SkyDekker 1,465 #51 January 19, 2005 QuoteWhy don't YOU tell US when war was declared in Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda.... oh, that's right - it wasn't! Guess it's ok with you when your boy Clinton does it, but not Bush, eh? Well, there is a slight difference in how those came about, but fine I'll say those were illegal too, will that finally allow you to admit that the iraq War, if you want to call it a war, is illegal? Funny that for a society that claims to love its constitution so much, you regard it as a useless piece of paper when it comes to war. Guess that piece of paper is only important when it allows you to have a bigger gun than your neighbour. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #52 January 19, 2005 QuoteQuoteWhy don't YOU tell US when war was declared in Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda.... oh, that's right - it wasn't! Guess it's ok with you when your boy Clinton does it, but not Bush, eh? Well, there is a slight difference in how those came about, but fine I'll say those were illegal too, will that finally allow you to admit that the iraq War, if you want to call it a war, is illegal? Funny that for a society that claims to love its constitution so much, you regard it as a useless piece of paper when it comes to war. Guess that piece of paper is only important when it allows you to have a bigger gun than your neighbour. Funny that a Canadian is trying to tell an American how the Constitution works... but, since you're such an expert, please quote me the appropriate passage in the Constitution that applies to this? A bit of information for you... there hasn't been a declared war since WWII. But, to answer your question of illegality.... I'll reference you to the War Powers Act, specifically Section 5.b.1 Congress authorized the President to use force, therefore fullfilling the requirements of the War Powers Act. Therefore, the conflict in Iraq is NOT illegal.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #53 January 19, 2005 QuoteA bit of information for you... there hasn't been a declared war since WWII. Except for against Iraq in 91, right? Wasn't there a formal declaration? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #54 January 19, 2005 There has not been one since then. Check here, you will find many documents of relevance...http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #55 January 19, 2005 QuoteWasn't there a formal declaration? Nope... JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #56 January 19, 2005 Article I section 8, Article II section 2. The constitution does not allow congress the power it has given away with the War Powers Act or the resolution post 9/11. Madison: The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the power of declaring a state of war the power of raising armies. A delegation of such powers would have struck, not only at the fabric of our Constitution, but at the foundation of all well organized and well checked governments. The separation of the power of declaring war from that of conducting it, is wisely contrived to exclude the danger of its being declared for the sake of its being conducted. Funny enough, your Supreme Court has refused to take this issue into consideration in any form that it has been introduced. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JctRsp 0 #57 January 19, 2005 Because of current international law, it's almost impossible to declare war nowadays. It's all merely semantics, because declaring war means an intent of aggression and the UN and all the treaties are about fighting only as a defense. So no country really declares war anymore and the "Law of War" everyone talks about (hell I even called it that in another thread because it's easier) it's actually the "Law of Armed Conflict" (LOAC). So to sum it up, they're not wars, they're armed conflicts because international law has basically outlawed war. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #58 January 19, 2005 QuoteArticle I section 8, Article II section 2. The constitution does not allow congress the power it has given away with the War Powers Act or the resolution post 9/11. Madison: The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the power of declaring a state of war the power of raising armies. A delegation of such powers would have struck, not only at the fabric of our Constitution, but at the foundation of all well organized and well checked governments. The separation of the power of declaring war from that of conducting it, is wisely contrived to exclude the danger of its being declared for the sake of its being conducted. Funny enough, your Supreme Court has refused to take this issue into consideration in any form that it has been introduced. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, ok - how does this prohibit anything? Article II, Section 2 talks about treaties - how is this applicable? The Constitution doesn't allow Congress the power to do a LOT of stuff that it has done.... Amendment II comes to mind from your cheap shot earlier... where's your outrage over that or any of the myriad other powers that Congress has abrogated to itself? Oh, yes... I forgot... it's not the liberal cause du jour, is it? (just in case you missed it)Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #59 January 19, 2005 The QuoteSo who are you? bit is a fair question to ask him/her BUT What were you trying to imply by - Quotetake shots from hidden positions like the insurgents do?.... Ow! hang on a minute... so taking shots from hidden positions is just an insurgent thing? ... I think not (a) It's standard practice - we haven't faught wars by walking towards the emeny in the open for ages (it's too dammed stupid, to start with!) (b) We drop bombs from the edge of space (so no one in Iraq can shoot back (c) We throw missiles from over the horizon... for exactly the same reason So play fair (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #60 January 19, 2005 How is the War Powers Act a delegation of the congress' power? They are still the only ones who can declare war, they have authorized the raising of an Army (and the other Armed Forces) through appropriations, and they have authorized the use of the armed forces both through resolution and appropriations... One could argue that the WPA is an unconstitutional restriction on the executive branch, since the Congress has already raised the Army... I don't necessarily hold that view, but it could be argued... I see the WPA is a reasonable adaptation (not delegation) of the war declaring powers, given a standing Army, that precludes the Executive from engaging in warlike activities without congressional consent to such activities. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #61 January 19, 2005 Quote I see the WPA is a reasonable adaptation (not delegation) of the war declaring powers, given a standing Army, that precludes the Executive from engaging in warlike activities without congressional consent to such activities. I don't. The resolution called for use of force. the letter the resolution was based on is quite funny to read now, many of the reasons have since turned out to be wrong. The President has turned this conflict into a full fledged war. Congress has no way of stopping the President or this war or offer any direction or limitation. The only thing they can do is stop funding. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #62 January 19, 2005 QuoteThe Constitution doesn't allow Congress the power to do a LOT of stuff that it has done Well, that makes it all okay then. QuoteOh, yes... I forgot... it's not the liberal cause du jour, is it? Lots of anger inside you buddy, take a deep breath, it's okay...you get to keep your big gun....... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #63 January 19, 2005 Quote Lots of anger inside you buddy, take a deep breath Yep, I get a lot of anger over liberal hypocrisy... Quoteit's okay...you get to keep your big gun....... Jealous because YOUR government made you give yours up?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #64 January 19, 2005 QuoteCongress has no way of stopping the President or this war or offer any direction or limitation. The only thing they can do is stop funding. They can withold funding, like you said... but they could also pass a bill withdrawing the statutory authorization of the use of force, thereby requiring the President to withdraw the armed forces from hostilities... it would need to be passed by both houses, and survive a veto. They are not powerless. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #65 January 19, 2005 QuoteThe President has turned this conflict into a full fledged war. Congress OK'ed it."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #66 January 19, 2005 Quotebut they could also pass a bill withdrawing the statutory authorization of the use of force, thereby requiring the President to withdraw the armed forces from hostilities... it would need to be passed by both houses, and survive a veto. Not according to: Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #67 January 19, 2005 QuoteJealous because YOUR government made you give yours up? Not really, relatively easy to acquire guns legally in Canada. But then you wouldn't really know about that would you, doesn't show up in an NRA sponsored booklet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #68 January 19, 2005 QuoteImmigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha I don't see where that case is remotely on point, nor does it have anything to do with the WPA... It refered to one House of Congress acting alone... not both as I outlined... Quoteit would need to be passed by both houses, and survive a veto. Since there is no Declaration of War, the action (Iraq) is only authorized through appropriations, or statues specifically authorizing it... absent that, the President is required by the WPA to withdraw the armed forces... If there was a declaration of war it could only be resolved with a treaty drafted by the executive... since there is not, the congress can remove the authorization through a law, which would need to be passed by both houses, and be signed by the President (unlilely) or have the likely veto overtunrned by a 2/3 vote in the Senate. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #69 January 19, 2005 QuoteQuoteOK, here's more on the buried MiGs http://www.acig.org/...sh/article_247.shtml The additional photos show evidence of the attempt to preserve the burried aircraft with plastic wrap. DoD reports claim 30-40 aircraft discovered buried. Unfortunately SH was allowed these Migs. What he wasn't allowed was set out by UNSCOM. Specifically: QuoteThe Commission's mandate was the following: to carry out immediate on-site inspections of Iraq's biological, chemical and missile capabilities; to take possession for destruction, removal or rendering harmless of all chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related sub-systems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities; to supervise the destruction by Iraq of all its ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 km and related major parts, and repair and production facilities; and to monitor and verify Iraq's compliance with its undertaking not to use, develop, construct or acquire any of the items specified above. The Commission was also requested to assist the Director General of the IAEA, which, under resolution 687, was requested to undertake activities similar to those of the Commission but specifically in the nuclear field. Further, the Commission was entrusted to designate for inspection any additional site necessary for ensuring the fulfilment of the mandates given to the Commission and the IAEA. (http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/General/basicfacts.html) The only 'smoking gun' I could find were the missiles that in tests went 114 miles which is over the 94 mile range limit. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2755851.stm That's a mandate for WMD inspections. They were buried because they were in contravention of the ceasefire agreement. I know about the missiles, but these were actually discovered before the invasion at the 11th hour. Saddam made some show of disclosing them after they were found but I like this new concept of being in marginal violation what a joke. He was making missiles that could deliver warheads to other nation's cities, that's the point and it's why the limits were imposed. You don't make a missile by accident, it's a weapons delivery system and one which Saddam had a penchant for using against innocent populations both in Iran and Israel. This gets back to the central issue of hindsight. When you find a bunch of missiles at the last minute in treaty violation after years of denials and lengthy frustrated searches it's not prudent to walk away and assume there are no more. It conforms to a pattern of behavior, as do the buried aircraft wrapped in preserving plastic. It's also telling the way you split hairs to defend Saddam's actions even when theyre' no hairs to be split, the missiles were illegal, yet you stretch legal definitions in an attempt to indict Bush, for example w.r.t (and it's just one of many instances) illegal combatants and the Geneva Convention. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,092 #70 January 19, 2005 I just noticed who wrote that (LTC Tim Ryan) - isn't he one of the people implicated in the coverup of the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal? He was one of the people who "medevac'ed" Greg Ford out of Iraq when it looked like he might spill the beans. (He later did anyway.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #71 January 19, 2005 QuoteI just noticed who wrote that (LTC Tim Ryan) - isn't he one of the people implicated in the coverup of the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal? He was one of the people who "medevac'ed" Greg Ford out of Iraq when it looked like he might spill the beans. (He later did anyway.) Ahh good one, impugn the character of someone over there fighting for us because he wrote an article that disagrees with your Iraq = Vietnam thesis. We should just ignore all information we receive that isn't from CBS and we can live in absolute assurance that Iraq is going to hell in a handbasket and we should get out now because it's hopeless. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #72 January 19, 2005 QuoteQuoteOK, here's more on the buried MiGs http://www.acig.org/...sh/article_247.shtml The additional photos show evidence of the attempt to preserve the burried aircraft with plastic wrap. DoD reports claim 30-40 aircraft discovered buried. Great! Can't wait to see the Iraqi Navy's flying submarines. But what about the Iraqi detainees' boobies? Since, as you knowingly claimed, that's what I'd rather be staring at. Yea right they were dirt submarines, not MiGs buried for concealment and waiting to be unearthed and used in the future Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,092 #73 January 19, 2005 >Ahh good one, impugn the character of someone over there fighting for us . . . Do you support the US soldiers who have been convicted of torturing Iraqis? >and we should get out now because it's hopeless. You haven't been reading much of what I've been posting about Iraq, have you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #74 January 19, 2005 Quote>Ahh good one, impugn the character of someone over there fighting for us . . . Do you support the US soldiers who have been convicted of torturing Iraqis? Whether I support them or not and what constitutes torture and whether we should line illegal combatants up against a wall and shoot them has nothing to do with you impugning the character of this soldier because his first hand account of the war disagrees with your armchair theories. At the very least I'd give him the benefit of the doubt, all you have even as you try to implicate him is some conjecture about flying someone out of the country that you're not even sure about. You should be proud. Quote >and we should get out now because it's hopeless. You haven't been reading much of what I've been posting about Iraq, have you? It was a partial reference to CBS, w.r.t. what you've been posting we've had exchanges on this very issue so of course I know what you've been posting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AdD 1 #75 January 19, 2005 QuoteI appreciate the way this straight shooter details how the media bias and negativity undermines the allied efforts and describes in no uncertain terms how the media is aiding and abetting our enemies through their relentless bias and selectivity when relaying the news on Iraq. You seriously believe that the media is biased AGAINST the US military? The system of embedded reporters is one of the most shockingly effective press controls ever created, and barely a peep of outcry, either from press or public. That alone should be our first warning that freedom of the press is not in either the interest of the government or the reporters themselves most of whom are content to sacrifice their professionalism for personal safety.Life is ez On the dz Every jumper's dream 3 rigs and an airstream Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
