DHS Secretary: At Least 40 Americans Who Fought With ISIS Overseas Are Back in the US

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2015/04/07/dhs-admits-40-americans-who-fought-with-isis-overseas-have-been-allowed-back-into-us--keeping-close-tabs-on-them-n1981863

DHS Secretary: At Least 40 Americans Who Fought With ISIS Overseas Are Back in the US
Leah Barkoukis | Apr 07, 2015


At least 40 American citizens that have left to join the fight in Iraq and Syria are now back in the U.S., according to DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson, raising serious questions about the United States’ counterterrorism strategy here at home.

“As I understand it, of the 180 Americans who have gone overseas to fight in Iraq and Syria, 40 have come back. I assume you're keeping close tabs on those 40?” 60 Minutes’ correspondent Lesley Stahl asked Johnson in an interview that aired Sunday.

“We have in fact kept close tabs on those who we believe have left and those who've come back. A number have been arrested or investigated and we have systems in place to track these individuals. But you can't know everything,” he responded.

While he acknowledged that many had been arrested, it is a bit disconcerting that all of them haven’t been apprehended, given that we know they went to fight with ISIS in Syria and Iraq.

According to a New York Post law enforcement source, however, this may have to do with the fact that most of the Americans joining the Islamic State are in it for the thrill and thus, when they return home are not interested in waging war once back. But, of course, there is no guarantee that’s the case

Pat Altentaler · LSUNO
So the Dept. of Homeland Security has proven itself to be a useless waste of American tax dollars, like most of the other Government Agency's.
Reply · · 8 · 17 hours ago

Frank Romano · Top Commenter · Colonie Central High School
There is no longer a Department of Government working for the American people.
Reply · · 15 hours ago

Timothy Thompson · Top Commenter
Typical that we know 40 individuals came back from joining ISIS and only a few have been picked up and arrested. I guess another Obama dictate to treat Muslims with kid gloves. Anyone who ventured over there should have had their passports pulled and not given the opportunity to return at all, no exceptions. They all should be interrogated to give information of their activities when they were there, who they associated prior to leaving, and last but not least how they came to come back and why?

This administration treats our friends like enemies, and muslims like they are holly rollers while christians are fed to the lions. I don't trust anything these people do anymore. Obama really looks like he and his past history in Kenya and Indoneasia have finally shown themselves to favor and protect our enemies.
Reply · · 6 · 17 hours ago

Steve Chism · Top Commenter
So why are they not behind bars, for aiding and abetting enemy forces?
Reply · · 4 · 17 hours ago

Philip R. Tripp · Top Commenter
Obama doesn't consider them enemies. They're just disgruntled job-seekers.
Reply · · 4 · 16 hours ago

Noel Eliscu · Top Commenter · Southern Illinois University Carbondale
why are they not arrested and deported
Reply · · 4 · 16 hours ago

Leonard Haga · Top Commenter · Arab High School
A better ? would be why does Obama refuses to secure our borders. Terrorist walking across everyday.
Reply · · 14 hours ago

Philip R. Tripp · Top Commenter
Are they at least on the 'No Fly' list? Have their passports been revoked?

Any guesses how many there really are?

How about the ones from other countries that can cross our borders at will like thousands of other illegal aliens every week?
Reply · · 2 · 16 hours ago

Frank Romano · Top Commenter · Colonie Central High School
The only nation in the world that would save Israel used to America! This is not America it has been taken over by the left the very left that almost destroyed America during Viet Nam They had their own terrorists not as gorey but very deadly and once again they have turned the world against the very nation they should protect. It was just the other day Obama told the Jews dont look to America for help It was purhaps the first time since becoming President he told the Truth.
Reply · · 1 · 15 hours ago

Don Rhudy · Top Commenter · Indiana University
The Democrats are entirely in favor of terrorism, but the Republicans, who say they oppose it, will not take it seriously until some Muslim does start bombing buildings and people in D.C., District of Corruption.
Reply · · 1 · 15 hours ago

James Chamberlain · Top Commenter
When the DHS is run by muslims, do you expect them to keep isis out?
Reply · · 1 · 15 hours ago

Harry Townsend · Top Commenter · MATC Madison
Death Sentence!!!! for Treason!!
Reply · · 1 · 16 hours ago

Docko Brossman · Top Commenter
Well, for a second there, I thought perhaps the Obama underling, Jeh Johnson was going to announce rounding up the murdering SOBs that have chosen to return to the US of A. Every one of these traitorous turkeys ought to be in irons pending reconstruction of an operable guillotine to dispose of them - properly and permanently before they can proceed with their assigned terorist tasks here in the Great Satan.

But no! al-Obama has decreed that they get to return to the US of A as heroes and recruiters for ISIS and they will be killing innocent Americans before too long - no skin off of al-Obama's nose.
Reply · · 16 hours ago

Henry Golden · Greybull, Wyoming
There are LOTS of operable guilotines in the US, but not for muslims.
Reply · · 15 hours ago

Norm V. James · Top Commenter · Clifton High School
How long will it take before demorat voters that the demonrat party was high jacked many years ago . They have not been real Americans for decades .Now we have some republicans of the same ilk. How much longer will Americans stand up for this country ? Does free stuff really mean so much to them that they will vote against their childrens futures . They have been working at this for the last 50 years .
Reply · · about an hour ago

Scott Puckett · Top Commenter · Rutherfordton, North Carolina
My question is why these enemies of the U.S. did not have their passports invalidated so they could not return to the U.S. Oh wait, Homeland Security is too busy keeping track of Conservatives, Christians, and Veterans who are classified as possible terrorists by this administration, and are obviously a much greater threat.
Reply · · 28 minutes ago

Willy Peeters · Top Commenter · Works at Semi-retired
Then WHY haven't they been stripped of their American citizenship, passport revoked and thrown in prison for treason yet if you know who and where they are? Another worthless Department just there to waste more money and fill the pockets of those 'in charge'. This Putz is as much a joke as the UpHolder and his Department Of Jokes.
Reply · · 5 hours ago

Paul Garron · Member at Citizens Constitutional Militia
Never have I thought of myself as a racist. But, every time a government department head shows his head it is black or a variety of black. Forgive me, Lord.
Reply · · 38 minutes ago

John Siemens · Top Commenter · Sr. Manager, Flight Operations / Chief Pilot at Emivest Aerospace
Why were they allowed back into the US at all?
Why worry about bombing only NYC? There are a lot of other cities in the US that also need protection.
Reply · · 15 hours ago

Peter Mckenna · Top Commenter · University of London
Ideological Islamists should have the former status of committed communists.
Reply · · 4 hours ago

Dorothy Duda
as someone else suggested if they go to fight with ISI they are traitors! Try them for treason and imprison!
Reply · · 14 hours ago

George Rockers · Kansas State University
So when is our gutless government going to call these traitors to account?
Reply · · 15 hours ago

Gene Cordell · Top Commenter
Most likely when perchance hell freezes over,if Christians don't wake up and get to it
Reply · · 10 hours ago

Read this and then try to tell me the obama and his admin aren't ffing traitors working for the muslims(Iran) etc.....
Do try.....--Tyr

[jimnyc]

If anyone fought alongside Isis, they should be considered terrorists and locked up, or sent back to their buddies.

[fj1200]

What law did they break?

[jimnyc]

What law did they break?

So do you think if I travel over to Yemen, join Al Qaeda, train with them for a few years, and then return - all is OK? You do realize that fighting with a known terror group then makes one a terrorist, no? Folks have been arrested already for simply trying to join ISIS. Generally speaking, simply aiding a terror group is more than enough to have considered breaking the law.

(don't know if any are duplicates, just linking from quick search)

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/03/04/more-young-americans-arrested-for-joining-isis/21149844/
http://jimbakkershow.com/news/california-man-arrested-attempting-join-isis/
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Philadelphia-Woman-Arrested-Trying-to-Join-ISIS-ISIL-298591161.html
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/182510#.VSVBUZP4Z8E
http://www.scrippsmedia.com/now-trending/3-men-arrested-in-NY-attempted-to-join-ISIS-294058451.html
http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2015/02/25/3-brooklyn-muslims-arrested-before-joining-isis/
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/virginia-teen-arrested-helping-man-fight-isis-syria-article-1.2137387
http://www.mycentraloregon.com/2015/04/03/pennsylvania-woman-arrested-for-allegedly-trying-to-join-isis/
http://news.yahoo.com/us-national-guardsman-cousin-arrested-trying-join-isis-163941923--abc-news-topstories.html;_ylt=A0LEVxiSQCVVDYEAZYBXNyoA;_ylu =X3oDMTE0MGNnNDZ2BGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxOAR2dGlkA1ZJU DU2M18xBHNlYwNzcg--
http://nypost.com/2014/09/03/former-american-cop-tried-to-join-isis/

[jimnyc]

What law did they break?

Btw, likely federal laws, and anti-terrorism laws...

[Kathianne]

I'm guessing something under Patriot Act.

[fj1200]

I was just asking what law they broke.

[fj1200]

I'm guessing something under Patriot Act.

I was guessing something under either the law authorizing action against AQ or any number of Defense authorization bills that we've passed since then.

[jimnyc]

I was just asking what law they broke.

The law of common sense, that states "if you join and/or aid known terrorist groups, you can and will be jailed, or possibly have a drone follow you" :poke:

[fj1200]

The law of common sense, that states "if you join and/or aid known terrorist groups, you can and will be jailed, or possibly have a drone follow you" :poke:

:laugh: Could you point out the code section in the Federal Register. :scared:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

What law did they break?

Aiding enemies of this nation, joining and fighting with a terrorist group, etc..
Surely you know they broke laws, right? -Tyr

[jimnyc]

:laugh: Could you point out the code section in the Federal Register. :scared:

But of course!! And this literally comes from the government archives site...

http://i.imgur.com/0Vjt2CR.jpg

[fj1200]

Aiding enemies of this nation, joining and fighting with a terrorist group, etc..
Surely you know they broke laws, right? -Tyr

Do tell.

[fj1200]

But of course!! And this literally comes from the government archives site...

Ah yes. How could I forget Article III, section 4b that references drones. :poke:

[jimnyc]

Ah yes. How could I forget Article III, section 4b that references drones. :poke:

It references our rights. Terrorists and those who aid them want to destroy those rights, and us. Common sense dictates they will end up in jail, or on the receiving end of some communications from an overhead drone. :)

[fj1200]

It references our rights. Terrorists and those who aid them want to destroy those rights, and us. Common sense dictates they will end up in jail, or on the receiving end of some communications from an overhead drone. :)

Rights are defended by the passage of laws. We are a country of laws. When someone is convicted of murder it will be because they violated a statute, not because the Constitution references rights.

[Drummond]

What law did they break?

Truly incredible !!

H'm. Well, now, I may not be as familiar with American laws as are most Americans (!) ... but there must SURELY be laws legislating against treason ?? It surely follows that anyone going to fight for an enemy of your country is committing treason by doing so.

Do you know that the ONE death sentence still possible under British law concerns the offence of treason ? That it hasn't been enacted in decades is neither here nor there ... such a penalty still exists.

[fj1200]

... but there must SURELY be laws legislating against treason ??

Surely you could find it and then let us all know how they violated it.

[Drummond]

Surely you could find it and then let us all know how they violated it.

Not sure what to make of this. Are you doubting that a law against treason exists in American law ? And .. how come it's up to a BRITISH citizen to advise an AMERICAN on AMERICAN law .. ??

See the thread title. It refers to 'at least 40 Americans who fought with ISIS'. Are you saying that they actually didn't ??

Because if you accept that they did, then they fought in the service of America's enemy.

How does this fail to qualify as treason ??

[fj1200]

Not sure what to make of this. Are you doubting that a law against treason exists in American law ? And .. how come it's up to a BRITISH citizen to advise an AMERICAN on AMERICAN law .. ??

See the thread title. It refers to 'at least 40 Americans who fought with ISIS'. Are you saying that they actually didn't ??

Because if you accept that they did, then they fought in the service of America's enemy.

How does this fail to qualify as treason ??

Those aren't answers. It's up to anyone who would like to answer the question.

[Gunny]

Read this and then try to tell me the obama and his admin aren't ffing traitors working for the muslims(Iran) etc.....
Do try.....--Tyr

He's a traitor, no doubt. But he's working for his warped sense of "glory", not the muslims. He's going to get his wish and be famous all right, but not for the reasons he thinks.

[Gunny]

Those aren't answers. It's up to anyone who would like to answer the question.

My answer is simple. The President does NOT have the right to unilaterally make treaties. Treason is a gross and flagrant violation of the supreme law of this land which has the effect of destroying that supreme law.

This BS "deal at any cost" with Iran sealed the deal for me. You know how long it's going to take someone to un-f*ck the mess he's made? I admire the people running for President now. Or is that more balls than brains? They're going to have to unscrew this colossal f*ckup and have the leftwingnuts crawling in and out every orifice.

[Kathianne]

President can make treaties. Senate must approve.

[Gunny]

President can make treaties. Senate must approve.

You are correct. My point is, O-blah-blah is going to make a deal come Hell or High water, and he doesn't give a damn about Congress. Clinton was the king of the line item veto and this jerk is the king of the executive order.

Rather curious to me why the House of Representatives gets no play here.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

He's a traitor, no doubt. But he's working for his warped sense of "glory", not the muslims. He's going to get his wish and be famous all right, but not for the reasons he thinks.

We agree that he is a traitor but not on the why.
I believe that its because he is a "muslim-in-hiding"
operating his own personal jihad against this nation, as that makes more sense to the actions he takes.
The why is not important, the important thing is that he is doing it and getting away with it..
This one is a major, major FusterCluck, that a future President will have a hard time undoing--if he can even undo at all.
Once Iran gets a nuke there is no putting the damn genie back into the bottle.-Tyr

[Drummond]

Those aren't answers. It's up to anyone who would like to answer the question.

Very generous of you, I'm sure ...

But I don't understand why you asked your question in the first place. It would make no sense at all to suppose that treason, or treasonous behaviour, would somehow FAIL to incur a penalty under American law.

[Drummond]

We agree that he is a traitor but not on the why.
I believe that its because he is a "muslim-in-hiding"
operating his own personal jihad against this nation, as that makes more sense to the actions he takes.
The why is not important, the important thing is that he is doing it and getting away with it..
This one is a major, major FusterCluck, that a future President will have a hard time undoing--if he can even undo at all.
Once Iran gets a nuke there is no putting the damn genie back into the bottle.-Tyr

I think that both you AND Gunny make good points in this. Obama undoubtedly has great regard for Muslims, and operates in deference to their ultimate ambitions, doing all he can to distance American as a nation from its foundling Christian roots ... which is treasonous right there, selling out the very soul of your nation.

It's also apparent, though, that Obama is one hell of a preening narcissist. He wants to be 'all things to all people' (Netanyahu and Israel being admitted exceptions, because furtherance of Muslim ambition is a preferred goal of his). Obama wants his place in history, and believes he'll get one that somehow has him smelling of roses.

The ACTUAL scent will, of course, be remarkably different from that .... :poop::fart::ahole:

[fj1200]

... I don't understand...

As discussed previously there would be a particular law and it would have penalties. If you're not able to answer then you should just not answer. :) It surely didn't take long to find an actual answer though:

Americans Fighting For ISIS Could Face Array Of Criminal Charges (http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2014/06/13/americans-fighting-for-isis-could-face-array-of-criminal-charges/)



Americans who fight abroad can face a variety of criminal charges, depending on the particular facts associated with their fighting. The May 14, 2014 State Department designation of ISIS as a foreign terrorist organization is an important fact that satisfies an element of the offense for prosecutions under some of the statutes discussed below. Interestingly, some of the alleged criminal conduct may have pre-dated the State Department’s ISIS designation, which could pose a problem if Muhumed or others are apprehended and prosecuted. The problem would be surmountable though, so long as the criminal activity continued to occur after the State Department designation.Below is a run down of some of the applicable provisions of federal criminal law.


If the Americans fighting for ISIS, prior to leaving the United States, agreed with others to fight for ISIS (where fighting means killing or injuring others) and took some steps toward achieving that agreement, they may be subject to federal laws which criminalize conspiracies to engage in violence against people or property overseas (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/956). Specifically, it is unlawful to conspire within the United States, to commit murder, kidnapping, or maiming outside the United States, or to destroy foreign government property of a government with which the United States is at peace. An individual can be prosecuted so long as one overt act of the conspiracy takes place within the United States. The crime carries with it a sentence of life in prison if the aim of the conspiracy is to murder or kidnap, up to 35 years in prison if the aim of the conspiracy is to maim, and up to 25 years in prison if the aim of the conspiracy is to damage certain property. Importantly, this offense criminalizes the conspiracy, one need not successfully carry out the violent or destructive acts to be prosecuted.
If while abroad, the Americans fighting for ISIS take hostages, they may face charges forhostage taking (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1203), which is a death penalty eligible offense if the death of any person results from the offense. To have jurisdiction over hostage taking abroad, the offender or person seized must be a United States national, or the offender must later be found in the United States.
Americans fighting for ISIS may also face charges for Bombings of Places of Public Use, Government Facilities, Pubic Transportation Systems and Infrastructure Facilities (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332f). Federal law criminalizes placing, discharging, or detonating an explosive device in a place of public use, a state or government facility, a public transportation system, or an infrastructure facility with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury or extensive damage to the structure. For such bombings abroad, an individual can be prosecuted if: the perpetrator “is a national of the United States or is a stateless person whose habitual residence is in the United States”, “if a victim is a national of the United States” or “if a perpetrator is found in the United States.” (along with a handful of other ways of finding jurisdiction).

There are also terrorism statutes which may also apply to the conduct of Americans fighting on behalf of ISIS.


If individuals fighting for ISIS harm United States persons, even accidentally, they could be subject to federal laws which criminalize Terrorist Attacks Abroad Against United States Nationals (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332). The crime includes killing, attempts to kill, and conspiracies to kill United States nationals outside the United States. It also criminalizes physical violence outside the United States if that physical violence is committed with the intent to cause serious bodily harm to a United States person or ends up resulting in serious bodily harm to a United States person. The punishment for committing terrorist attacks abroad against United States Nationals ranges from the death penalty downward to three years of imprisonment in the case of involuntary manslaughter (accidental killings). Prosecutions for such attacks abroad may only occur if the Attorney General certifies that the crime was “intended to coerce, intimidate, or retaliate against a government or a civilian population.”
Federal law also criminalizes Providing Material Support To Terrorists (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2339A) andProviding Material Support Or Resources To Designated Terrorist Organizations (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2339B). The first offense requires the government prove that the defendant intended that his material support would be used to commit or to prepare for a lengthy list of predicate offenses that could support terrorism. The second offense, providing material support to a designated terrorist organization, requires that the support go to a group that is in fact designated by the State Department as a foreign terrorist organization (here the provision of material support will need to occur or continue to occur after the group was designated as an FTO). The punishment for providing material support ranges from 15 years in prison to a life sentence if death results from the conduct. Material support includes all manner of things that can aid an enemy group, specifically:


the term “material support or resources” means any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who may be or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials;



If the Americans fighting for ISIS received training from ISIS at any point after its designation as an FTO, they could also be punished for Receiving Military-Type Training From A Foreign Terrorist Organization (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2339D). This statute criminalizes receiving training from or on behalf of a designated foreign terrorist organization. Training is broadly construed as instruction in means or methods that can cause death, serious bodily injury, destruction of property, disruption of critical infrastructure, weapons and firearm training. Importantly, once an individual receives military training, they have likely satisfied the overt act necessary to prosecute them for a conspiracy to provide material support, with the material support being themselves (as personnel). Receiving military training is punishable by a mandatory 10 year sentence in prison.

All six of the crimes listed above might be possible charges against individuals fighting on behalf of ISIS. As would conspiracy (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371) charges against individuals who agreed to engage in any of the specified crimes above (or others), assuming the elements of conspiracy are satisfied.

Interestingly he went in a little more in-depth than just bleating out treason.

Of course the next part is proving those allegations true.

[aboutime]

Read this and then try to tell me the obama and his admin aren't ffing traitors working for the muslims(Iran) etc.....
Do try.....--Tyr


Tyr. Once again. I must admit how I have suspected JEH JOHNSON as the Obama ringleader for the Terror network WITHIN our nation. Without question from me.
So..here is my reminder to all who seem to ignore it every time I post it here:
http://icansayit.com/images/Musbrohoodmem.jpg

I also find it suspect how...nobody has provided any proof to dispute the men above.

[Gunny]

We agree that he is a traitor but not on the why.
I believe that its because he is a "muslim-in-hiding"
operating his own personal jihad against this nation, as that makes more sense to the actions he takes.
The why is not important, the important thing is that he is doing it and getting away with it..
This one is a major, major FusterCluck, that a future President will have a hard time undoing--if he can even undo at all.
Once Iran gets a nuke there is no putting the damn genie back into the bottle.-Tyr

Not that hard. What has obama actually got passed as a law? Executive orders can be dumped the second a new President takes office. Almost all of Obama's shit is based on bullying Congress and no one telling him to go back to his hole.

Congress can shut him down in a second. They just need to grow some balls.

[Gunny]

As discussed previously there would be a particular law and it would have penalties. If you're not able to answer then you should just not answer. :) It surely didn't take long to find an actual answer though:

Americans Fighting For ISIS Could Face Array Of Criminal Charges (http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2014/06/13/americans-fighting-for-isis-could-face-array-of-criminal-charges/)




Interestingly he went in a little more in-depth than just bleating out treason.

Of course the next part is proving those allegations true.

You have to meet specific requirements for treason. Why Bergdhal's case has taken so long.

You can be impeached and removed from office for a lot less.

[fj1200]

You have to meet specific requirements for treason. Why Bergdhal's case has taken so long.

You can be impeached and removed from office for a lot less.

If only.

[Gunny]

If only.

Nobody ever has enough control of Congress to do it. Takes a 2/3's majority right?

If he keeps going the way he is, he might just find that 2/3's majority. His own party is running away from him.

[fj1200]

Nobody ever has enough control of Congress to do it. Takes a 2/3's majority right?

If he keeps going the way he is, he might just find that 2/3's majority. His own party is running away from him.

Simple majority in the House and 2/3 in the Senate IIRC. That would be nice but I don't see enough Democrats caring a whit about the role of Congress to convict.

[Gunny]

Simple majority in the House and 2/3 in the Senate IIRC. That would be nice but I don't see enough Democrats caring a whit about the role of Congress to convict.

Might want to watch the news. Even the Dems are going after him on this Iran crap.

I think he took a step too far.

[Kathianne]

Simple majority in the House and 2/3 in the Senate IIRC. That would be nice but I don't see enough Democrats caring a whit about the role of Congress to convict.

The House hasn't a roll in treaty ratification, other than using the media.

Article 2

Section 2 - President to be Commander-in-Chief. He may require opinions of cabinet officers, etc., may pardon. Treaty-making power. Nomination of certain officers. When President may fill vacancies.

2. He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Not that hard. What has obama actually got passed as a law? Executive orders can be dumped the second a new President takes office. Almost all of Obama's shit is based on bullying Congress and no one telling him to go back to his hole.

Congress can shut him down in a second. They just need to grow some balls.

A bit harder than that. You see in all likely-hood obama is lying about how far Iran is in its nuke program. If they are much closer they could be getting nukes before another President steps in office. Once they have nukes there will be no stopping them short of an all out war.
Europe will knuckle under to them and their power would suddenly become truly massive.
HERE IS WHY.
FEAR, fear of a nation with nukes that will or would use them without regard of the consequences...
Thats a major fear based in reality, tis why this is obama's most traitorous act so far IMHO . -Tyr

[fj1200]

Might want to watch the news. Even the Dems are going after him on this Iran crap.

I think he took a step too far.

Impeachment? I highly doubt the Dems will stray that far and validate the Republicans.

Treaty ratification? Yeah, that's dead. Not that it ever had a chance.


The House hasn't a roll in treaty ratification, other than using the media.

Right, I thought we were talking about impeachment. I'm so confused!

[Kathianne]

Impeachment? I highly doubt the Dems will stray that far and validate the Republicans.

Treaty ratification? Yeah, that's dead. Not that it ever had a chance.



Right, I thought we were talking about impeachment. I'm so confused!

Sorry, thought the topic was still treaties, my bad.

[Gunny]

Impeachment? I highly doubt the Dems will stray that far and validate the Republicans.

Treaty ratification? Yeah, that's dead. Not that it ever had a chance.



Right, I thought we were talking about impeachment. I'm so confused!

Possibly. However, more than a couple are distancing themselves from this walking disaster.

The topics dovetail. Obama has assumed he can override Congress. He needs to be impeached for his gross violations of the Constitution. Making a treaty by executive order without going through the Senate would be one such instance.

And come on ... the guy lowers himself to squabbling with media pundits. Yet those same media pundits have gone after Rand Paul big time while Obama gets a pass. He's always gotten a pass and it's fed his arrogance to the point he thinks he's a king, not an elected public official.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Sorry, thought the topic was still treaties, my bad.

As the topic developed it went directly into the obama handling of those guilty of aiding terrorists, so the obama being guilty of aiding terrorist regime(Iran) by lifting sanctions for a farce( treaty-framework--unsigned) does dovetail into it in my mind. As ISIS is less of a threat than Iran with nukes would be...
Point being that ISIS and Iran are both terrorist entities...
Besides, as the OP methinks the major premise of the opening post was why is the obama admin not arresting and taking a hard line on ALL the returning terrorists? With obama being a major part of the topic , his treasonous "almost a treaty crap" also qualifies to be discussed IMHO.

Or does the actual thread author/starter not get to weigh in on this?
If that is the case then I'll not start another thread here.
If other posters get to dictate what can be discussed in threads that I start, thus limit criticisms of the anointed one. .
In fact, should that be case I'll just say adios... --Tyr

[Kathianne]

As the topic developed it went directly into the obama handling of those guilty of aiding terrorists, so the obama being guilty of aiding terrorist regime(Iran) by lifting sanctions for a farce( treaty-framework--unsigned) does dovetail into it in my mind. As ISIS is less of a threat than Iran with nukes would be...
Point being that ISIS and Iran are both terrorist entities...
Besides, as the OP methinks the major premise of the opening post was why is the obama admin not arresting and taking a hard line on ALL the returning terrorists? With obama being a major part of the topic , his treasonous "almost a treaty crap" also qualifies to be discussed IMHO.

Or does the actual thread author/starter not get to weigh in on this?
If that is the case then I'll not start another thread here.
If other posters get to dictate what can be discussed in threads that I start, thus limit criticisms of the anointed one. .
In fact, should that be case I'll just say adios... --Tyr

I said that I missed the segure, I did.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I said that I missed the segure, I did.

No problem...

As you brought it back to another good point.. -:beer:--Tyr