous. If thats what your Civics teacher taught you...demand a refund .

Of course it only applies to the USA, but US soldiers shouldn't legally be able to forcefully reside in someones house seeing as it would apply to them.

 

You have to follow the war laws put together in any country you are in.

 

Wouldn't make much sense to follow war laws of the country you are attacking would it?

[csgators]

Our 'In house' Constitutional 'Scholar' Excerpt

"The third amendment protects against housing soldiers in a house without the owners consent (which I am almost postitive has been done in Iraq and Afgan). This is not only for US citizens seeing as it states "ANY HOUSE.""

 

 

LMAO, the US Constitution applies ONLY to to the United States, the concept that the founding fathers would create a document that had legal weight in the internal affairs of a foreign country is ridiculous. If thats what your Civics teacher taught you...demand a refund .

Of course it only applies to the USA, but US soldiers shouldn't legally be able to forcefully reside in someones house seeing as it would apply to them.

 

You have to follow the war laws put together in any country you are in.

 

Wouldn't make much sense to follow war laws of the country you are attacking would it?

 

 

So all those soldiers in England during WW2 were violating the Constitution? Can you site a source where US soldiers are staying in houses against the owners will? I haven't heard about that and it doesn't make much sense.

[grannywils]

This vid speaks mountains to what this thread is about and yes some of you may have issue's with the speakers views on certain things but try to get by that and see the patterns she is talking about and see that left - right doesn't matter its all the same when it comes to these sorts of things .Also take note of her Number 4 means , then look at the tittle of the thread.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc

 

Seriously you need to watch this.

 

Thanks for this Harbringe. Found it fascinating. Listened all the way through and then bought it for my Kindle.

[marharth]

Our 'In house' Constitutional 'Scholar' Excerpt

"The third amendment protects against housing soldiers in a house without the owners consent (which I am almost postitive has been done in Iraq and Afgan). This is not only for US citizens seeing as it states "ANY HOUSE.""

 

 

LMAO, the US Constitution applies ONLY to to the United States, the concept that the founding fathers would create a document that had legal weight in the internal affairs of a foreign country is ridiculous. If thats what your Civics teacher taught you...demand a refund .

Of course it only applies to the USA, but US soldiers shouldn't legally be able to forcefully reside in someones house seeing as it would apply to them.

 

You have to follow the war laws put together in any country you are in.

 

Wouldn't make much sense to follow war laws of the country you are attacking would it?

 

 

So all those soldiers in England during WW2 were violating the Constitution? Can you site a source where US soldiers are staying in houses against the owners will? I haven't heard about that and it doesn't make much sense.

I guess it is unfair for me to assume that they are, but I don't see why they wouldn't stay in peoples house against their will when they kill random innocent civilians.

 

So I do not have any sources to verify my claims, but I did not say that what I said was completely factual either. Its just my opinion that they have done it before based on other crimes that have happened in the area.

[Aurielius]

Our 'In house' Constitutional 'Scholar' Excerpt

"The third amendment protects against housing soldiers in a house without the owners consent (which I am almost postitive has been done in Iraq and Afgan). This is not only for US citizens seeing as it states "ANY HOUSE.""

 

 

LMAO, the US Constitution applies ONLY to to the United States, the concept that the founding fathers would create a document that had legal weight in the internal affairs of a foreign country is ridiculous. If thats what your Civics teacher taught you...demand a refund .

Of course it only applies to the USA, but US soldiers shouldn't legally be able to forcefully reside in someones house seeing as it would apply to them.

 

You have to follow the war laws put together in any country you are in.

 

Wouldn't make much sense to follow war laws of the country you are attacking would it?

 

 

So all those soldiers in England during WW2 were violating the Constitution? Can you site a source where US soldiers are staying in houses against the owners will? I haven't heard about that and it doesn't make much sense.

lol...of course it doesn't make much sense..retrofitting your statements to fit the debate rarely does. So if am am to take Martharth's line of reasoning down the road..when GB needed American troops in order to invade Europe we did not have the consent of their population to be quartered in their fields and local country manors without a constitutional mandate....that will be one hell of a surprise to my mum who did just that. Give up Martharth your line of reasoning make no sense, the Constitution only applies to US not foreign countries. When US troops overran German positions throughout France, Belgium, Italy etc we set up command in the local establishments all the time whether the owner liked it or not, it's called war, the difference being is that we paid the owner for the use of his facilities and by and large they were happy to have us being that we were a vast improvement over their prior tenants.

[Harbringe]

Our 'In house' Constitutional 'Scholar' Excerpt

"The third amendment protects against housing soldiers in a house without the owners consent (which I am almost postitive has been done in Iraq and Afgan). This is not only for US citizens seeing as it states "ANY HOUSE.""

 

 

LMAO, the US Constitution applies ONLY to to the United States, the concept that the founding fathers would create a document that had legal weight in the internal affairs of a foreign country is ridiculous. If thats what your Civics teacher taught you...demand a refund .

Of course it only applies to the USA, but US soldiers shouldn't legally be able to forcefully reside in someones house seeing as it would apply to them.

 

You have to follow the war laws put together in any country you are in.

 

Wouldn't make much sense to follow war laws of the country you are attacking would it?

 

 

So all those soldiers in England during WW2 were violating the Constitution? Can you site a source where US soldiers are staying in houses against the owners will? I haven't heard about that and it doesn't make much sense.

lol...of course it doesn't make much sense..retrofitting your statements to fit the debate rarely does. So if am am to take Martharth's line of reasoning down the road..when GB needed American troops in order to invade Europe we did not have the consent of their population to be quartered in their fields and local country manors without a constitutional mandate....that will be one hell of a surprise to my mum who did just that. Give up Martharth your line of reasoning make no sense, the Constitution only applies to US not foreign countries. When US troops overran German positions throughout France, Belgium, Italy etc we set up command in the local establishments all the time whether the owner liked it or not, it's called war, the difference being is that we paid the owner for the use of his facilities and by and large they were happy to have us being that we were a vast improvement over their prior tenants.

 

Here's a question :Why did they pay anyone in WWII to begin with , you wouldn't think it would be necessary as it is war after all. It wouldn't surprise me if there was a legal reason why they did so.

[RZ1029]

War reparations. The Germans paid for everything, actually.

[csgators]

OK I have only gotten about 24 minutes into that video and I had to stop because she is so wrong on so many things I can't keep track of it anymore. She makes about one valid point in 5 and tries to paint the whole thing like it's just the Republicans trying to be the next Hitler.

 

Sleeper cells.

 

She actually pretends no one ever heard of them in the 80's and 90's when actual attacks from sleeper cells took place. The first trade center bombings coming immediately to mind.

 

The Dixie Chicks?

 

Seriously? She equates some private citizens who got mad at the Dixie Chicks and burned some CD's to the government sponsored forced book burning of Nazi Germany?

 

Enemy Combatants

 

No US Citizen has been labeled as such despite actually catching one (john walker lindh). But she really stretches this sucker as far as it will go. She is directly relating domestic issues to international ones to blur her argument. No one ever apprehended in US soil has ever been labeled an enemy combatant, even the terrorists we have caught.

 

U of Florida

 

Is she saying a state run school should not be accountable to the State that finances it? When I was in school there it was ranked #1 in education value in the country for its low in-state tuition and excellent academic standards. The tazer incident she refers to happened to a student questioning a Democrat that was giving a speech on campus. UF is hardly a Republican stronghold.

 

Paramilitary

 

I agree this type of thing is scary but the only one I hear talking about it is Obama with his National Police Force. I mean really, she thinks small government types are taking us down the wrong path? :confused: