PDA

View Full Version : Rove about to be indicted?


jAZ
04-27-2006, 06:38 PM
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Hardball-Shuster-Rove-worried.wmv

BucEyedPea
04-27-2006, 06:49 PM
According my news sites, which have predicted e/g on this administration so far accurately (and I do not read left-wing progressive sites), this was coming.

jAZ
04-27-2006, 06:55 PM
According my news sites, which have predicted e/g on this administration so far accurately (and I do not read left-wing progressive sites), this was coming.
Everyone started predicting it once Rove asked Fitzgerald for a (5th?) chance to testify before the grand jury to explain why he "forgot" to tell the grand jury that he leaked the identity to Time magazine.

BucEyedPea
04-27-2006, 07:15 PM
Everyone started predicting it once Rove asked Fitzgerald for a (5th?) chance to testify before the grand jury to explain why he "forgot" to tell the grand jury that he leaked the identity to Time magazine.

Well a lot of conservatives and/or NeoCons denied that to kingdom come, per my observation. I don't know if you could literally claim "everyone!"

Even, the conservative/libertarian Independent Institute..vehemently against the Iraq invasion and vehemently smeard by the NeoCons to the point of getting dropped from the WSJ's editorial pages, wasn't sure Fitz would be able to indict Rove.

Mr. Laz
04-27-2006, 07:24 PM
oh please, oh please let this piece of dogsnot gets what coming to him.


Bush is only the front man ... Rove is the true bastard.

jAZ
04-27-2006, 07:39 PM
Well a lot of conservatives and/or NeoCons denied that to kingdom come, per my observation. I don't know if you could literally claim "everyone!"

Even, the conservative/libertarian Independent Institute..vehemently against the Iraq invasion and vehemently smeard by the NeoCons to the point of getting dropped from the WSJ's editorial pages, wasn't sure Fitz would be able to indict Rove.
My post might have come across as a bit corse in tone. I didn't mean "everyone" literally... probably should have said "many". It's very rare for a target of an investigation to request another chance before the grand jury. In almost all cases, it's because the target *needs* another chance in front of the grand jury in order to prevent indictment. Any time it happens, red flags go up... That's all I was referring to.

Prior to Rove's request, I don't know that those same "many" people would so confidently say Rove will be indicted.

BucEyedPea
04-27-2006, 07:42 PM
oh please, oh please let this piece of dogsnot gets what coming to him.


Bush is only the front manRove is the true bastard.

Bush is the front man I would agree. Rove is a tough stategist...but Cheney really runs the show.
Cheney has the stronger personality of the two with the word "prez" in their names and has the most power ever in the history of our republic than any VP.

Bush basically turned over our FP to him with an Executive Order which has never been done before violating the Consititution he swore to defend! I thought Clinton abused EO's.

Cheney runs the show!

Mr. Laz
04-27-2006, 07:59 PM
Bush is the front man I would agree. Rove is a tough stategist...but Cheney really runs the show.
Cheney has the stronger personality of the two with the word "prez" in their names and has the most power ever in the history of our republic than any VP.

Bush basically turned over our FP to him with an Executive Order which has never been done before violating the Consititution he swore to defend! I thought Clinton abused EO's.

Cheney runs the show!


hmmm ... very possible

when all the planes were crashing etc they made sure that cheney was off at the "undisclosed location"

they knew who they didn't want hurt :)


who has the real power ... cheney or rove? :hmmm:

jAZ
04-27-2006, 08:02 PM
Bush basically turned over our FP to him with an Executive Order which has never been done before violating the Consititution he swore to defend! I thought Clinton abused EO's.

Cheney runs the show!
Can you explain what this means? What's "FP"?

BucEyedPea
04-27-2006, 08:05 PM
FP= Foreign Policy

The rest means Bush wrote an Executive Order ( I don't remember the number...I'd have to go back and find it, if I can find it that is) turning over our FP to Dick Cheney. Means what it says is all.

jAZ
04-27-2006, 08:10 PM
FP= Foreign Policy

The rest means Bush wrote an Executive Order ( I don't remember the number...I'd have to go back and find it, if I can find it that is) turning over our FP to Dick Cheney. Means what it says is all.
Wow. Can you find that EO#?

I missed that one entirely. Disturbing stuff.

BucEyedPea
04-27-2006, 08:23 PM
I just came back from looking for it.
I can't remember what site it was either.
But I did read it and there is a number for it.
It supposedly happened pretty early in his first term I believe.
It's the Executive writing the law in this case.

oldandslow
04-27-2006, 08:29 PM
...and to think that I bet Ringleader a six pack of a beverage of choice over a year ago that Rove would be indicted.

Too bad that he disappeared...

patteeu
04-27-2006, 08:57 PM
For outing Valerie Plame?

jAZ
04-27-2006, 09:15 PM
For outing Valerie Plame?
For covering it up.

DanT
04-27-2006, 09:17 PM
For your information, Byron York, the National Review's White House correspondent, recently discussed an executive order that expanded vice-presidential power with regard to the classification and declassification of intelligence data.

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200602160841.asp

February 16, 2006, 8:41 a.m.
The Little-Noticed Order That Gave Dick Cheney New Power
Have you ever heard of Executive Order 13292?



In addition to discussing his hunting accident, Vice President Dick Cheney, in his interview on the Fox News Channel Wednesday, also pointed to a little-known but enormously consequential expansion of vice-presidential power that has come about as a result of the Bush administration's war on terror.



Near the end of the interview, Fox anchor Brit Hume brought up a controversy arising from the CIA-leak case, in which prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said in court papers that former top Cheney aide Lewis Libby testified he had been authorized "by his superiors" to disclose information about the classified National Intelligence Estimate to members of the press. "Is it your view that a Vice President has the authority to declassify information?" Hume asked.

"There is an executive order to that effect," Cheney said.

"There is?"

"Yes."

"Have you done it?"

"Well, I've certainly advocated declassification and participated in declassification decisions. The executive order — "

"You ever done it unilaterally?"

"I don't want to get into that. There is an executive order that specifies who has classification authority, and obviously focuses first and foremost on the President, but also includes the Vice President."

Cheney was referring to Executive Order 13292, issued by President Bush on March 25, 2003, which dealt with the handling of classified material. That order was not an entirely new document but was, instead, an amendment to an earlier Executive Order, number 12958, issued by President Bill Clinton on April 17, 1995.

At the time, Bush's order received very little coverage in the press. What mention there was focused on the order's provisions making it easier for the government to keep classified documents under wraps. But as Cheney pointed out Wednesday, the Bush order also contained a number of provisions which significantly increased the vice president's power.

Throughout Executive Order 13292, there are changes to the original Clinton order which, in effect, give the vice president the power of the president in dealing with classified material. In the original Clinton executive order, for example, there appeared the following passage:

Classification Authority.
(a) The authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by:
(1) the President;
(2) agency heads and officials designated by the President in the Federal Register...

In the Bush order, that section was changed to this (emphasis added):

Classification Authority.
(a) The authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by:
(1) the President and, in the performance of executive duties, the Vice President;
(2) agency heads and officials designated by the President in the Federal Register...

In another part of the original Clinton order, there was a segment dealing with who was authorized to delegate the authority to classify material. In the Clinton order, the passage read:

(2) "Top Secret" original classification authority may be delegated only by the President or by an agency head or official designated...
(3) "Secret" or "Confidential" original classification authority may be delegated only by the President; an agency head or official designated...

In the Bush order, that segment was changed to read (emphasis added):

(2) "Top Secret" original classification authority may be delegated only by the President; in the performance of executive duties, the Vice President; or an agency head or official designated...
(3) "Secret" or "Confidential" original classification authority may be delegated only by the President; in the performance of executive duties, the Vice President; or an agency head or official designated...

Both executive orders contained extension sections defining the terms used in the order. One of those terms was "original classification authority," that is, who in the government has the power to classify documents. In the Clinton order, the definition read:

"Original classification authority" means an individual authorized in writing, either by the President, or by agency heads or other officials designated by the President...

In the Bush executive order, the definition was changed to read (emphasis added):

"Original classification authority" means an individual authorized in writing, either by the President, the Vice President in the performance of executive duties, or by agency heads or other officials designated by the President...

In the last several years, there has been much talk about the powerful role Dick Cheney plays in the Bush White House. Some of that talk has been based on anecdotal evidence, and some on entirely fanciful speculation. But Executive Order 13292 is real evidence of real power in the vice president's office. Since the beginning of the administration, Dick Cheney has favored measures allowing the executive branch to keep more things secret. And in March of 2003, the president gave him the authority to do it.


— Byron York, NR's White House correspondent, is the author of The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President — and Why They'll Try Even Harder Next Time.

patteeu
04-27-2006, 09:27 PM
For covering it up.

Do you think he might be executed? :p

Ugly Duck
04-27-2006, 09:31 PM
Hey... I've been warning Planeteers for years that Bush is not the guy in charge. There is a cabal running this country, not a president. Rove, Cheney, Rummy are running this show with henchmen like Wolfowitz & such. Bush is just a guy with a recognizable name being used for election purposes - he don't do much more than drool on the teleprompter as he stumbles over the big words that the cabal scrolls by for him. It cracks me up when I hear, "Why doesn't Bush fire Rumsfeld?" Yeah, right! Rumsfeld would bitchslap Chimpy around the Oval Office if MonkeyBoy ever talked back like that!

memyselfI
04-27-2006, 09:41 PM
...and to think that I bet Ringleader a six pack of a beverage of choice over a year ago that Rove would be indicted.

Too bad that he disappeared...

Yeah, we certainly learned what his screen name meant...

http://www.mmoca.org/starrytransit/images/glowacki_45_thumb.jpg

DanT
04-27-2006, 09:51 PM
Arbitrary executive power is something that the Constitution can not abide and something that Americans should not tolerate. Here's an excerpt from an interesting article by historian Thomas Woods on the subject:


http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_01_30/cover.html

...

The very initiation of the war in Iraq constituted a breathtaking exercise of presidential power but one that has grown so common that it is hardly even noticed or commented upon any longer except by the occasional isolated constitutionalist. Until 1950, when Harry Truman committed American troops to Korea without a declaration of war from Congress, it was generally understood that the intent of the Constitution’s framers had been that while the president, in his capacity as commander in chief, would direct American wars, Congress was to declare them. So momentous a decision could not be reposed in the hands of a single man.

Point this out today—as I did in The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History—and you find yourself on the wrong end of a lecture by indignant neoconservatives. The president has deployed troops abroad hundreds of times without the consent of Congress, they insist.

So what of these hundreds of cases of presidential warmaking? This claim originated—surprise!—with the U.S. government itself. At the time of the Korean War, a number of congressmen contended that “history will show that on more than 100 occasions in the life of this Republic the President as Commander in Chief has ordered the fleet or the troops to do certain things which involved the risk of war” without the consent of Congress. In 1966, in defense of the Vietnam War, the State Department adopted a similar line: “Since the Constitution was adopted there have been at least 125 instances in which the President has ordered the armed forces to take action or maintain positions abroad without obtaining prior congressional authorization, starting with the ‘undeclared war’ with France (1798–1800).”

I have argued elsewhere that the quasi-war with France in no way lends support to those who favor broad presidential war powers. As for the rest, the great presidential scholar Edward S. Corwin helpfully observed that this lengthy list of alleged precedents consisted mainly of “fights with pirates, landings of small naval contingents on barbarous or semi-barbarous coasts, the dispatch of small bodies of troops to chase bandits or cattle rustlers across the Mexican border, and the like.” In other words, the “hundreds of times” argument, like so much else about the imperial presidency, is a grotesque fraud.

As for the delicate souls whose consciences were so deeply troubled by George W. Bush’s unilateral initiation of war in 2003, where were they in 1999 when Bill Clinton, acting through NATO and siding with the Muslims of Kosovo, orchestrated a bombing campaign against Serbia without the consent of Congress? David Gray Adler, an expert on foreign policy and the Constitution, went so far as to call Clinton’s action against Serbia “one of the most flagrant acts of usurpation of the war power in the history of the Republic.” That’s saying something, since presidents from both political parties had openly defied the Constitution’s distribution of war powers between Congress and the president for nearly half a century by the time of the Kosovo intervention.

Clinton’s disregard of the Constitution, Adler argued, was unique since it was “the first time in our history that a president waged war in the face of a direct congressional refusal to authorize the war.” Adler is right: legislation that would have authorized the president to conduct his air war against the Serbs failed to pass the House on April 28, 1999, but Clinton went forward with his military plans anyway. “Clinton’s defiance of the House vote,” Adler concluded, “raised arbitrary executive power to a new and dangerous pitch.” Apart from a few pockets of principled resistance here and there, where were our present guardians of constitutional liberty?

“The contest for ages,” Daniel Webster once said, “has been to rescue liberty from the grasp of executive power.” The contest today, on the other hand, far from an effort to limit executive power and its inherent dangers, amounts instead to a struggle to gain executive power in order to wield it against ideological adversaries and on behalf of some political agenda.

...

DanT
04-27-2006, 09:55 PM
In a similar vein as her fellow www.lewrockwell.com contributor Thomas Woods, Karen Kwiatkowski also calls on a return to the Constitution in this excerpt from her analysis of "our inscrutable Iraq policy":

http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski128.html

...

HOW US FOREIGN POLICY SHOULD BE CONDUCTED

We have some guidance for our foreign policy. The Constitution grants to the Congress the sole authority to declare war. Holding Congress accountable to their clear responsibility would save us many of the problems we have gotten into when we instead allow the executive to conduct small warlike actions around the planet. During the Cold War, we made this a bad habit, and bad habits are hard to break. But we have the means to do it. Simply follow the law, both the letter and the spirit. Had Congress been asked to declare war on Iraq, they would have done two things. First, they would have asked for more information, and the CIA, in providing that information, would have admitted publicly and privately that their case that Iraq posed a material threat to America was weak. So weak in fact that war was not only not necessary, it was laughable. Secondly, just as appropriately, the Congress would have refused to declare war on Iraq, and we would have not invaded the country. However – it is important to know that had the President asked for a declaration of war, and Congress refused it, that same Congress would have bent over backwards to try to resolve the problem of Iraq short of war. Congress would have intently studied our real or perceived needs regarding Iraq. Our need for better basing in the Middle East, more investment opportunities and dollar sales of oil, our need to help Israel and reduce Middle Eastern terrorism, all would have been a focus for the hundreds of smart people in our Congress. Answers and solutions would have followed.
The President’s contemporary national security strategy, published in 2002, declared we would make pre-emptive war when we felt it necessary. With an honorable Congress, when George W. Bush suggested that we attack Iraq under this pretentious "strategy," this request would have been perceived by the Congress in Shakespearean terms, as "… a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

...

BucEyedPea
04-27-2006, 10:06 PM
Dan...I love your lewrockwell.com post on Declaring War.
I've said this since day one...I read lew rockwell.com regularly.

But the whole idea of Congress doing Declaring War get's murkied up due to our treaty with the UN! Which lead to the UN Participation Act. Ya' know the idea of treaties trumping the Constitution.

Even Truman was unsure how to use this new power. So Congress, er..ah..the people are obsolete. There are people up in Congress, some of them supposedly good conservatives, that have said this is archaic!!! That was Henry Hyde!!!

There's a great analysis on the Federalist Society's website on how it trumps sovereignty etc.

jAZ
04-27-2006, 10:07 PM
Do you think he might be executed? :p
If they could prosecute for treason, I'd say it'd be pretty likely.

Dave Lane
04-27-2006, 10:19 PM
Do you think he might be executed? :p

One can only hope...

Dave

Mr. Kotter
04-27-2006, 10:44 PM
If they could prosecute for treason, I'd say it'd be pretty likely.

Look up the legal definition, parameters, and the necessary circumstances to bring "treason" charges.....and get back to me. Until then, you really ought to stop embarrassing yourself.

DanT
04-27-2006, 10:47 PM
Dan...I love your lewrockwell.com post on Declaring War.
I've said this since day one...I read lew rockwell.com regularly.

But the whole idea of Congress doing Declaring War get's murkied up due to our treaty with the UN! Which lead to the UN Participation Act. Ya' know the idea of treaties trumping the Constitution.

Even Truman was unsure how to use this new power. So Congress, er..ah..the people are obsolete. There are people up in Congress, some of them supposedly good conservatives, that have said this is archaic!!! That was Henry Hyde!!!

There's a great analysis on the Federalist Society's website on how it trumps sovereignty etc.

Is this the Federalist Society article you mean, BucEyedPea?

=================================================
http://www.fed-soc.org/Publications/Terrorism/warpowers.htm

The War Powers Resolution: An Unnecessary, Unconstitutional Source of "Friendly Fire" in the War Against International Terrorism?

By Professor Robert F. Turner
==================================================

Here's an excerpt:



International Peacekeeping and the Power to "Declare War"

When the Senate consented to the ratification of the UN Charter in 1945, and Congress approved the UN Participation Act (UNPA) later that year, it is absolutely clear that they believed that international peacekeeping operations did not infringe upon their power "to declare War" and recognized instead that this was the business of the President [22]. The unanimous report of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee urging ratification of the Charter, quoted by the unanimous report of the House Foreign Affairs Committee on the UNPA, argued that "enforcement action" pursuant to an order of the Security Council "would not be an act of war, but would be international action for the preservation of the peace," and reasoned: "Consequently, the provisions of the Charter do not affect the exclusive power of the Congress to declare war." [23] During the final day of Senate consideration of the UNPA, an amendment offered by Senator Burton Wheeler requiring prior congressional approval before the President could send U.S. armed forces into harm's way, pursuant to a Security Council decision to use force to keep the peace, was denounced by the bipartisanship leadership as contrary to our Charter obligations and the President's well-established independent constitutional powers to use armed forces short of war for various reasons. In the end, the amendment received fewer than ten votes [24].

(Footnotes cited above:)
22. See Robert F. Turner, Truman, Korea, and the Constitution: Debunking the "Imperial President" Myth, 19 HARV. J. L. & PUB. POL. 533 (1996).
23. Quoted in id. at 551.
24. Id. at 554-55.

jAZ
04-27-2006, 11:26 PM
Look up the legal definition, parameters, and the necessary circumstances to bring "treason" charges.....and get back to me. Until then, you really ought to stop embarrassing yourself.
The only thing that's embarassing is your (and patty's) seeming inability to comprehend the term "if".

BucEyedPea
04-27-2006, 11:42 PM
DanT,
I had to reread it as it's been over two years since I read it.
T'is.

There are some points I don't agree with that Turner makes:
(1) He seems to agree with this idea that something short of "war" or defensive war allows to the prez to act without Congress. I think there's some missing points that adds more nuance to this idea.

(a) For one, we would not have had to declare war on Japan after Pearl Harbor.
This was followed by Germany declaring war on us, which was followed by us declaring war on them ( I believe that's how it went)....so wtf?

(b) Where the Constitution does allow such an act by the Executive is when it requires an immediate strike to a sudden hostile action in order to save lives. I think this was debated by Adams? One of those early Executives in response to the Barbary Pirates on the high seas. Think US almost declared war but then didn't.

Anyhow, I think some in our gov't are trying to use the sudden aggression idea too expansively ( not the original intent) when they use it for "defensive wars" which would be WWII.

I think the whole idea of "peacekeeping" actions is BS and our treaty wiht UN is an entangling permanent alliance when one reads other Founder's quotes like "seeking monsters to destroy."

BucEyedPea
04-27-2006, 11:54 PM
The only thing that's embarassing is your (and patty's) seeming inability to comprehend the term "if".

jaz
There is a high Constitutional hurdle for Treason whereas it isn't as high in dictatorships of absolute monarchs. It's the only crime defined in the Constitution. And the early Marshall SC clarifed it in the Aaron Burr case.
Person must levy war against the US and there are other limitations on that.

The Japanese WWI case was the only conviction and even he only got deportation not death. Rosenberg's were convicted of espionage and the American Taliban on some conspiracy charge, but not treason.

Mr. Kotter
04-27-2006, 11:58 PM
jaz
I believe the last time someone was convicted and put to death for treason was way back in the 19th century. ..The families of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg might disagree....... Anyhow there is a high Constitutional hurdle for Treason whereas it isn't as high in dictatorships of absolute monarchs.That's putting it mildly. The "standard" in dictatorships/monarchies of the past was "you disagree with my political views, and DARE to articulate that publicly?" Off with your head! It's a standard jAZ, apparently, would like to see introduced into our own society.

"If" implies the prosecutor would have the legal authority, given the circumstanes of the case, to bring the charge of treason; which, anyone who understands the legal definition of the term, would clearly reject given what we know so far in the cases being discussed.

BucEyedPea
04-28-2006, 12:14 AM
The families of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg might disagree....That's putting it mildly.

I don't know how that posted as I was still editing it. I used the word "believe" deliberately but then went and checked it out.
Rosenbergs were tried and convicted of espionage not treason.
There are very few treason cases. The father in the WWII German case was overturned by the SC. Burr was never convicted.

The "standard" in dictatorships/monarchies of the past was "you disagree with my political views, and DARE to articulate that publicly?" Off with your head! It's a standard jAZ, apparently, would like to see introduced into our own society.

This was one of the reasons why it was narrowly defined I believe.
It is not just what we consider a traitorous act...or aiding and abetting the enemy ( common definitions) ...there are many of those acts.

Chief Justice Marshalls clarification of treason per our Constitution (http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/slipsky/) WSJ online Chief Justice John Marshall, who heard the case and wrote Ex parte Bollman, made clear that he understood why the founders had set treason into a special category. "There is no crime which can more excite and agitate the passions of men than treason, no charge demands more from the tribunal before which it is made a deliberate and temperate inquiry," Marshall wrote, before referring to the limitations prescribed in Article III.

"To constitute that specific crime for which the prisoners now before the court have been committed, war must be actually levied against the United States." Marshall ruled. "However flagitious may be the crime of conspiring to subvert by force the government of our country, such conspiracy is not treason. To conspire to levy war, and actually to levy war, are distinct offences. The first must be brought into operation by the assemblage of men for a purpose treasonable in itself, or the fact of levying war cannot have been committed."

Mr. Kotter
04-28-2006, 12:26 AM
.....Rosenbergs were tried and convicted of espionage not treason.

There are very few treason cases. The father in the WWII German case was overturned by the SC. Burr was never convicted.



Technically, the charges were violation of the Espionage Act of 1917....which is no longer enforced. The only crime for which one can be sentenced to death, other than murder, is treason. Yet the Rosenbergs were executed under th Espionage Act of 1917, which surprised many people. That act blurred the lines between espionage, sabotage, and treason, to the point that prosecutors were successful in their request for a death sentence.

Execution for treason has been rare, indeed; some would like to see us move toward a more Stalinist view though, I suppose.

BucEyedPea
04-28-2006, 12:41 AM
Interesting.

Apparently it's only been abolitionist John Brown who was put to death by hanging for treason. That was under a state statute; not federal.

jAZ
04-28-2006, 10:05 AM
jaz
There is a high Constitutional hurdle for Treason whereas it isn't as high in dictatorships of absolute monarchs. It's the only crime defined in the Constitution. And the early Marshall SC clarifed it in the Aaron Burr case.
Person must levy war against the US and there are other limitations on that.

The Japanese WWI case was the only conviction and even he only got deportation not death. Rosenberg's were convicted of espionage and the American Taliban on some conspiracy charge, but not treason.
I understand that... thus the very relevant use of the term "if".

patteeu
04-28-2006, 10:33 AM
Mary McCarthy and Joe Wilson should go to jail (and possibly be executed) if it turns out that they legally commited treason, don't you agree, jAZ? ;)

Lurch
04-28-2006, 10:41 AM
Too bad spamming a discussion board with idiodic threads isn't punishable by death.

banyon
04-28-2006, 10:46 AM
Interesting.

Apparently it's only been abolitionist John Brown who was put to death by hanging for treason. That was under a state statute; not federal.

:cuss: :mizzou:

DanT
04-28-2006, 03:10 PM
DanT,
I had to reread it as it's been over two years since I read it.
T'is.

There are some points I don't agree with that Turner makes:
(1) He seems to agree with this idea that something short of "war" or defensive war allows to the prez to act without Congress. I think there's some missing points that adds more nuance to this idea.

(a) For one, we would not have had to declare war on Japan after Pearl Harbor.
This was followed by Germany declaring war on us, which was followed by us declaring war on them ( I believe that's how it went)....so wtf?

(b) Where the Constitution does allow such an act by the Executive is when it requires an immediate strike to a sudden hostile action in order to save lives. I think this was debated by Adams? One of those early Executives in response to the Barbary Pirates on the high seas. Think US almost declared war but then didn't.

Anyhow, I think some in our gov't are trying to use the sudden aggression idea too expansively ( not the original intent) when they use it for "defensive wars" which would be WWII.

I think the whole idea of "peacekeeping" actions is BS and our treaty wiht UN is an entangling permanent alliance when one reads other Founder's quotes like "seeking monsters to destroy."

Yeah, I think Professor Turner kind of slid over that a little too fast. Here's what he said:
====================================================
(quoted excerpt from Professor Turner's article)

The Power to Declare War

Article I, section 8, clause 11, of the Constitution grants to Congress the power "to declare War." As Hamilton noted in 1793, this was an "exception" to the general grant of "executive power" to the President, and thus was intended to be narrowly construed [15]
.
One of the common errors in discussing the scope of this exception to the President's general "executive Power"-a power reinforced by the specific recognition in article II, section 2, that "[t]he President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States" [16] -has been to focus on the meaning of the term "War" under the Constitution. Congress is not granted the power of "War," but rather the more limited power "to declare War," which was a term of art from the Law of Nations with a clearly understood meaning in 1787.

The Framers were remarkably well-read men. The publicists with whom they were familiar in this area-writers like Grotius, Vattel, and Burlamaqui-all argued that a formal declaration of war was unnecessary for defensive hostilities [17]. It was only when nations were at peace and one wished to initiate an offensive (or what we would today call an aggressive) war that it was necessary to declare war. And this distinction between the President's right to use force defensively, but requiring legislative sanction to initiate an offensive war, was evident in the debate at the Philadelphia Convention over Madison's motion to give Congress not the power "to make War," but the more narrow power "to declare War." [18] In 1928 [19] and again in 1945 [20] , the world community by treaty outlawed the aggressive use of force among nations, and in the process made the declaration of war clause a constitutional anachronism. It is no coincidence that no sovereign state has clearly issued a declaration of war in more than half a century [21].


Footnote 18 says,

"18. See, e.g., 4 WRITINGS OF JAMES MADISON 227-28. Madison told his colleagues that the change from "make" to "declare" war would leave the President "the power to repel sudden attacks," and Sherman argued that "[t]he Executive shd. Be able to repel and not to commence war." Id. at 227."
=====================================================

Here's what The Avalon Project reports as Madison's notes from that debate:

=======================================================
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/debates/817.htm#24

(quoted excerpt from Madison's notes)

"To make war"

Mr. PINKNEY opposed the vesting this power in the Legislature. Its proceedings were too slow. It wd. meet but once a year. The Hs. of Reps. would be too numerous for such deliberations. The Senate would be the best depositary, being more acquainted with foreign affairs, and most capable of proper resolutions. If the States are equally represented in Senate, so as to give no advantage to large States, the power will notwithstanding be safe, as the small have their all at stake in such cases as well as the large States. It would be singular for one authority to make war, and another peace.

Mr. BUTLER. The objections agst. the Legislature lie in great degree agst. the Senate. He was for vesting the power in the President, who will have all the requisite qualities, and will not make war but when the Nation will support it. Mr. MADISON and Mr. GERRY moved to insert "declare," striking out "make" war; leaving to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks.

Mr. SHARMAN thought it stood very well. The Executive shd. be able to repel and not to commence war. "Make" better than "declare" the latter narrowing the power too much.

Mr. GERRY never expected to hear in a republic a motion to empower the Executive alone to declare war.

Mr. ELSWORTH. there is a material difference between the cases of making war and making peace. It shd. be more easy to get out of war, than into it. War also is a simple and overt declaration. peace attended with intricate & secret negociations.

Mr. MASON was agst. giving the power of war to the Executive, because not safely to be trusted with it; or to the Senate, because not so constructed as to be entitled to it. He was for clogging rather than facilitating war; but for facilitating peace. He preferred "declare" to "make."

On the motion to insert declare-in place of make, it was agreed to. N. H. no. Mas. abst. Cont. no. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md.

ay. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay.
=====================================================

DanT
04-28-2006, 03:31 PM
Hey BucEyedPea,

Here's a link to some interesting scholarship on war powers organized by a group called "The Constitution Project". I just found the link today, but from what I've read so far, they seem to be fairly on the ball intellectually.

http://www.constitutionproject.org/warpowers/index.cfm?categoryId=1

By the way, Pat Buchanan has a new column out that is entitled "Of Imperial Presidents and Congressional Cowards":

http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=8915

Mr. Kotter
04-29-2006, 12:14 AM
Mary McCarthy and Joe Wilson should go to jail (and possibly be executed) if it turns out that they legally commited treason, don't you agree, jAZ? ;)

ROFL

jAZ
04-29-2006, 12:31 AM
Mary McCarthy and Joe Wilson should go to jail (and possibly be executed) if it turns out that they legally commited treason, don't you agree, jAZ? ;)
Yes.

Mr. Kotter
04-29-2006, 12:56 AM
Yes.

Damn, you have bloodlines to Joseph Stalin, don't you???

ROFLROFLROFL

jAZ
04-29-2006, 03:13 AM
Damn, you have bloodlines to Joseph Stalin, don't you???

ROFLROFLROFL
Nice to see that you support giving convicted treasonists the soft-glove treatment.

Bootlegged
06-14-2006, 07:13 AM
...and to think that I bet Ringleader a six pack of a beverage of choice over a year ago that Rove would be indicted.

Too bad that he disappeared...


I'll be happy to accept for him.

jAZ
06-14-2006, 10:36 AM
I'll be happy to accept for him.
http://www.claybennett.com/images/archivetoons/bandwagon.jpg

Bootlegged
06-14-2006, 10:38 AM
Nice to see that you support giving convicted treasonists the soft-glove treatment.


http://www.justtotheleft.com/images/2005.05.27.tin_foil_hat.JPG

jAZ
06-14-2006, 11:08 AM
http://www.justtotheleft.com/images/2005.05.27.tin_foil_hat.JPG
Ouch, Kotter... you going to take that?

Lattimer, I think he was merely posing a hypothetical. I don't think Kotter really thinks that "Mary McCarthy and Joe Wilson [will] go to jail (and possibly be executed) [because] they legally commited treason". But you'll have to ask him about that.

Donger
06-14-2006, 11:24 AM
Interesting that you put a question mark on the thread title of this one, but not the other. I wonder which one came first?

Rove about to be indicted? = 04-27-2006, 05:38 PM

Rove to be indicted within 2 weeks... = 05-09-2006, 09:44 AM

Tell me, jAZ. Why did you include a question mark on the first thread title, but not the second?

jAZ
06-14-2006, 11:54 AM
Tell me, jAZ. Why did you include a question mark on the first thread title, but not the second?
It reflects the change in Shuster's reporting. Shocking, huh?

Donger
06-14-2006, 11:59 AM
It reflects the change in Shuster's reporting. Shocking, huh?

ROFL

jAZ
06-14-2006, 12:07 PM
ROFL
You don't even bother to look into this stuff do you? You've become Brock/Lattimer, which is a sad and pathetic decline. Completely unwilling to do anything but try to throw rocks from the side of the road.

I'll try to use small words to make it clear.

4/27, Shuster reports that "ROVE...IS NOW MORE WORRIED, NOT LESS, THAT HE IS GOING TO GET INDICTED" (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/MSNBC_reports_Rove_believes_he_in_0427.html)

5/09, Shuster reports that "Rove's legal team has told me that they expect that a decision will come sometime in the next two weeks. And I am convinced that Karl Rove will, in fact, be indicted" (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=140495&page=3)

When do we get the Donger Mea Culpa?

Cochise
06-14-2006, 12:12 PM
Tell me, jAZ. Why did you include a question mark on the first thread title, but not the second?

Because you're supposed to understand that he only takes responsibility for them if they turn out to be true, duh.

jAZ
06-14-2006, 12:13 PM
Because you're supposed to understand that he only takes responsibility for them if they turn out to be true, duh.
Oopsie (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3258980&postcount=51).

Donger
06-14-2006, 12:15 PM
You don't even bother to look into this stuff do you? You've become Brock/Lattimer, which is a sad and pathetic decline. Completely unwilling to do anything but try to throw rocks from the side of the road.

I'll try to use small words to make it clear.

4/27, Shuster reports that "ROVE...IS NOW MORE WORRIED, NOT LESS, THAT HE IS GOING TO GET INDICTED" (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/MSNBC_reports_Rove_believes_he_in_0427.html)

5/09, Shuster reports that "Rove's legal team has told me that they expect that a decision will come sometime in the next two weeks. And I am convinced that Karl Rove will, in fact, be indicted" (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=140495&page=3)

When do we get the Donger Mea Culpa?

I understand why your wiggling on this. You're upset that the predictions didn't come true.

Besides, like I said on the thother thread, all of this was to show our newer members the limits to which you will go to in order to avoid the words,

I
was
wrong

You were wrong.

Do you really think that any DA would annouce anything 2 weeks in advance? Come on man, you have at least a little common sense, right?

Yes, I know that you'll try to wiggle out of this, as it's so apart of your MO that you can't say the obvious.

jAZ
06-14-2006, 12:18 PM
I
was
wrong
This is a start. Let's get a good clean one.

Donger
06-14-2006, 12:20 PM
This is a start. Let's get a good clean one.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I expected.

Bootlegged
06-14-2006, 12:27 PM
It's more entertaining just to point and make fun of him - discussing anything with him is like talking to a merry go round

jAZ
06-14-2006, 12:29 PM
Yes, I know that you'll try to wiggle out of this, as it's so apart of your MO that you can't say the obvious.
Did you bother to read BabyLee's post that this was a reply to?

Cochise
06-14-2006, 12:32 PM
It's more entertaining just to point and make fun of him - discussing anything with him is like talking to a merry go round

It's like reading Athan-speak pretty much.

You get tons of "could be" "might be" "is possible" lawyerese. Everything with lynchpin qualifications to avoid ever having to admit mistake or taking responsibility for the tripe you're writing, or that your kooky sources are about as credible as a monkey's typewriter.

Or even better, the "I will keep posting about X over and over to spread the idea, but say I don't believe it so I don't have to defend it"

Donger
06-14-2006, 12:40 PM
Did you bother to read BabyLee's post that this was a reply to?

Yes, I did.

You can continue to protest that you were only reporting Shuster's predictions and that you neither believed them or agreed with them; that's fine.

That, in and of itself, just goes to demonstrate that you lack the balls to ante up. After all, this wasn't a 'fringe' media source, right? Since it wasn't, I'd imagine that you'd all over it to present it as fact and a solid prediction.

All goes back to your bizarre fear of having to admit being wrong.

jAZ
06-14-2006, 12:52 PM
Or even better, the "I will keep posting about X over and over to spread the idea, but say I don't believe it so I don't have to defend it"
You did a great job of having to avoid defending this thread...

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=138888

Could it be that you posted something that you didn't necessarily agree or disagree with? That's un-possible, ask Donger.

jAZ
06-14-2006, 01:08 PM
That, in and of itself, just goes to demonstrate that you lack the balls to ante up.
You can't stop being a tool can you?

At one moment you are criticizing me saying "Perhaps he'll be a little more cautious from now on"...

Now you are trying to say that I'm being too cautious by saying "(jAZ) lack(s) the balls to ante up".

Which ever way the wind blows, huh?

jAZ
06-14-2006, 01:10 PM
Since it wasn't, I'd imagine that you'd all over it to present it as fact and a solid prediction.
And yet you still can't find a post where I'm "all over it" like you have been on the Luskin report. Strange huh?

Let's hear it Donger...
I
was
wrong

Donger
06-14-2006, 01:14 PM
You can't stop being a tool can you?

At one moment you are criticizing me saying "Perhaps he'll be a little more cautious from now on"...

Now you are trying to say that I'm being too cautious by saying "(jAZ) lack(s) the balls to ante up".

Which ever way the wind blows, huh?

Actually, I think that being cautious reporting a story from fringe sources is a wise course of action.

You were wise in not commiting your own personal prediction, probably because you were aware that your source was fringey.

It does lack balls, however, but that's par for the course for someone so afraid of being wrong.

Donger
06-14-2006, 01:16 PM
And yet you still can't find a post where I'm "all over it" like you have been on the Luskin report. Strange huh?

Let's hear it Donger...

Excellent. That's about as close to admission that the source for the thread was wrong and on the fringe that we'll get from you.

patteeu
06-14-2006, 01:18 PM
If we keep jAZ tied up denying that he ever posted what he posted last month, he'll never post any new material that we can have fun with next month.

go bowe
06-14-2006, 01:21 PM
jeeze, this thread is an example of why this place has been ghettoized...

and some of the most vocal opposition to having any visible reference to d.c. on the lounge page is over here having fun bitching at jaz for being jaz...

is that what the d.c. forum is for, to come over and sling shit when you feel like dogpiling on some stupid liberal?

but otherwise, keep us locked away and out of sight...

man, you guys disappoint me...

jAZ
06-14-2006, 01:22 PM
...that the source for the thread was wrong...
Nice dodge. Actually it's a rather shameful dodge. You're better off admitting that you were wrong (on numerous counts) as you tried to spin you way into (and now out of) claiming that *I* made any predictions.

We've known for a few weeks now that Shuster's report of Rove's camp's "2 weeks" prediction was wrong (unless somehow it hasn't yet been disclosed). Now, if Luskin isn't misleading or lying to the public, then it *seems* as though the other portion of his report (his prediction of an indictment) will likely be wrong.

As for your assertions that I made any sort of prediction, I await your mea culpa.

Bootlegged
06-14-2006, 01:23 PM
jeeze, this thread is an example of why this place has been ghettoized...

and some of the most vocal opposition to having any visible reference to d.c. on the lounge page is over here having fun bitching at jaz for being jaz...

is that what the d.c. forum is for, to come over and sling shit when you feel like dogpiling on some stupid liberal?

but otherwise, keep us locked away and out of sight...

man, you guys disappoint me...

Why do you have expectations of civility?

Donger
06-14-2006, 01:26 PM
As for your assertions that I made any sort of prediction, I await your mea culpa.

Of course you do. What the one thing that people who cannot admit they were wrong cherish? Hearing others admit that they can.

It's simple.

Cochise
06-14-2006, 01:40 PM
is that what the d.c. forum is for, to come over and sling shit when you feel like dogpiling on some stupid liberal?

Yeah. Wait. Hasn't it always been that way?

:p

go bowe
06-14-2006, 01:43 PM
Why do you have expectations of civility?since the grw migration, this place is generally pretty civil...

patteu represents the conservative side of things very well, without the need to ascibe all sorts of motives to the "other" side or sling insults...

and many of the full-time posters over here are moderate in their outlook and manage to maintain some civility, even in heated discussions....

even meme is civil, if misguided...

so, yes, i have expectations of civility which have been mostly correct until today...

Lurch
07-05-2006, 02:01 PM
Video with this one.

Mr. Kotter
07-12-2006, 10:56 PM
In case we need to rehash it all...

Chief Henry
07-13-2006, 09:12 AM
In case we need to rehash it all...


Just send in that gay newsreporter and he'll get to the bottom of it...

Radar Chief
07-13-2006, 09:23 AM
Just send in that gay newsreporter and he'll get to the bottom of it...

:LOL: Don’t know if that was intended or not, but that’s a quality pun right there. :thumb:

Chief Henry
07-13-2006, 09:36 AM
:LOL: Don’t know if that was intended or not, but that’s a quality pun right there. :thumb:


Beleave it or not it was intended, even though I have no proof of that.
I just might have "blown" all of my credibilty. :shake: