"The Council also serves as the president's principal arm for coordinating these policies among various government agencies."
A secret National Security Council panel pursues the killing of an individual, including American citizens, who has been called a suspected terrorist.[9] <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Security_Council#cite_note-reu1005-9> In this case, no public record of this decision or any operation to kill the suspect will be made available.[9] <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Security_Council#cite_note-reu1005-9> The panel's actions are justified by "two principal legal theories": They "were permitted by Congress when it authorized the use of military forces against militants <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists> in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001 <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11>; and they are permitted under international law if a country is defending itself."[9] <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Security_Council#cite_note-reu1005-9> On Jan 29, 2017 6:34 PM, "Chuck McCown" <[email protected]> wrote: > NSC is part of the Executive Office of the President of the United States > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Office_of_the_President_of_the_United_States>. > Since its inception under Harry S. Truman > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman>, the function of the > Council has been to advise and assist the president on national security > and foreign policies. The Council also serves as the president's principal > arm for coordinating these policies among various government agencies. > > So, this is essentially a committee, put together by the president, do do > what he wants. It is not a branch of government, it is an advisory > council. Period. President can do what he wants with it which includes > dissolving it, or renaming it the orange hair dye council. So why get your > panties in a twist that he is using his committee as he wants? > > *From:* Josh Reynolds > *Sent:* Sunday, January 29, 2017 5:24 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT...A fact check on Donald Trump's first week in > office > > The security council decides on many things, and anything pushed to from > the security council to another branch (judicial for example) is expected > to be followed. I'm a little fuzzy on the legality of how that aspect > works. > > Are you familiar with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court? > > It's proceedings are keep very secret (in the name of national security) > and no reviews or appeals from said court can travel to the supreme court. > > That said, they've had quite a few leaks by outraged defendants and other > individuals of said court. > > The FISC, in very broad terms, rules on the legality of many things the > National Security Council wants to accomplish. It actually doesn't so much > check to see if they are legal as it does wordsmith what the NSC wants done > to make it fit in loopholes of the current legal framework. > > This is the court that has legalized large scale spying on American > citizens, among other things. > > So now, we have a National Security Council who's senate appointed members > are only allowed to attend when asked to, that pushes policy down to a > secret court that has used any and every means to find ways around the US > Constitution against American citizens. > > Carry on though, it's no big deal. > > On Jan 29, 2017 6:01 PM, "Lewis Bergman" <[email protected]> wrote: > > I understand the whole "granting yourself powers" thing but I don't get > why you think the executive branch deciding who inside the executive branch > should attend meetings or briefings is somehow unconstitutional. I don't > get that. It is his branch, not the judiciary and not the Congress. I am > not saying it is good judgement, just not unconstitutional or granting > himself powers. Unless I missed something which is possible as this > discussion had worm me out. But by all means, continue. > > On Sun, Jan 29, 2017, 5:45 PM Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Do you support a president removing access to hearings for individuals in >> positions that were confirmed by the senate via executive action. >> >> Do you support a president removing access to hearings for individuals in >> positions that were confirmed by the senate via the passing of a bill or >> bills? >> >> On Jan 29, 2017 5:41 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> ask a less purposefully vague question >> >> >> On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 5:39 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Answer this question: >> >> Should we allow any government official to bestow powers upon their own >> office? >> >> I know exactly what the founding fathers thought of this, because they >> wrote extensively about it. >> >> I'm asking for your opinion here. >> >> >> On Jan 29, 2017 5:32 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> no, we need compartmentalization of government. Thats exactly what is >> happenning. and people like you are just too ego pilled to actually see it >> happen. >> >> "he will waterboard" who? "Drumf" really? "yeas, he said so" interesting, >> will he hold the towel, or pour the water? "well no, but hes going to" >> really? "well, not him directly" oh, so who? "he will put people in charge >> to do it" really? "yes" like mattis and pompeo? "exactly" interesting >> >> he cant run, he cant win, his numbers are too low, he wont get the >> primary, he wont get those states, why is he there, he doesnt know what he >> is doing...... really? >> >> The problem with people like you, you think very very small, not bigly. >> You cant comprehend this presidency has been in the works since the 80s. >> People like you are exactly why its going to grow, youve already clinched 8 >> years. Why you ask? See above. >> >> There has never been a presidency like this presidency, where the >> constitution fully worked exactly as intended, yet you want to pull the >> "when in history" well, thats easy... never. >> >> 1 week and the whole nation is in play, this has never happened before, >> on this many fronts, and you are still talking about what you know. You are >> begging, pleading, insulting for the status quo, because thats what you do >> actually know. >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> So I sit here and go through the trouble of providing a historical list >> of times this has happened. >> >> Your response would be "doesn't matter, that isn't Trump". >> >> And on one hand you'd be right, Trump isn't them. >> >> It still sets up a terrible precedent for himself and future presidents >> that allows for rampant abuse that remains unchecked by the house and >> senate. Do we really need more government shadow organizations that have no >> mechanism for congressional oversight? >> >> >> >> On Jan 29, 2017 5:08 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> you are living in what ifs, assumptions, and biased logic. youre doing >> fine for yourself. Carry on comrade, in fascism younite >> >> On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> I can't dispense of pretenses I never claimed to hold. >> >> You said it wasn't a big deal, you couldn't find a source. I provided a >> source, and you also found a copy (but failed to read it). Then you said it >> didn't read that way, so I highlighted the exact line in question to save >> you the time from reading it. Then you went on some batshit tangent about >> filing a FOIA on the National Security Council of all things. Then you >> brought up "it hasn't happened yet". >> >> Can you please provide a reference in the history of the world when a >> power was granted to someone BY THEMSELVES in government that later wasn't >> abused? >> >> You're blindly trying to maintain a position on this without any sort of >> rational thought. >> >> This is the world our kids are going to grow up in. >> >> Please, at least try to make it a better one. >> >> >> >> On Jan 29, 2017 4:51 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> how centrist of you to devolve so quickly >> >> On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Steve, you are a prime example of the failure of the public education >> system :P >> >> On Jan 29, 2017 4:46 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> oh.... so you are saying youre complaining about something that hasnt >> even happenned... at least thats clear >> >> On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 4:44 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> I'm saying if you're going to have a meeting of the security council, it >> would be fucking prudent to have the Director of National Intelligence. >> >> You can't file a FOIA request until after something has taken place, and >> FOIA requests are redacted or denied in the name of national security. >> >> On Jan 29, 2017 4:20 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> thats an awful small amount of text to deliver the entirety of the >> message. >> hwat check and balances are you describing here by a person attending a >> meeting that doesnt pertain to them? >> are you saying they have excluded appropriate personell from meetings? >> File a FOIA for the specific meetings you are referencing. >> reply in line now with the specific meetings you are referencing having >> taken place so that when you recieve the FOIA response we can correlate >> them to the listed grievances you are referencing today >> >> On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Here's the line you are looking for. Above and below it lists, by item, >> who is allowed to attend at all times, and who shall attend when it >> pertains to them. So who's to say that it ever pertains to them? >> >> Our government is based on checks and balances, right? This removes quite >> a bit of balance when the only individuals confirmed by the Senate may >> spend the next 4 years without anything "pertaining to them". >> >> >> >> On Jan 29, 2017 4:09 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> Im assuming this is excerpt of this: https://www.whitehouse.gov/ >> the-press-office/2017/01/28/presidential-memorandum-organi >> zation-national-security-council-and >> >> this sounds like bannon is becoming the equivalent of an executive >> secretary, not jesus of jihadi as its being portrayed. The NSA and HSA (why >> isnt there a big stink here?) are glorified secretaries (like the girl at >> the desk on steroids) >> >> At no point does it state that the directors are disinvited to anything >> that pertains to them. >> >> A restructuring with formal time management. Have you watched the senate >> hearings... very inefficient time management. >> >> On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> His position is mandatory for them to meet. The JCoS and DNI may only >> attend when it is determined it is required. >> >> Text attached from the order. >> >> >> >> On Jan 29, 2017 3:39 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> this im still trying to find a legitimate source of what is actually >> happening on. just like youre saying it makes him more important than the >> director of the cia, i cant find much other than ego inflated opinions. >> >> >> On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 2:47 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> What's your take on making Steve Bannon's new role critical to the >> National Security Council (making him more important than the Director of >> the CIA) while only allowing the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of >> National Intelligence to attend "when it pertains to them"? >> >> This was an executive order... >> >> On Jan 29, 2017 2:40 PM, "Lewis Bergman" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I can't believe everyone is arguing about who lies more. Wouldn't it be >> great if we could argue about the policy and theory rather than the >> character, or lack thereof? >> >> On Jan 29, 2017 2:23 PM, "Josh Reynolds" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> It sounds like you want a dictatorship. >> >> On Jan 29, 2017 2:11 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> i truly hope you maintain your thought process, exactly as it is, and >> those of like mind, it will make 2020 a breeze. And ivankas 8 year reign >> will be glorious >> >> On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> He's trying to use the very tactics he promotes in "art of the deal", >> which basically means "lie about everything, and negotiate down". >> >> I will be absolutely amazed if he makes it into a second term. I am also >> thinking that the Dems won't have their shit together over the next 4 >> though. >> >> What a fucked up place we are in. >> >> On Jan 29, 2017 2:04 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> then even more work can be done >> >> On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Ken Hohhof <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> The real question is whether he can keep it up for 207 more weeks. And >> once the news organizations stop fawning over him, what does he do? Start >> wars? Drop a nuke on Mexico? He can't stand anything else being the shiny >> object, but you tell the news media to shut up and listen, at some point >> they will shut up and cover something else. >> >> Anybody notice all the old actors kicking off? Did they really die over >> the past 18 months and the news is just now dribbling out, or did the Trump >> victory just take away their hope? Barbara Hale was 94, I guess waiting 4 >> more years to see if the Orange One wins re-election might seem a bit much >> to ask. John Hurt was 77, Mary Tyler Moore was 80. I'm 66, it's always a >> bit unnerving when someone younger than me dies. But they say, only the >> good die young. Carrie Fisher must have been very, very good. We miss >> you, Princess. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bill Prince >> Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 1:25 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT...A fact check on Donald Trump's first week in >> office >> >> That is just not true. >> >> Several fact organizations made it pretty clear that untruths from >> Orange's mouth were about twice as plentiful as untruths from any other >> politician from either party ( and that includes Obama and Clinton). >> >> >> bp >> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> >> >> On 1/29/2017 10:44 AM, Rory Conaway wrote: >> > Nobody will ever lie as much as Obama or Hillary. That is a bar the >> will never again be reached. >> > >> > Rory >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bill Prince >> > Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 11:32 AM >> > To: [email protected] >> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT...A fact check on Donald Trump's first week in >> > office >> > >> > Nothing factually incorrect in that piece. It is largely opinion, so >> take it for that. >> > >> > One thing that I disagree with is calling him a liar. I think he's not >> necessarily lying; he just doesn't know the truth. Most of what he says >> appears to be just made up on the fly, and my observation is that his >> memory is not so good. >> > >> > >> > bp >> > <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> >> > >> > On 1/28/2017 10:48 PM, Jaime Solorza wrote: >> >> First week...What a joke... >> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.dispatch.com/news/20170127/fact-check-on-donald-trumps-fir >> >> s >> >> t-week-in-office >> >> >> >> >> -- >> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team >> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >> >> >> >> >> -- >> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team >> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >> >> >> >> >> -- >> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team >> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >> >> >> >> >> -- >> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team >> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >> >> >> >> >> -- >> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team >> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >> >> >> >> >> -- >> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team >> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team >> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >> >> >> >> >> -- >> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team >> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >> >> >> >> >> -- >> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team >> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team >> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >> >> >
