Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, November 29, 2016

Showing ignorance of the Supreme Court's rulings in 1989 and 1990 that flag burning is a protected form of speech under the First Amendment, President-elect Donald Trump declared at 6:55 a.m. on Twitter this morning that a person who burns a flag should possibly lose their U.S. citizenship. Trump tweeted, "Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag -- if they do, there must be consequences -- perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!" University of Texas Law School Steve Vladeck explains that Trump's early-morning Twitter brainfart is unconstitutional in two different ways: "In addition to ignoring the Supreme Court's clear teaching that flag burning is constitutionally protected speech, Mr. Trump's tweet also casually suggests that citizens should lose their citizenship as a 'penalty' for such acts," Vladeck said. "Even if flag burning wasn't protected, it would still be unconstitutional to deprive someone of their citizenship without some voluntary act on their part to renounce their allegiance to the United States or pledge fealty to a foreign sovereign."

Advertisement

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Even arch-conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia defended flag burning in a 2012 interview: "If I were king, I would not allow people to go around burning the American flag -- however, we have a First Amendment which says that the right of free speech shall not be abridged -- and it is addressed in particular to speech critical of the government. ... Burning the flag is a form of expression -- speech doesn't just mean written words or oral words -- burning a flag is a symbol that expresses an idea. 'I hate the government, the government is unjust,' or whatever."

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

So where is that love of the Constitution the Righties have been bleating about for the last 8 years?

#1 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2016-11-29 09:08 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

This shows how little Trump knows about the First Amendment.

Thanks to his obsession with Twitter and poor self-control, we're going to learn a lot more about his lack of knowledge than we did any past president. Normally a president has aides around to protect him from this kind of public embarrassment.

The fact he thinks citizenship can be stripped for speech against the government is yet another of his wannabe-dictator tendencies. We'll be lucky to survive these years with a democratic government. President Second Choice acts like he wants to be another Vladimir Putin.

#2 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-29 09:38 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

So where is that love of the Constitution the Righties have been bleating about for the last 8 years?

#1 | POSTED BY TFDNIHILIST

The same place as Saddam's WMD's, the government revenue from massive tax cuts to the wealthy, and all those fraudulent ballots cast for Hillary.

#3 | Posted by Sycophant at 2016-11-29 09:53 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

It truly sounds like Palin is writing his tweets for him.

#4 | Posted by sentinel at 2016-11-29 09:53 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Normally a president has aides around to protect him from this kind of public embarrassment.

His Trumplings don't care. Their feelings about flag burning take priority over any rational thought about the Constitution. I see it every day on facebook. Twitter is a perfect place for him to have a daily Trumpertantrum.

#6 | Posted by 726 at 2016-11-29 09:56 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Thanks to his obsession with Twitter and poor self-control, we're going to learn a lot more about his lack of knowledge than we did any past president.

#2 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2016-11-29 09:38 AM | REPLY

and to think, people are saying he should stop using twitter. Terrible idea. We need him on twitter.

#7 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2016-11-29 09:57 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#5 | POSTED BY PATRON AT 2016-11-29 09:55 AM | REPLY | FLAG

Dear Leader Kim Jong Un would be proud of you.

It is only tyrannical when you don't agree with it.

#8 | Posted by 726 at 2016-11-29 09:58 AM | Reply

And your Hillary don't like flag burning either.

www.nytimes.com

#9 | Posted by patron at 2016-11-29 09:59 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 4

Democrats agreeing with Scalia should probably be the actual headline of this. It's a lot more remarkable than Trump saying something stupid.

#10 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2016-11-29 10:03 AM | Reply

Left = Burning a flag is protected speech!

Pepe = So what if I burn a #BLM or rainbow flag?

Left = Argggghhh! Hate speech! Nazi! Bigot! Help Tolerance Police! Arrest him!... *gasp*..*hyperventilate*..Call 911! I need a safe space and safety pin!...*croak*...

#11 | Posted by aescal at 2016-11-29 10:05 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Advertisement

Advertisement

I think the current American flag should be retired indefinitely.

The country in its current state is no longer worthy of being represented by it.

#12 | Posted by pumpkinhead at 2016-11-29 10:14 AM | Reply

and to think, people are saying he should stop using twitter. Terrible idea.

When one of his tweets crashes the markets or starts a war, we'll regret that they let the dork keep his phone.

#13 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-29 10:22 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Pepe = So what if I burn a #BLM or rainbow flag?

You need to rethink the "Pepe" stuff. This is not going to become an alt right hangout.

#14 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-29 10:24 AM | Reply

People should lose their citizenship for wearing a hat made in China.

#15 | Posted by bored at 2016-11-29 10:26 AM | Reply

"When one of his tweets crashes the markets or starts a war, we'll regret that they let the dork keep his phone."

Don't blame me. I voted for Rufus T. Firefly.

#16 | Posted by pumpkinhead at 2016-11-29 10:26 AM | Reply

Obama takes out two citizens with drones without trial, no big deal.

Trump tweets a thought , lefties heads explode

#17 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2016-11-29 10:31 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

Obama takes out two citizens with drones without trial, no big deal.

How many terrorist attacks does a U.S. citizen get to launch in a lawless place like Yemen before you would support the military taking him out?

Al-Awlaki was a leader and recruiter for a terror organization we declared war against in 2001. If Obama didn't authorize the strike Al-Awlaki would still be carrying out attacks on the West like the Bataclan massacre in France and inspiring lone wolves to commit atrocities like the Pulse nightclub massacre.

Do you think German-Americans who joined the Nazis and fought the U.S. in Europe were entitled to a trial before the military attacked them?

#18 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-29 10:44 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Trump tweets a thought , lefties heads explode
#17 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

I guess you really don't want to admit this to yourself, but Trump is going to be President. To the nation and the world, his thoughts are America's thoughts.

#19 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2016-11-29 10:45 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"Trump tweets a thought , lefties heads explode"

When I was a kid, which wasn't that long ago, there was a shooting gallery over at Trimper's amusement park in Ocean City and whenever we would visit my grandparents during the summer we would go there.

At the shooting gallery there were easy targets to hit and hard targets to hit. One particularly easy target was a guy who would play the piano when you shot him in the pants. Even I could hit him and get him to play that goddam piano.

Donald Trump is that guy.

#20 | Posted by pumpkinhead at 2016-11-29 10:46 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Point being RCADE that Trump is getting trashed (rightfully so) by us "alt righters" for that tweet, but we are also calling out the snowflakes and buttercups that are bieng hypocrits when trying to defend burning Ole Glory but calling it a hate crime to burn #BLM or rainbow flags...

#21 | Posted by aescal at 2016-11-29 10:46 AM | Reply

The right wing version of the constitution consists of one half of one amendment.

#22 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2016-11-29 11:03 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

-Do you think German-Americans who joined the Nazis

My german-American father flew over 30 bombing missions over Nazi Germany. He lived, and saw his buddies die. His message to Cintonites is: Screw you.

#23 | Posted by nullifidian at 2016-11-29 11:18 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Aescal: No one on the left claims that the mere act of burning a LGBT flag is illegal. It's burning something with the intent to intimidate a group, like a burning cross in a black person's lawn. That's considered a hate crime for obvious reasons.

You need to stop calling yourself an alt righter if you want to keep an account here.

#24 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-29 11:18 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Pepe = So what if I burn a #BLM or rainbow flag?"

I've never heard anyone complaing about someone doing that?

I think Trump's sudden interest in flag burning is actually just more of his Fascism showing through. He's trying to divide the nation, demonize liberals or any other of his opponents and connect support for him with patriotism in the minds of his sychophantic followers. Most dictators do the exact same thing.

#25 | Posted by danni at 2016-11-29 11:18 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

My german-American father flew over 30 bombing missions over Nazi Germany. He lived, and saw his buddies die. His message to Cintonites is: Screw you.

This comment has nothing to do with what I posted, which was about German-Americans who fought for the Germans in Europe.

Your obsessive hatred for the Clintons and anyone who voted for them is getting dull.

#26 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-29 11:20 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

We'll be lucky to survive these years with a democratic government.

#2 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-29 09:38 AM |

The next three years will at least get the roaches out into the light.

#28 | Posted by Zed at 2016-11-29 11:36 AM | Reply

... and into the Cabinet.

#29 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-29 11:42 AM | Reply

How many terrorist attacks does a U.S. citizen get to launch in a lawless place like Yemen before you would support the military taking him out?
Al-Awlaki was a leader and recruiter for a terror organization we declared war against in 2001. If Obama didn't authorize the strike Al-Awlaki would still be carrying out attacks on the West like the Bataclan massacre in France and inspiring lone wolves to commit atrocities like the Pulse nightclub massacre.

#18 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2016-11-29 10:44 AM | REPLY

Strange example. IS committed 1 attack and inspired the other. Al-Awlaki was in Al-Queda, that means Al-Awlaki would have actually been, at this point, a US supplied rebel in Syria fighting against Islamic State over who gets to be the real caliphate. They can't make headway against Houthi militias in Yemen, even with Saudi backing. More practically, was killing him by drone a good idea? Unlikely. Per many expert appraisal, turning him into a martyr actually created a major increase in his influence and a resulting much higher number of attacks as a consequence.

So, a US citizen didn't get due process, and the theory for taking him out had the opposite effect. Back to the drawing board on convenience-driven-warfare.

#30 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2016-11-29 11:50 AM | Reply

After the Obama administration set up a hotline so people could report their neighbors to government if they spread "misinformation" about Obamacare, lefties cheered.

When the IRS targeted conservative groups for their political advocacies lefties cheered.

When Democrats in Wisconsin instituted midnight SWAT raids into people's homes for being Scott Walker supporters lefties cheered.

When several AG's looked into RICO lawsuits against those who don't toe the line on AGW lefties cheered.

Trump sends out a disturbing tweet and the left rediscovers the 1st Amendment. Better late than never, I suppose.

#31 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-11-29 11:50 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Stifle all that talk about the Constitution, otherwise too many people will start pointing to that 'well regulated militia' smack talk. St. Antonin of Scalia was always called an 'originalist' EXCEPT for the Second Amendment. Read Federalist Paper #46 and your 'originalist' perspective on the meaning of the Second Amendment may change...

#33 | Posted by catdog at 2016-11-29 11:57 AM | Reply

#21 | Posted by aescal

The burning of those flags is more akin to cross burning than the burning of the American Flag. You are not attacking a segment of the population when you burn the American Flag. You are attacking the government and it's policies.

#34 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2016-11-29 12:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Strange example. IS committed 1 attack and inspired the other.

Semantics. Islamist terror is Islamist terror whether it's committed by Al Qaeda or ISIS.

#35 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-29 12:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You either have free speech or you dont.
Trump and our lefties dont understand that....

#36 | Posted by aescal at 2016-11-29 12:36 PM | Reply

Semantics. Islamist terror is Islamist terror whether it's committed by Al Qaeda or ISIS.

#35 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2016-11-29 12:30 PM | REPLY

They're at war with each other. Don't be simpleminded.

#37 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2016-11-29 12:37 PM | Reply

They're at war with each other.

Turf battles between Islamist terror groups have nothing to do with the subject we were discussing, which was what to do about U.S. citizens leading Islamist terror groups in lawless places like Yemen. Try to focus.

#38 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-29 12:44 PM | Reply

#30 | Posted by sitzkrieg

Not really a strange example at all. Your interpretation is what is off and wrong.

Most damning is that as you pointed out he was in al-Qaeda. al-Qaeda has as it's goal the destruction of the USA - making him by default an enemy of the state. Just like the American's who chose to join the Reich. There is no al-Qaeda in Syria currently. The group that was claiming to be quickly disavowed membership and went their own radical way. He was tied to most of the plans for attacks against US targets coming out at the time.

Also Al-Awlaki was in Yemen not Syria and he was a Yemen citizen as well as a US citizen. He wouldn't have left to go to Syria. They are still trying to create their own Caliphate in Yemen yet again. At this point he would have been fighting the Yemen government (still) and their coalition of supporters and or the Houthis.

There may be questions but I have no issue with him being on that list or being droned and I do question US Drone strikes in general.

#39 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2016-11-29 01:33 PM | Reply

#36 | Posted by aescal

We don't have free speech if it is black or white. I think you have a simplistic approach to the question and of course there are limitations.

For example:
You are not allowed to shout "Fire!" when there is none because of what happened in a crowded theater and it went to trial.
You can not write or tell lies about people or you can be sued.
You can not divulge secrets - corporate or governmental without repercussions.
You can not burn a cross in someone's yard it is threatening and intimidation.

There are a lot of examples of where speech is limited. They have to do with threats, intimidation and in general damage to others.

Burning a US Flag is not a threat nor is it damaging to anyone. There is no reasonable way that giving political money can be considered free speech and burning a US flag cannot. When that changes we might have to re-examine flag burning - but even that doesn't come close to causing a re-examination in my book.

#40 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2016-11-29 01:42 PM | Reply

You either have free speech or you dont.

#36 | Posted by aescal at 2016

If you really do identify with the Alt Right, then your ideas of freedom are by definition warped, from my point of view.

Fascists long for the day when they can make other people shut-up, and then keep them that way.

#41 | Posted by Zed at 2016-11-29 01:43 PM | Reply

HERE it is again PATRON....seems that everyone posting after it just happened to miss it......wink wink.

And your Hillary don't like flag burning either.

www.nytimes.com

#9 | Posted by patron at 201

#42 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2016-11-29 02:05 PM | Reply

Semantics. Islamist terror is Islamist terror whether it's committed by Al Qaeda or ISIS.

Legality is not semantics. The AUMF is for Al Qaeda and "affiliates." Some sophisticated "semantics" are required to fit ISIS into that particular declaration of war by Congress.

#43 | Posted by et_al at 2016-11-29 02:06 PM | Reply

Three people are on street corner.

One burns an ISIS flag.
One burns a US flag.
One burns a #BLM flag.

Who is in the protected under the 1st?

If your answer is anything but all of them, you are a fascist and push your views and feesfees on others. Simple as that. Trump is either playing 12 dimensional chess and trying to draw a response from the left that will backfire on them, or just plain stupid for saying what he said.

Yelling fire in theatre or bomb on a plane is not free speech. That is incitement. Just as when a Klan leader calls for murdering blacks on the steps of a state capital or a community organizer calls for murdering jews in Harlem.

#44 | Posted by aescal at 2016-11-29 02:22 PM | Reply

None of this actually matters as anything other than a distraction from the real horror show that's about to open on K Street.

Healthcare coverage of all types is about to die an agonizing death and along with it millions of Americans. Between Tom Price and Paul Ryan policies Americans unable to obtain coverage will surpass the 20MM that was bad before and jump to 65-70MM including most seniors.

www.npr.org

#45 | Posted by Reagan58 at 2016-11-29 02:24 PM | Reply

Some sophisticated "semantics" are required to fit ISIS into that particular declaration of war by Congress.

The founder of ISIS pledged allegiance to Bin Laden in 2004 as he was starting his terror group. At one point it was known as al-Qaeda in Iraq. There are no special legal tricks required to make the group a valid target of war under the AUMF.

#46 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-29 02:42 PM | Reply

Trump is either playing 12 dimensional chess ...

We should stage an intervention for people who think Trump is a supergenius when he does stupid things.

He posted his 6 a.m. flag baloney because he's the buffoon at the end of the bar popping off hot opinions near closing time.

#47 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-29 02:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

RCade, by no means do I think that Trump is a genius but I do believe that he's a good enough showman and consummate -------- artist that he understands misdirection. With this blather he now knows, rightly, that noone is talking about the Klanners are other assorted vermin that are going to work in the White House. That's not a conversation that should have died in a week.

#48 | Posted by Reagan58 at 2016-11-29 03:03 PM | Reply

Why burn the flag? A more effective way
of showing distaste even hate of the USA
would to discontinue paying for it. ie:
stop paying taxes and apply for a visa and
Naturalization to the country of your choice
and go there quickly, please.

#49 | Posted by hobart at 2016-11-29 03:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#49 Here's your sign.

www.google.com

#50 | Posted by Reagan58 at 2016-11-29 03:13 PM | Reply

So, a US citizen didn't get due process
#30 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG AT 2016-11-29 11:50 AM

Don't worry, if and when Trump does it, due process will be important to them again.

#51 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2016-11-29 03:39 PM | Reply

There are no special legal tricks required to make the group a valid target of war under the AUMF.

#46 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2016-11-29 02:42 PM

I don't have Hans' skill with the Wayback Machine, but what I love is the fact that here on the DR from 06-08 all the DR Left would argue is that the AUMF did not authorize the use of Military Force by Bush, but since Tuesday, January 20, 2009 it's been the greatest thing since skinny no-foam pumpkin lattes on a cold Brooklyn day.

#52 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2016-11-29 04:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

There are no special legal tricks required to make the group a valid target of war under the AUMF.

Tell it to the current administration that requested Congress pass a new AUMF and White House counsel whose opinion avoids use of the AUMF and relies on inherent presidential power to chase ISIS.

#53 | Posted by et_al at 2016-11-29 04:27 PM | Reply

There are no special legal tricks required to make the group a valid target of war under the AUMF.

#46 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-29 02:42 PM | Reply | Flag

Absolutely not true and you know it. AUMF doesn't sanction war against ISIS. It never did. Need a new one to be valid.

#54 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2016-11-29 04:43 PM | Reply

... I do believe that he's a good enough showman and consummate -------- artist that he understands misdirection.

Misdirection is what happens when Trump is peeing and tweeting at the same time.

Trump has no self control. Just because that's worked out for him so far doesn't mean it's a master plan. He isn't going to be able to wave away bad news from being reported by tweeting dumb/bigoted/insane stuff in the middle of the night.

#55 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-29 06:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

AUMF doesn't sanction war against ISIS.

It has already been explained to you how it does. ISIS declared allegiance to Al Qaeda when it began. Groups that are allied to Al Qaeda are covered.

Obama asked for a new AUMF to shut up people like you. He knows, as we all know, that if he stopped pursuing war on ISIS until he got a new AUMF he would've gotten one.

The GOP Congress is so dysfunctional they couldn't give the president what they want him to have -- authority to drop bombs on Islamist terror leaders to prevent future attacks.

#56 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-29 06:37 PM | Reply

... what I love is the fact that here on the DR from 06-08 all the DR Left would argue is that the AUMF did not authorize the use of Military Force by Bush, but since Tuesday, January 20, 2009 it's been the greatest thing since skinny no-foam pumpkin lattes on a cold Brooklyn day.

You're not speaking for this liberal when you drop that load without having the decency to light a match. I had no problem with Bush 43 fighting Islamist terrorists. I had a problem with him ending his hunt for Bin Laden and declaring he didn't care about him.

One of Obama's finest moments on foreign policy in a 2008 debate was when he said he'd move against Bin Laden in Pakistan even if Pakistan didn't give its permission. McCain and Republicans had a cow. History showed us who was on the right side of that issue.

#57 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-29 06:40 PM | Reply

It has already been explained to you how it does. ISIS declared allegiance to Al Qaeda when it began. Groups that are allied to Al Qaeda are covered.

Obama asked for a new AUMF to shut up people like you. He knows, as we all know, that if he stopped pursuing war on ISIS until he got a new AUMF he would've gotten one.

The GOP Congress is so dysfunctional they couldn't give the president what they want him to have -- authority to drop bombs on Islamist terror leaders to prevent future attacks.

Posted by rcade at 2016-11-29 06:37 PM | Reply

No you would be incorrect Sir. The AUMF specifically stated those who carried out planned or helped with the terrorist attacks on September 11th. ISIS did not so therefore you are wrong to declare they are covered under AUMF 2001. President Obama needs a new AUMFG for the war against ISIS to be valid.

#58 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2016-11-29 06:41 PM | Reply

www.npr.org

The 2001 AUMF authorized military action against people or groups who "planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons."

So, no, it didn't authorize action against "terrorists." However, beyond that word-by-word fact check, Clinton's statement raises the more important (and controversial) question of whom the U.S. has the authority to fight.

That question persists because the AUMF has been interpreted by both the Bush and the Obama administrations as giving broad authority. And it's done a lot of work since then. As of 2013, the authorization had been used to justify actions in 10 countries (not counting Syria at that time).

But you can poke a few holes in this. For one, there was no ISIS in 2001. And if you read the AUMF literally, it looks like it wouldn't cover ISIS -- after all, ISIS itself didn't commit the terrorist attacks in 2001.

In addition, in 2014, al-Qaida and ISIS split (which the administration acknowledged in that 2014 statement).

So let's get back to Clinton. In her answer, she appears to agree with the Obama administration on a basic level: that is, that the White House has authority already by extension of the 2001 AUMF, but that Congress also should pass explicit authorization to fight ISIS.

#59 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2016-11-29 06:46 PM | Reply

You might want to read this RCADE for it eviscerates your claim that the AUMF of 2001 authorizes the actions taken against ISIS.

www.lawfareblog.com

#60 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2016-11-29 06:50 PM | Reply

Gotta give props to Laura.
She's very consistent. Situational ethics are not part of her game.

#61 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-11-29 06:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Laura,

Serious question: how many times have you read that AUMF?

#62 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-11-29 06:59 PM | Reply

Serious question: how many times have you read that AUMF?

Posted by JeffJ at 2016-11-29 06:59 PM | Reply

Maybe 50 times??? I know it's been a bunch of times.

#63 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2016-11-29 07:01 PM | Reply

Maybe 50 times??? I know it's been a bunch of times.

#63 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

I fondly remember debating its minutia with you in the early days of the DR. The whole UN approval vs Supremacy Clause issue is what those debates usually distilled down to. it was fun because we were debating the primary source - the AUMF itself. We weren't debating an op-ed of the AUMF; we were debating the AUMF itself. That was fun stuff.

#64 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-11-29 07:10 PM | Reply

It's cool to see that your view of it didn't change when Obama took office. Although I am not surprised by this.

#65 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-11-29 07:13 PM | Reply

So, no, it didn't authorize action against "terrorists."

I never said it authorized action against all terrorists. I said it authorized action against Al Qaeda and related groups.

ISIS began by swearing allegiance to Bin Laden. It was named Al Qaeda in Iraq for a while.

That makes it an Al Qaeda-affiliated group. There are no takesies backsies in terror. Once you become a part of Al Qaeda you're a valid target under the AUMF.

You can hit CTRL-C and CTRL-V until the cows come home. It won't change the fact that ISIS is a terror group that was affiliated with Al Qaeda.

No matter what happens to the 2001 AUMF, there will never be an American president who stops dropping bombs on ISIS and Al Qaeda while they plot and launch attacks on the U.S. Even Bernie Sanders supports using drones on them.

#66 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-29 07:30 PM | Reply

You can hit CTRL-C and CTRL-V until the cows come home. It won't change the fact that ISIS is a terror group that was affiliated with Al Qaeda.

You still do this???? My word get you a mouse with right and left buttons it's MUCH simpler

No matter what happens to the 2001 AUMF, there will never be an American president who stops dropping bombs on ISIS and Al Qaeda while they plot and launch attacks on the U.S. Even Bernie Sanders supports using drones on them.

I agree a president will act on vague made up threats to justify anything and everything. Doesn't make it legal or valid

#66 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-29 07:30 PM | Reply | Flag

#67 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2016-11-29 07:35 PM | Reply

It won't change the fact that ISIS is a terror group that was affiliated with Al Qaeda.

Then why did Obama and Hillary arm them?
ijr.com

#68 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2016-11-29 07:35 PM | Reply

#1 | Posted by TFDNihilist
Most Libs don't know what the word "illegal" means.

#69 | Posted by Federalist at 2016-11-29 08:07 PM | Reply

... vague made up threats ...

You think ISIS is a "vague made up threat"?

#70 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-29 08:21 PM | Reply

Then why did Obama and Hillary arm them?

Your own link debunks the claim made in your question.

#71 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-29 08:22 PM | Reply

You think ISIS is a "vague made up threat"?

Posted by rcade at 2016-11-29 08:21 PM | Reply

I believe the ISIS scare tactic the Obama administration is using is based on deliberate propagandic declaration so the American populace will shut up and fall in line to support his actions against it. Had ISIS didn't go after the oil infrastructure we wouldn't be over there. Sadly the truth takes a back seat to these types of entanglements. That's what I believe Sir.

#72 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2016-11-29 08:26 PM | Reply

How many people in the West does ISIS need to kill before you wake up?

They are at war with us. That won't stop until they are destroyed. There's no peaceful solution to Islamist terrorism.

#73 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-29 11:58 PM | Reply

So, this is what Trump decides to do instead of receiving daily intelligence briefings? It's working for him now with his base. Winning!

#74 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2016-11-30 12:06 AM | Reply

Trump knows that flag burning is protected speech, but he also knows it is a trigger issue to fire up the morons that love him. Just like "LOCK HER UP".

#75 | Posted by 726 at 2016-11-30 07:31 AM | Reply

Then why did Obama and Hillary arm them?
ijr.com

#68 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS AT 2016-11-29 07:35 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

"The source of ISIS's M16s, along with other U.S. made weapons, is likely captured Iraqi Army stocks."

Obama did not arm them. He armed the Iraqi Army and they lost them.

You should really read your own proof.

#76 | Posted by 726 at 2016-11-30 07:42 AM | Reply

Obama did not arm them. He armed the Iraqi Army and they lost them.

#76 | POSTED BY 726 AT 2016-11-30 07:42 AM | REPLY

It's estimated 80% of the weapons sent to US-backed rebels in Syria ended up in the hands of ISIS and Al Queda, which they use against everybody else and each other.

#77 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2016-11-30 08:17 AM | Reply

They are at war with us. That won't stop until they are destroyed. There's no peaceful solution to Islamist terrorism.

#73 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2016-11-29 11:58 PM | FLAG:

Now we're getting to the interesting part. ISIS is just an idea. You want to kill an idea. 70 years ago we did manage to kill off the ideas of a brutal, religious, racist, hyper-militant warrior society that saw everybody not-them as sub-human and was a frequently employer of suicide attacks. Are you willing to do to IS what we did to Japan? We won by being more savage and relentless.

#78 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2016-11-30 08:22 AM | Reply

ISIS declared allegiance to Al Qaeda when it began. Groups that are allied to Al Qaeda are covered.

#56 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2016-11-29 06:37 PM | FLAG:

fyi, they are not allied, so your justification is 3 years out of date. They are in a civil war against each other, which continues to grind on.

#79 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2016-11-30 08:37 AM | Reply

ISIS is just an idea. You want to kill an idea.

ISIS and Al Qaeda are groups of people, not abstract concepts.

If you have a better solution than military strikes, by all means enlighten us.

#80 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-30 11:29 AM | Reply

fyi, they are not allied, so your justification is 3 years out of date.

That doesn't matter any more than the fact that Bin Laden and most of the other 9/11 plotters are captured or dead.

#81 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-30 11:32 AM | Reply

That doesn't matter any more than the fact that Bin Laden and most of the other 9/11 plotters are captured or dead.

Posted by rcade at 2016-11-30 11:32 AM | Reply

Actually it most absuredly does. The AUMF 2001 was specific. It wasn't a blank check where you could sign any action justifies its legitimacy with said organ.

#82 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2016-11-30 11:36 AM | Reply

The AUMF 2001 was specific.

Yes, it is. It compels the president to take military action against Al Qaeda and related groups to prevent "future acts of international terrorism."

It wasn't just about getting justice for 9/11.

Al Qaeda and related groups continue to carry out acts of terrorism. They remain a valid target under the AUMF until it is repealed or superceded.

#83 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-30 11:46 AM | Reply

Yes, it is. It compels the president to take military action against Al Qaeda and related groups to prevent "future acts of international terrorism."

It wasn't just about getting justice for 9/11.

Al Qaeda and related groups continue to carry out acts of terrorism. They remain a valid target under the AUMF until it is repealed or superceded.

Posted by rcade at 2016-11-30 11:46 AM | Reply

en.wikipedia.org

The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Pub. L. 107-40, codified at 115 Stat. 224 and passed as S.J.Res. 23 by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizes the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001 and any "associated forces". The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups.

The AUMF was signed by President George W. Bush on September 18, 2001. As of December 2015, the AUMF provides Congressional authorization for the use of force against ISIS and other Islamic militant groups.[1]

MY WORDS FOLLOW

ISIS wasn't a party to this so your justifiable use of AUMF is without merit and is void of authorization. Those are the facts Sir.

#84 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2016-11-30 11:51 AM | Reply

Stop pretending you own the facts. You're presenting your interpretation of a broadly worded law, not an arbiter of truth.

ISIS became an associated force of Al Qaeda when its leader pledged his allegiance to Bin Laden upon creation of the group. Nothing subsequent to that matters. As long as it is engaged in terror campaigns against the West it will be attacked militarily by the U.S.

There's no court challenge against our use of the 2001 AUMF to attack ISIS militarily, so your objections are thus far not that relevant.

#85 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-30 12:10 PM | Reply

ISIS became an associated force of Al Qaeda when its leader pledged his allegiance to Bin Laden upon creation of the group. Nothing subsequent to that matters. As long as it is engaged in terror campaigns against the West it will be attacked militarily by the U.S.

There's no court challenge against our use of the 2001 AUMF to attack ISIS militarily, so your objections are thus far not that relevant.

Posted by rcade at 2016-11-30 12:10 PM | Reply

Stop pretending Obama has the authority when he clearly does not.

www.theatlantic.com

Almost exactly two years ago, President Obama proclaimed that the national interest required intervention in Syria to punish the Assad government for using chemical weapons against its own people -- not only a war crime, but, Obama said, a "red line" for the international community. Shortly afterwards, though, Obama unexpectedly announced that he would first seek congressional authorization. "After careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets," he said on August 31, 2013. "Having made my decision as Commander-in-Chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests, I'm also mindful that I'm the President of the world's oldest constitutional democracy … And that's why I've made a second decision: I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people's representatives in Congress."

#86 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2016-11-30 12:22 PM | Reply

The IRS never targeted anyone for their political ideology. They targeted groups that were ILLEGALLY CONDUCTING POLITICAL ACTIVITIES EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN BY LAW. The fact that most of the scammers were republican doesn't mean they were being picked on. It just shows republicans are scammers

#87 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2016-11-30 02:14 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

ISIS and Al Qaeda are groups of people, not abstract concepts.
If you have a better solution than military strikes, by all means enlighten us.

#80 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2016-11-30 11:29 AM | FLAG:

Despite your insistence that all Muslim terrorists are alike, they're not, groups exist for different reasons and air strikes aren't addressing the root cause of those. The targeted assassination campaign has been doing the opposite. It's a temporary disruption of their ops, but they're quickly replaced, and the strikes fuel their recruiting. That's reverse attrition if you're killing 1 but make 5. IS is born out of oppressive governance of the Sunni by the Shia. Baghdad just legalized the Iranian backed Shia militias that are attempting to occupy a 1 million person Sunni city. The Obama admin's conclusion as to what is the least bad solution is to back the Shia militias in Iraq with airstrikes, and Sunni militias in Syria with airstrikes, and sometimes Kurds on both sides. In Mosul, the Shia won't advance anymore because we ceased air strikes the moment they got to the city, so the offensive stalled into a siege. None of this solves lack of representation for those Sunni which were happy to see the Shia manned Iraqi army run off in the first place. Even if Mosul is conquered by the Shia, the local government will have Sunnis in it, and those Sunni are going to be the same locals that are affiliated with IS governorship right now.

I think the least bad option is the 3 state solution. Without fair representation for the Sunni there, it's endless violence in a place that has seen frequent warfare since before Xenophon walked through the ruins of Nineveh.

#88 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2016-11-30 02:18 PM | Reply

Back when bush killed brown people it was only creating more terrorists. When Obama does it, it's only because there are no other options.
It's just so amazing that the hypocrisy doesn't blind you folks.

#89 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2016-11-30 02:23 PM | Reply

A physical act is not speech.

speech
spēCH/Submit
noun
1.
the expression of or the ability to express thoughts and feelings by articulate sounds.
"he was born deaf and without the power of speech"
synonyms speaking, talking, verbal expression, verbal communication
"he doesn't have the power of speech"
2.
a formal address or discourse delivered to an audience.
"the headmistress made a speech about how much they would miss her"
synonyms: talk, address, lecture, discourse, oration, disquisition, peroration, deliverance, presentation; sermon, homily; monologue, soliloquy; informalspiel
"an after-dinner speech"

#90 | Posted by Visitor2 at 2016-11-30 04:04 PM | Reply

A pysical act Can be speech. Picketing is a physical act of speech. Burning the flag is a physical act of speech. I flip you the bird is a physical act of speech.

#91 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2016-11-30 04:13 PM | Reply

deja vu nightmares.
FIRE!!!

#92 | Posted by ichiro at 2016-11-30 05:52 PM | Reply

So...why are the mods letting this thread be hijacked with another topic?

New here?

#94 | Posted by REDIAL at 2016-11-30 09:13 PM | Reply

so let's look at two issues..

leftists kooks LOVE DEM SOME CASTRO.....so why don't a bunch of flag burners go with the people obama is sending and BURN A CUBAN FLAG....

I tell you what...I'll pay for the banner....the one that says "enjoy prison"

#95 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2016-11-30 11:12 PM | Reply

I'm late to the discussion, but really, this is a Trump deflection from the abysmsal crew he is assembling around him
This is the most disappointed (and deplorable) cabinet ever created
The harm these people will do is unestimable

So let's talk about the dogwhistle flag burning, yes?

#96 | Posted by jcougowl at 2016-12-01 12:53 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Money is "freedom of speech" but those who don't have billions can't burn a flag as an expression of disgust with the actions of their government. Ridiculous! But the Trump "patriots" will pick up on this nonsense and pretend they get to define patriotism. Bush voters are celebrating and pretending that their last President wasn't a total disaster for the world. The entire world is expecting disaster from the Trump Presidency, well except Putin and Russia, they're expecting freedom to invade and occupy any former parts of the USSR that they want. Trump is going to enable the USSR to reassemble itself and, once again, be a powerful threat to world peace and he is doing it for money. He is the most sold out President in history, Putin owns him.

#97 | Posted by danni at 2016-12-01 09:33 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2016 World Readable

-->
Drudge Retort