Oops! CIA Brennan Takes Oath on US Constitution That Does Not Include the Bill of Rights

[Jack Springer]

Symbolism?

Not really a surprise that Brennan and the WH choose to do this. It's been hard or impossible to get an answer out of the Obama Administration on human rights of American citizens unless it's a social issue where votes can be minded from 'clueless uninformed or one issue voters'.

So was Brennan and the Admin clueless, stupid, or very smart in the choice?

'Very smart' meaning that Brennan doesn't intend to pay attention to the Bill of Rights.

Just think if this had been a Bush CIA appointee -- the media and the left would be going crazy -- but I expect it will be brushed under the rug and not covered.

Who knows ... maybe they will blame the goof on a unseen video playing on youtube.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/b...205110620.html

[CowboyBob]

*sheesh*

Does he use the wrong toothpaste too?

Too much time on your hands Springer. Too much hate. Starting a thread like this proves it.

[Jack Springer]

Stay on topic Bob.

[GiancarloC]

Wow... talk about grasping at the straws.

[tigerfan482]

Well goddammit. That man is as un-American as George Washington whose personal notes were on it. Fuck both of them, right?

[Jack Springer]

So far ... no liberal can address the subject -- just personal insults.

[GiancarloC]

What was the subject? Was it of substance? No didn't think so. This is like Obama forgetting to tie a shoe. It's immaterial.

[tigerfan482]

So far ... no liberal can address the subject -- just personal insults.

What is the subject exactly? Brennan requested the National Archives to send him a document showing that this is a nation of laws. The archives sent him a preliminary copy of the original founding document of this country with notes from the country's first president and one of its founding fathers showing the progression of how it came to be established. After all, the Bill of Rights is a number of AMENDMENTS to the original Constitution.

[Jack Springer]

^^^

Topic of the thread: CIA Brennan Takes Oath on US Constitution That Does Not Include the Bill of Rights

[GiancarloC]

Again... nothing of substance.

[tigerfan482]

^^^

Topic of the thread: CIA Brennan Takes Oath on US Constitution That Does Not Include the Bill of Rights

If you read past the first sentence of my post, you'll see that was addressed. I hear Obama may have used half a roll of toilet paper to wipe his ass this evening. Better go start a thread on government waste.

[Kulindahr]

What's missing from this discussion is the words of the oath he took.

[CowboyBob]

It's apparent the President's re-election was traumatic for Springer.

What happened Springer? What went wrong with your party? You don't need to be cynical and bitter.

[Apollo]

lol Jack Springer, you are the best political troll I have ever seen.

[CowboyBob]

lol Jack Springer, you are the best political troll I have ever seen.

It's justapixel all over again.





.....(gone in 5, 4, 3..........)

[Apollo]

It's justapixel all over again.





.....(gone in 5, 4, 3..........)

OMG, he mastered the technique. Who was that one guy who actually believed in it truly? Back when Obama first ran, and he was pissed Hilary lost the bid? He was something else.

[FuryOfFirestorm]

This means that Mitt Romney is automatically King Of America, and Obama has to go live in a cardboard box under a highway.

[Jack Springer]

It's apparent the President's re-election was traumatic for Springer.

What happened Springer? What went wrong with your party? You don't need to be cynical and bitter.

You left out that I hate Obama because he's black.

[JayHawk]

You do have one tone and it always revolves around "Obama isnt a leader" no matter the situation or outcome.

Here's a news flash business is fucking good. Just incorporated another C corp here in Kansas and a S corp to hold all of them from the various places I have lived. I don't mean this as an insult, but if you haven't looked around KC is bustling with business. Life is getting good again and by 2015 it will be rocking on Main street. That is how the world goes, Wall street recovers then main street. Especially in a banking recession. By 2018 it will be like GWB never ruined the country and the republican party will either be irrelevant or drastically changed.

[chrisrobin]

This means that Mitt Romney is automatically King Of America, and Obama has to go live in a cardboard box under a highway.

This would account for the failed Obama presidency. The Boy simply hasn't learned his place.

Hail to King Willard! Make sure The Boy shines your shoes properly. Long live the King!

[chrisrobin]

You left out that I hate Obama because he's black.

Good point. You hate Obama because he's black.

[rareboy]

You left out that I hate Obama because he's black.

No.

We've just left that to you to bring up.

Which you have.

Case closed.

[Jack Springer]

Better cut back on those delusions of grandeur pills jayhawk.

... and still, no one can talk about the topic in an on-topic thread.

Where are the moderators?

You do have one tone and it always revolves around "Obama isnt a leader" no matter the situation or outcome.

Here's a news flash business is fucking good. Just incorporated another C corp here in Kansas and a S corp to hold all of them from the various places I have lived. I don't mean this as an insult, but if you haven't looked around KC is bustling with business. Life is getting good again and by 2015 it will be rocking on Main street. That is how the world goes, Wall street recovers then main street. Especially in a banking recession. By 2018 it will be like GWB never ruined the country and the republican party will either be irrelevant or drastically changed.

[Benvolio]

I think the real point is that he was afraid to take the oath in the Bible. Brimstone and fire and all that.

[chrisrobin]

I think the real point is that he was afraid to take the oath in the Bible. Brimstone and fire and all that.

He should be punished. Take him out and stone him. (an old Christian tradition)

[CowboyBob]

You left out that I hate Obama because he's black.

Nice to see you finally admit what we already knew.

[Rolyo85]

Not to utterly shock everyone with this revelation, but the whole oath-taking thing is just a ritual. It doesn't... yunnno... actually mean anything other than being a ritual.

[White Eagle]

So, who is Marcy Wheeler and where is the link to her story?

[opinterph]

Not to utterly shock everyone with this revelation, but the whole oath-taking thing is just a ritual. It doesn't... yunnno... actually mean anything other than being a ritual.

The oath (or affirmation) is required by law. Placing one hand on a book or document while taking the oath is tradition.

What's missing from this discussion is the words of the oath he took.

CIA office holders take the Congressional Oath of Office.

So, who is Marcy Wheeler and where is the link to her story?

Apparently, Marcy Wheeler is a full time blogger who posts under the pseudonym “emptywheel.”

Following is the link to her commentary on this story.

John Brennan Sworn in as CIA Director Using Constitution Lacking Bill of Rights

[Benvolio]

Not to utterly shock everyone with this revelation, but the whole oath-taking thing is just a ritual. It doesn't... yunnno... actually mean anything other than being a ritual.

The oath defines the precise moment when the person's term of office, his powers and duties begin. That is, of course, legally important. For many purposes, the oath is enforced by laws against perjury. In theory, an oath taken with a mental intent to violate it could be a violation of the perjury laws, enforceable by impeachment. Admittedly difficult to prove. Historically this is an overwhelmingly Christian country, regarding a false oath as a serious matter. It also is intended as an acknowledgment of the individual of his primary duty, above all others. In the case of the President, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution".

[T-Rexx]

The oath (or affirmation) is required by law. Placing one hand on a book or document while taking the oath is tradition.

I've taken a couple of oaths for official positions, and have never been asked to place my hand on any book of any kind.

[T-Rexx]

Historically this is an overwhelmingly Christian country...

It is also Constitutionally, historically, and legally non-sectarian.

[GiancarloC]

The oath defines the precise moment when the person's term of office, his powers and duties begin. That is, of course, legally important. For many purposes, the oath is enforced by laws against perjury. In theory, an oath taken with a mental intent to violate it could be a violation of the perjury laws, enforceable by impeachment. Admittedly difficult to prove. Historically this is an overwhelmingly Christian country, regarding a false oath as a serious matter. It also is intended as an acknowledgment of the individual of his primary duty, above all others. In the case of the President, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution".

Who cares if this "historically" was an overwhelmingly Christian country? It was also historically a country that allowed slavery. So what's the point? There are people in this country and some who are serving in government who aren't Christian and I'm sure were not sworn in on the bible (if an oath was necessary). There are Christians who are secularists and would actually prefer not swearing on the bible because they don't want religion and government to mix. This wasn't a false oath, and a bible added wouldn't have made it any better. This was a true oath and he's sworn to it.

If I was sworn into a government position, I would insist it would not be on the bible. That would be violating my own civil rights as I am NOT a christian.

[Rolyo85]

It's also historically homophobic and racist.

[Vitamin]

Wait, are we fighting on whether or not Brennan should have been sworn in with his hand over a Bible, or the most up to date copy of the Constitution? I'm confused.

[GiancarloC]

I think the real point is that he was afraid to take the oath in the Bible. Brimstone and fire and all that.

Benvolio brought up this nonsensical point... that's where the argument drifted towards.

[Benvolio]

The oath defines the precise moment when the person's term of office, his powers and duties begin. That is, of course, legally important. For many purposes, the oath is enforced by laws against perjury. In theory, an oath taken with a mental intent to violate it could be a violation of the perjury laws, enforceable by impeachment. Admittedly difficult to prove. Historically this is an overwhelmingly Christian country, regarding a false oath as a serious matter. It also is intended as an acknowledgment of the individual of his primary duty, above all others. In the case of the President, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution".

I was responding to Roly's suggestion that the oath is just a ritual without meaning.

[Rolyo85]

Well, it pretty much is that, despite what you say. Furthermore, he said the standard oath. Just because some random piece of text he happened to be having his hand on while saying it wasn't exactly up to spec as far as the ritual is concerned, changes absolutely nothing about any of his duties, obligations or... really anything at all. It's an empty topic.

[Benvolio]

No, it is not a ritual without meaning. It is the act by which he acquires authority. Prior to the Oath Mr Obama is just that. By taking the Oath, he becomes Commander in Chief etc. Similar for CIA chief.

[Rolyo85]

Well, it pretty much is that, despite what you say. Furthermore, he said the standard oath. Just because some random piece of text he happened to be having his hand on while saying it wasn't exactly up to spec as far as the ritual is concerned, changes absolutely nothing about any of his duties, obligations or... really anything at all. It's an empty topic.

I am fascinated by the fact that you responded to my post while apparently having only read its first sentence. Is this a common thing for you?

[Benvolio]

It is not a ritual without meaning. I disagreed with that statement. I did not suggest his oath was not effective.

[GiancarloC]

No, it is not a ritual without meaning. It is the act by which he acquires authority. Prior to the Oath Mr Obama is just that. By taking the Oath, he becomes Commander in Chief etc. Similar for CIA chief.

It's fine if one believes that, but what does the oath require? Swearing on the bible? Why does swearing on the bible make it so much more special and what if the official is Buddhist, Muslim, Atheist, or of some other affiliation?

[White Eagle]

The oath (or affirmation) is required by law. Placing one hand on a book or document while taking the oath is tradition.




CIA office holders take the Congressional Oath of Office.




Apparently, Marcy Wheeler is a full time blogger who posts under the pseudonym “emptywheel.”

Following is the link to her commentary on this story.

John Brennan Sworn in as CIA Director Using Constitution Lacking Bill of Rights

Thank you. I saw that but didn't connect it with the other link. Emptywheel seemed empty.

- - - Updated - - -

The oath (or affirmation) is required by law. Placing one hand on a book or document while taking the oath is tradition.




CIA office holders take the Congressional Oath of Office.




Apparently, Marcy Wheeler is a full time blogger who posts under the pseudonym “emptywheel.”

Following is the link to her commentary on this story.

John Brennan Sworn in as CIA Director Using Constitution Lacking Bill of Rights

Thank you. I saw that but didn't connect it with the other link. Emptywheel seemed empty.

[White Eagle]

What did the past CIA Directors swear to?

[JayHawk]

Better cut back on those delusions of grandeur pills jayhawk.

... and still, no one can talk about the topic in an on-topic thread.

Where are the moderators?

The response was meant to inform you that you have yet again tapped into an invalid irrelevant point that only the Glenn Beck's of the world feel is some sort of story. I am seriously worried about ya though. Life cant be that sour every moment of every day.

We all rail against you on these boards for your weird ideology that is not based in reality. However, folks who are easily misguided and hold foolish ideas about what is going on in America are what lost the last national election. I didn't wanna point that out to you. I doubt it will ever change your opinion but if it did then the republicans my start having relevant thoughts and that would suck for them to gain power again. So please keep up the good work of letting me know that the party is still lost in the wilderness by posting their ideas from where ever you get them.

P.S. let me know if employment is the issue that has ya down. Be happy to get you a job.

[kev]

This thread is a classic example of Alinsky tactics in action.

Jack posts a topic, which I read as the new CIA director (or maybe his boss) decides not to use a Bible to take his oath, and uses the original copy of the Constitution, complete with George Washington's handwritten notes, but conspicuously without the Bill of Rights, which every 7th grader knows is the first ten amendments, which safe-guard freedoms that were not available in many European countries at the time (and even now).

The natural discussion would be, first, is it appropriate not to use a Bible? My answer: if you are a committed Leftist, and you control the Executive Branch, why not? The President promised to "fundamentally transform the United States of America", or "make us more like Europe", so there you go.

Second, did they deliberately used a Constitution that did not contain the Bill of Rights, of which a few are under assault from the Left lately? My answer: can't be sure (they often don't seem to study-up on these things), although, it sure has changed the discussion from whether drones can kill American citizens on American soil, which, if this were a Republican president, would be all-MSNBC/all-the-time.

But no, the Leftists at CE&P attack Jack personally, using Alinsky tactics nos. (in order) 13, 5, and (you hope) 11.

But, good question Jack, and very appropriate for this forum...thanks to Opinterp for chiming in on-topic.

One questions that is logically the next thought and hasn't been discussed in this thread, and maybe needs its own: when the CIA is caught violating the Constitution under President Obama, will you shills be so ugly to him as you have been to Jack?

[JayHawk]

Shils. Girl you funny.

The valid point is where was your pearl clutching while the white man was doing the same thing as Obama? Oh yeah you were okay with it... The point of the thread is that Jack and the author have some errant hope that a bullshit story will gain ground. You know it and Jack knows it.

The denial of reality by you guys now that a black man is doing the same thing a failed white oilman/baseball man/aviator (who has now regressed into him self and paints in a room by himself because he was so deceived by the group of animals he put into office). That is the stark reality. For eight years of Bush REAL atrocities were being only half reported and now during the Obama admin the right is trying to desperately develop something into a story. It is rather amusing.

But like I said please keep touting your learned opinions. Folks like jack and you ensure republicans will continue to lose ground. So for that you deserve a giant thank you from all of us. Most of the rest of us have enough self respect to actually endorse the truth. So thank god for those lacking.

[JayHawk]

OMG it is a conspiracy... VADM Mike McConnell took the oath on a BIBLE

O_O

He must have supported stoning and beatings for people who mixed types of cloth like cotton and wool.... OMG

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/196717-1

[GiancarloC]

Jack posts a topic, which I read as the new CIA director (or maybe his boss) decides not to use a Bible to take his oath, and uses the original copy of the Constitution, complete with George Washington's handwritten notes, but conspicuously without the Bill of Rights, which every 7th grader knows is the first ten amendments, which safe-guard freedoms that were not available in many European countries at the time (and even now).

He used the original copy of the Constitution... probably means he really honors the founding fathers and really wants to stick by the Constitution. This country is governed by the Constitution (something republicans love to bring up)... so what is exactly the problem here? This country isn't governed by the Bill of Rights.

The natural discussion would be, first, is it appropriate not to use a Bible? My answer: if you are a committed Leftist, and you control the Executive Branch, why not? The President promised to "fundamentally transform the United States of America", or "make us more like Europe", so there you go.

What on earth? What is this referring to? Didn't OBAMA himself use a bible when he was sworn into office? If a government official doesn't want to use one, why not? And what does a leftist have to do with this? Some people are not Christian. It has nothing to do with being a "leftist" or not.

Second, did they deliberately used a Constitution that did not contain the Bill of Rights, of which a few are under assault from the Left lately? My answer: can't be sure (they often don't seem to study-up on these things), although, it sure has changed the discussion from whether drones can kill American citizens on American soil, which, if this were a Republican president, would be all-MSNBC/all-the-time.

What part of the Bill of rights is under assault by the left? And last I checked the Bill of rights isn't what governs this country... neither is the bible. What governs this country is the Constitution. Brennan used the original copy of the Constitution in this case, and perhaps that's showing respect to history. Can't be sure huh? LOL. I think I know very well where you stand on this matter.

But no, the Leftists at CE&P attack Jack personally, using Alinsky tactics nos. (in order) 13, 5, and (you hope) 11.

Okay, I'll play... where was I attacking Jack personally? Or where was any of those posters? I see them questioning the weak validity of this thread.

One questions that is logically the next thought and hasn't been discussed in this thread, and maybe needs its own: when the CIA is caught violating the Constitution under President Obama, will you shills be so ugly to him as you have been to Jack?

And where did the CIA do that?

See making claims is easy... especially when one can't back them up and they are just more of the same attacks.

[rareboy]

omg

The director of the CIA thought the original Constitution more appropriate than the Judeo-Christian Big Book of Verse.

And it doesn't have the Bill of Rights.

And neither does the Old or New Testament.

omg.

omg.


o


m


g.