PDA

View Full Version : Bush is King, part...uh, part 43,567?


the Talking Can
04-28-2006, 11:28 PM
Feds Drop Bomb on EFF Lawsuit

The federal government intends to invoke the rarely used "State Secrets Privilege" -- the legal equivalent of a nuclear bomb -- in the Electronic Frontier Foundation's class action lawsuit against AT&T that alleges the telecom collaborated with the government's secret spying on American citizens.

The State Secrets Privilege is a vestige from English common law that lets the executive branch step into a civil lawsuit and have it dismissed if the case might reveal information that puts national security at risk.

Today's assertion severely darkens the prospects of the EFF's lawsuit, which the organization had hoped would shine light on the extent of the Bush Administration's admitted warrantless spying on Americans.

The government is not admitting, however, that AT&T aided the National Security Agency in spying on American's phone calls and internet communications.

"[T]he fact that the United States will assert the state secrets privilege should
not be construed as a confirmation or denial of any of Plaintiffs¿ allegations, either about AT&T or the alleged surveillance activities," the filing reads. "When allegations are made about purported classified government activities or relationships, regardless of whether those allegations are accurate, the existence or non-existence of the activity or relationship is potentially a state secret."

The Justice Department has not formally invoked the privilege yet.

Today's notice was intended to inform Northern California US District Court Judge Vaughn Walker that the government was intending to assert the privilege in order to seek dismissal of the case.

The complete paperwork justifying the government's decision will be filed by May 12.

Full filing (.pdf)

wired (http://blog.wired.com/27BStroke6/)

jAZ
04-28-2006, 11:33 PM
The government is not admitting, however, that AT&T aided the National Security Agency in spying on American's phone calls and internet communications.

"[T]he fact that the United States will assert the state secrets privilege should not be construed as a confirmation or denial of any of Plaintiffs allegations, either about AT&T or the alleged surveillance activities," the filing reads.
ROFL

I think patteeu is working as an atty for the Bush Administration. He applies such laughable spin all the time.

patteeu
04-29-2006, 10:34 AM
Who'd have ever guessed that, during a war, our government has national security secrets to protect? :shrug:

Hydrae
04-29-2006, 03:53 PM
Who'd have ever guessed that, during a war, our government has national security secrets to protect? :shrug:


And who would have thought Ma Bell, er, AT&T would be in the middle of those secrets. :shrug:

the Talking Can
04-30-2006, 09:12 AM
Bush challenges hundreds of laws
President cites powers of his office

By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | April 30, 2006

WASHINGTON -- President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.
Article Tools

Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.

Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush's assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty ''to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to ''execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional.....etc....

boston globe (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/)

the Talking Can
04-30-2006, 09:16 AM
Who'd have ever guessed that, during a war, our government has national security secrets to protect? :shrug:

what secrets?....the real location of the WMDs? the hotel room Osama is staying in?...or illegal warantless wire tapping of American citizens and political enemies?

I bet you believe politicians caught lying when they say "I forgot."

How much energy does it take to pretend to be this dumb? A granola bar's worth or a Chinese buffet's worth?

BucEyedPea
04-30-2006, 10:15 AM
patteeu,
We'd have to "Declare War" for the prez' to have such powers...and even then some of Bush's claims are not valid.

"War on Terror" is more like "War on Drugs" and "War on Poverty."
Bush also cited the UN Resolutions legitimizing "military action" ( peacekeeping action) as his basis for using conventional state "warfare" to fight what is not a conventional state war and which will not handle it. Technically and legally that's not "war" under our Constitution...it's "military action." He only uses the word "war" as a rhetorical device...but not in the "legal" sense.

Very slippery slope imo.

Lake
04-30-2006, 12:01 PM
If you think that all of these wars are bad then just wait a year or so until this administration declares war on the devil.

patteeu
04-30-2006, 03:53 PM
patteeu,
We'd have to "Declare War" for the prez' to have such powers...and even then some of Bush's claims are not valid.

"War on Terror" is more like "War on Drugs" and "War on Poverty."
Bush also cited the UN Resolutions legitimizing "military action" ( peacekeeping action) as his basis for using conventional state "warfare" to fight what is not a conventional state war and which will not handle it. Technically and legally that's not "war" under our Constitution...it's "military action." He only uses the word "war" as a rhetorical device...but not in the "legal" sense.

Very slippery slope imo.

I don't disagree with you that declarations of war should be more explicit and it's a constitutional travesty that they've been largely abandoned for the past half century, but that's not something that happened under the Bush administration. In fact, what did happen under the Bush administration is that Congress authorized "the use of force" against those who attacked us on 9/11 which is as close to a declaration of war as you can get without explicitly using those words. I'm not sure why it should be considered constitutionally inadequate. There is no requirement in the Constitution that a declaration of war use specific terms of art or take a specific form.

The War on Terror is a real war. In some ways, it is like the War on Drugs because the drug war does involve some military action, but it is completely unlike the War on Poverty. You might not like the label that's been attached to this war, but the label doesn't change the nature of the conflict. There are no Predator-launched air-to-surface missiles in the War on Poverty.

Where does the requirement that our enemy be a state for our actions to constitute a real war come from?

unlurking
04-30-2006, 04:01 PM
Very slippery slope imo.

Not really, more like brilliant propaganda for the sounbyte society we have become.

unlurking
04-30-2006, 04:07 PM
Where does the requirement that our enemy be a state for our actions to constitute a real war come from?

Maybe the fact that waging war against an ideal, concept, or methodology?

War on Terror?

Maybe somebody should define the actual TARGET of this war. Targeting "terror" is retarded.

BucEyedPea
04-30-2006, 09:59 PM
I don't disagree with you that declarations of war should be more explicit and it's a constitutional travesty that they've been largely abandoned for the past half century, but that's not something that happened under the Bush administration.

Well that's true. I posted earlier this has to do with our treaty with the UN authorizing "use of force" or "military action" for global peacekeeping or police actions. Korea & Nam were done under SEATO which was under the auspices of the UN as a policekeeping action. Hence, the lack of a "declare" there as well.

It was after WWII that we ceased invoking the Constitution and declaring war. Don't know if you saw the other thread on this with the Federalist Society link in it or not?

This just drags us into internationalism and globaloney.

Believe me I don't just hold Bush accountable on this. I do feel that Congress, both sides of the aisle, have shirked their responsibility here and, as you pointed out a bad precedent was set earlier. Just as many Dems are responsible. Even Sen. Daschle (D.-S. Dak.) said he wanted to be "included, consulted, and [wants] to work with the administration"– not that the president lacks the authority unilaterally to wage war on Iraq.

Without a formal declare, and a prez deciding first, means it can also be labeled as "Bush's" war just as Nam was labeled "LBJ's." That creates a political problem for a leader. Congress will blame and doesn't have to take responsibility for it either.

However the way Bush has used this has brought it to a whole new level because we initiated the aggression against a nation, that had nothing to do with 9/11, our security and which indeed got rid of it's WMD...everything that resolution claimed. That resolution is full of false reports and lies and as such is a fraudulent document.

All these precedents have concentrated more power in the Exec branch unfortunately. Bush is upping the ante using terror to do so.

In fact, what did happen under the Bush administration is that Congress authorized "the use of force" against those who attacked us on 9/11 which is as close to a declaration of war as you can get without explicitly using those words.
This is it right here. Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html)

It is still only a "resolution" though, NOT a "Declaration of War." In other words Congress has to formally "declare" that a "state of war" exists between the US and Iraq. This state did not exist. What the resolution is saying, if you read the link, is that our military is going to enforce earlier UN Resolutions. WTF? So it strengthen's the UN 's mission. It just didn't have the Security Council vote.

As a traditional conservative, not a NeoConservative, I refuse to carry out the mandates of the UN, for our men and women to die for such a corrupt organization and be it's world cop. I know it sorta tosses in our security too but it's like it has to as a second thought since that was the emotional argument used on the people.

Also, that resolution is mere formality... a feel good thing so Congress doesn't feel left out. Our UN Treaty and UN Participation act took care of that. It's not supposed to be like that. Congress is supposed to seek information from the Executive branch and debate, ponder, weigh and examine that information and it alone has the authority to decide if we are to go to war in order to allow the Executive to be the Commander in Chief to "make" war. Bush already did Congress' job. Framers specifically went back and forth on this issue, and decided it was Congress' exclusive right.

There is no such "Declaration of War" in that resolution. It calls for "Use of Military Force."

The president can lay out a case requiring a need to go to war but that's it as far as a decision goes. Once declared the Framers gave him full powers to carry it out as war is better suited to being run by a single individual than a committee.

I'm not sure why it should be considered constitutionally inadequate. There is no requirement in the Constitution that a declaration of war use specific terms of art or take a specific form.
It calls exactly for Congress to "declare" war:
Article 1, Section8 Clause 11

One can also read the notes of the Framers at the convention which clearly supports this intepretation as their intent. There are more subsections on this pursuant to congress' role as well.

The War on Terror is a real war. In some ways, it is like the War on Drugs because the drug war does involve some military action, but it is completely unlike the War on Poverty. You might not like the label that's been attached to this war, but the label doesn't change the nature of the conflict. There are no Predator-launched air-to-surface missiles in the War on Poverty.

Well I did not mean it in a literal sense. I meant that it was designed to fail like the other wars...as it's against a method of fighting, or a concept like "poverty" and "drugs" none of which will end by the gov't waging a war on them. It is also vague, general and ill-defined with no end.

Other BENEFITS of a formal "Declaration of War":
• it defines a specific enemy ( as in a "who" not a concept)
• makes war a more open and shut cause of action as it's a "war" with a beginning and an end.
• The first two points make it winnable.
It's these endless no-win wars that have not had this. Of course, Rummy is saying it may never end...so this is perfect for him.

Just look at that Resolution too. Chock full o' generalities such as:
"take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations." So now we're handling all terrorists? WTF? There are over 800 terrorists groups on earth. There's no intention for this to end and such a goal is not winnable. I think we've become drunk on our Cold War success.

Where does the requirement that our enemy be a state for our actions to constitute a real war come from?

Well, that wasn't my point with that line. My point was more that we are using conventional nation-state warfare for a hit-n'-run terrorist group which is not run or supported by a nation state. In the case of Afghanistan, the Taliban did not sponsor alQaeda but alQaeda sponsored it...so that was legit imo.

We need to abandon the "War on Terror" and refocus back on the"War with alQaeda" instead of allowing it to be hijacked with demagoguery.

Sorry to be so long. But you asked a lot of questions that I felt, took that to answer where I was coming from. Actually, you and I seem to agree on many other things. But I have never supported going into Iraq or on other aspects of the "War on Terror"...like having a Dept of Homeland Security.

patteeu
05-01-2006, 07:51 AM
Maybe the fact that waging war against an ideal, concept, or methodology?

War on Terror?

Maybe somebody should define the actual TARGET of this war. Targeting "terror" is retarded.

It's been done numerous times. Was it hard for you to figure out who our adversaries were during the cold war?

BucEyedPea
05-01-2006, 08:02 AM
It's been done numerous times. Was it hard for you to figure out who our adversaries were during the cold war?

At least that was a well-defined "who." If it were just the idea of communism...'er collectivism ( Fabian socialism) has spread inside our country anyway, despite winning the Cold War...which resulted from our being an ally to Stalin in WWII. So even those results were mixed as it made the world, or at least eastern Europe safe for communism.

patteeu
05-01-2006, 08:18 AM
This is it right here. Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html)

It is still only a "resolution" though, NOT a "Declaration of War." In other words Congress has to formally "declare" that a "state of war" exists between the US and Iraq. This state did not exist. What the resolution is saying, if you read the link, is that our military is going to enforce earlier UN Resolutions. WTF? So it strengthen's the UN 's mission. It just didn't have the Security Council vote.

As a traditional conservative, not a NeoConservative, I refuse to carry out the mandates of the UN, for our men and women to die for such a corrupt organization and be it's world cop. I know it sorta tosses in our security too but it's like it has to as a second thought since that was the emotional argument used on the people.

Also, that resolution is mere formality... a feel good thing so Congress doesn't feel left out. Our UN Treaty and UN Participation act took care of that. It's not supposed to be like that. Congress is supposed to seek information from the Executive branch and debate, ponder, weigh and examine that information and it alone has the authority to decide if we are to go to war in order to allow the Executive to be the Commander in Chief to "make" war. Bush already did Congress' job. Framers specifically went back and forth on this issue, and decided it was Congress' exclusive right.

There is no such "Declaration of War" in that resolution. It calls for "Use of Military Force."

The president can lay out a case requiring a need to go to war but that's it as far as a decision goes. Once declared the Framers gave him full powers to carry it out as war is better suited to being run by a single individual than a committee.


It calls exactly for Congress to "declare" war:
Article 1, Section8 Clause 11

One can also read the notes of the Framers at the convention which clearly supports this intepretation as their intent. There are more subsections on this pursuant to congress' role as well.

I'm not questioning whether or not the constitution requires a declaration of war, I'm questioning whether or not a resolution authorizing the use of military force qualifies or not. I see nothing in the constitution that describes the form of a declaration of war. Absent some other contextual evidence, it seems to me that a vote of Congress on a statement of their intentions is constitutionally adequate. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

patteeu
05-01-2006, 08:23 AM
Sorry to be so long. But you asked a lot of questions that I felt, took that to answer where I was coming from. Actually, you and I seem to agree on many other things. But I have never supported going into Iraq or on other aspects of the "War on Terror"...like having a Dept of Homeland Security.

I appreciate the answers and I'm sympathetic with most of your points. I think it would be good if Congress passed an unambiguous declaration of war anytime we were going to make war and I agree that it is important to know who our enemies are. But I don't agree that we are fighting a tactic (despite the slogan used to describe the war) and I don't think our war can be limited to card-carrying al Qaeda members because the nature of that organization is that it is made up of loose and shifting alliances among many like-minded but not identical groups.

patteeu
05-01-2006, 08:26 AM
At least that was a well-defined "who." If it were just the idea of communism...'er collectivism ( Fabian socialism) has spread inside our country anyway, despite winning the Cold War...which resulted from our being an ally to Stalin in WWII. So even those results were mixed as it made the world, or at least eastern Europe safe for communism.

Our primary adversaries were well defined, but there were a lot of 3rd world countries and nongovernmental organizations whose allegiance/sympathies to either the west or the Soviets wasn't always well defined or shifted from time to time.

BucEyedPea
05-01-2006, 09:38 AM
I appreciate the answers and I'm sympathetic with most of your points. I think it would be good if Congress passed an unambiguous declaration of war anytime we were going to make war and I agree that it is important to know who our enemies are. But I don't agree that we are fighting a tactic (despite the slogan used to describe the war) and I don't think our war can be limited to card-carrying al Qaeda members because the nature of that organization is that it is made up of loose and shifting alliances among many like-minded but not identical groups.

When I say "alQaeda" I am talking about their franchises as well. They are franchised and decentralized, which makes it even harder to fight making them able to do hit n' run urban guerilla warfare. They don't even have to win a lot of battles...it slowly wears one side down. This type of war cannot be fought with a heavy reliance on conventional war but requires a lot more covert activities including massive human intel. It is precisely this type of warfare, that has allowed smaller weaker groups to defeat major powers. ( Ghurki warriers in India against the Brits also come to mind). Our own "War for Independence" is a good case in point. Gen Washington didn't win many battles, but he won the war.

Regardless, it is in our national security and economic interests to limit this war to one main target. (see above) To go after terrorists who do their dirty work in Israel and/or who target US military installations ( Saudi Arabia, Beirut,US Cole which is not classified as terrorism by our own State Dept's definition) because we have had troops on their holy lands or for our support of Israel is an unecessary expansion and is not "who" hit us on 9/11. Not only do I draw the line at American lives being lost to fight and defend Israel it just exacerbates terrorism WW which Iraq has done, even per our own Pentagon, CIA and State Department analysis. It simply is not smart nor effective. There is NO need for an endless war keeping our liberties in endless suspension or to uuse as an excuse remake the entire world into a democracy. That just results in tryanny for Americans.

BucEyedPea
05-01-2006, 05:55 PM
Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
I must have missed this post of yours.

Yes! I gave it to you in bold in my previous, long post which refers you to a section of the Constitution itself.

It calls exactly for Congress to "declare" war:
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11

You'll have to google it and read it...but it's under a list of "Enumerated Powers." And our Constitution is a system of "specific and enumerated" powers ...meaning nothing more would apply.

patteeu
05-01-2006, 07:36 PM
I must have missed this post of yours.

Yes! I gave it to you in bold in my previous, long post which refers you to a section of the Constitution itself.



You'll have to google it and read it...but it's under a list of "Enumerated Powers." And our Constitution is a system of "specific and enumerated" powers ...meaning nothing more would apply.

I'm not questioning whether or not the constitution requires a declaration of war, I'm questioning whether or not a resolution authorizing the use of military force qualifies or not. I see nothing in the constitution (including the section to which you refer) that describes the form of a declaration of war. Absent some other contextual evidence, it seems to me that a vote of Congress on a statement of their intentions is constitutionally adequate. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

Article 1, Section8 Clause 11 To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

BucEyedPea
05-01-2006, 08:28 PM
I'm not questioning whether or not the constitution requires a declaration of war, I'm questioning whether or not a resolution authorizing the use of military force qualifies or not. I see nothing in the constitution (including the section to which you refer) that describes the form of a declaration of war. Absent some other contextual evidence, it seems to me that a vote of Congress on a statement of their intentions is constitutionally adequate. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

Well, not that's not true. There are actually copies on the net of the ones Wilson and FDR used for WWI&2, if you want a precedent before our treaty with the UN. They are very short. I'll see if I can find them again.

As I explained, we use the option to use "military force" today, due to our treaty with the UN and the subsequent UN Participation Act. Is why so many think as you do or even claim a "Declare" is archaic.

You're taking a liberal interpretation approach ( loose construction) when conservatives follow a strict construction.

You know our Constitution is not a big, long weighty document ( unlike the EU one which is ike 400 somethin' pages)...it was originally what? Two pages?

patteeu
05-01-2006, 09:45 PM
Well, not that's not true. There are actually copies on the net of the ones Wilson and FDR used for WWI&2, if you want a precedent before our treaty with the UN. They are very short. I'll see if I can find them again.

As I explained, we use the option to use "military force" today, due to our treaty with the UN and the subsequent UN Participation Act. Is why so many think as you do or even claim a "Declare" is archaic.

You're taking a liberal interpretation approach ( loose construction) when conservatives follow a strict construction.

You know our Constitution is not a big, long weighty document ( unlike the EU one which is ike 400 somethin' pages)...it was originally what? Two pages?

You don't need to find the previous examples or precedents of declarations. Either the constitution is clear on the subject or it isn't. If it is clear, then precedents don't matter. If it isn't, then they can be guides but are not determinative. (Although if you do find them, I will read them).

I'm not saying that you are wrong about whether or not a resolution authorizing the use of force is the equivalent of a declaration of war, I'm just saying that unless there is some contextual evidence besides the plain words of the constitution that IMO that clause is ambiguious. It may be that at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, it was understood that to declare war, a country had to execute a document with the words "we declare war" in it, and if so, that would be strong evidence that the constitutional clause to which you've referred requires such magic words as well. But without some external evidence along those lines, it is hard to tell whether it is enough to declare war verbally with a voice vote or whether it is enough to execute a document that says "we announce that we are at war with entity X" or "we resolve that we will fight with every ounce of our energy and destroy the beligerent forces of entity X" or whether it is completely undefined and left to the legislature to develop. It wouldn't surprise me at all to find out that to "declare war" had a specific diplomatic meaning, but I'm not aware of what it was and in my limited googling I haven't been able to find it.

BucEyedPea
05-01-2006, 10:12 PM
Y But without some external evidence along those lines, it is hard to tell whether it is enough to declare war verbally with a voice vote or whether it is enough to execute a document that says "we announce that we are at war with entity X" or "we resolve that we will fight with every ounce of our energy and destroy the beligerent forces of entity X" or whether it is completely undefined and left to the legislature to develop. It wouldn't surprise me at all to find out that to "declare war" had a specific diplomatic meaning, but I'm not aware of what it was and in my limited googling I haven't been able to find it.

I have never heard that on either side argue things like "voice vote" or a "diplomatic" meaning for war?That is just dancing around the issue. I can only understand that coming from no context of history, and how our constitutional system has been slowly subverted to do away with the separation of powers and checks and balances over 90 years.

Besides, congress writes and passes resolutions ALL the time.
I just wanted to get a digital copy of one to show you how short these are...like a few sentences in a paragraph. All I could find was pics of FDR signing the one in 1941...but I have seen it before.

If you feel that strongly about Iraq, your safer bet for legality would be the two UN Resolutions cited. Don't know about the rest of WoT though. According WH docs online now we going to give all bad gov'ts a democracy. Sounds like the perpetual war in 1984. Who woulda thunk it would come from the Republicans?

This will give you some idea ( You can ignore him on Iraq)...from my favorite Congressman Republican/Libertarian an originalist like myself.
Ron Paul on Congress & War (http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr100302.htm)

War Declared On:
United Kingdom ~ War of 1812
Mexico ~ Mexican-American War 1846
Spain ~ Spanish-American War 1898
Germany ~ WWI Germany 1917
Austria-Hungary ~ WWI 1917
Japan ~ WWII 1941
Germany ~ 1941
Italy ~ 1941
Bulgaria ~ 1941
Hungary ~ 1941
Romania ~ 1941
United Nations 1942 & 1945
UN Participation Act 1945
Undeclared wars begin...
Korean Conflict 1945
Vietnam Conflict 1945-75
PGWI 1990-91
War on Terror 2001
Iraq


I think it is clearly date coincident to joining the UN.
We are strengthening it in a sense.

go bowe
05-02-2006, 01:17 AM
I'm not questioning whether or not the constitution requires a declaration of war, I'm questioning whether or not a resolution authorizing the use of military force qualifies or not. I see nothing in the constitution (including the section to which you refer) that describes the form of a declaration of war. Absent some other contextual evidence, it seems to me that a vote of Congress on a statement of their intentions is constitutionally adequate. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?here's an interesting article (http://www.daveross.com/war.html) on declarations of war and the war powers of the president as addressed (or avoided) by the supreme court...

go bowe
05-02-2006, 01:22 AM
. . . It wouldn't surprise me at all to find out that to "declare war" had a specific diplomatic meaning, but I'm not aware of what it was and in my limited googling I haven't been able to find it.i think it was more of a legal meaning that a diplomatic one; a state of war conferred powers and responsibilities under the law of nations, as it existed at the time...

the u.n. charter/treaty and the geneva conventions are today's law of nations on the subject of wars, but there seems to be some question as to whether or not this administration has been adhering to the conventions...

BucEyedPea
05-02-2006, 08:21 AM
Congressional jealousy...finally makes Conservatives, Republicans and Libertarians in Congress wake up:
Republicans, Conservatives & Libertarians
challenge Prez on his powers (http://news.ft.com/cms/s/6ec15f3c-d93d-11da-8b06-0000779e2340.html)

Former congressman,"Bob Barr, a Republican, called on Congress to exercise 'leadership by putting the constitution above party politics and insisting on the facts'..."

BucEyedPea
05-02-2006, 03:18 PM
i think it was more of a legal meaning that a diplomatic one; a state of war conferred powers and responsibilities under the law of nations, as it existed at the time...

the u.n. charter/treaty and the geneva conventions are today's law of nations on the subject of wars, but there seems to be some question as to whether or not this administration has been adhering to the conventions...

Yes it is a legal point which brings me to another issue...the military tribunal issue. During WWII we had been under a "state of war" which changes the points being argued on that.

But as far as international law, a lot of it was the same back then too minus the international organizations we have today.

patteeu
05-02-2006, 05:18 PM
Thanks for the articles, go bo and BucEyedPea. I found them interesting and found a lot in each of them that I can agree with. What I didn't find though is what the definition (i.e. minimum requirements) is for a "formal declaration of war." The constitution appears to be silent on this point.


BTW BEP, Ron Paul is my favorite congressman too (link (
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2778227&postcount=5)) and when John Ashcroft resigned as Attorney General, Bob Barr was the guy I said I'd like to see take his place (link (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2976731&postcount=48)).

BucEyedPea
05-02-2006, 05:23 PM
Thanks for the articles, go bo and BucEyedPea. I found them interesting and found a lot in each of them that I can agree with. What I didn't find though is what the definition (i.e. minimum requirements) is for a "formal declaration of war." The constitution appears to be silent on this point.
That's because it's not necessary....that's ALL up to Congress to debate, ponder and weigh and decide. It doesn't spell things out like that.Liberals make that claim. If it's silent it doesn't have a requirement...it's up to that branch is all.


BTW BEP, Ron Paul is my favorite congressman too (link (
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2778227&postcount=5)) and when John Ashcroft resigned as Attorney General, Bob Barr was the guy I said I'd like to see take his place(link (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2976731&postcount=48)).
Barr would'a been great! Much better than Gonzales.
But Barr will not play ball for politics.

patteeu
05-02-2006, 05:30 PM
That's because it's not necessary....that's ALL up to Congress to debate, ponder and weigh and decide. It doesn't spell things out like that.Liberals make that claim. If it's silent it doesn't have a requirement...it's up to that branch is all.

I would agree with that, but that should mean that an authorization to use force should be able to suffice as the constitutionally mandated declaration of war. Afterall, the issue is debated and Congress voted on it, which IMO are the essential components of Congress' role of authorizing the President to go to war.

BucEyedPea
05-02-2006, 06:19 PM
I would agree with that, but that should mean that an authorization to use force should be able to suffice as the constitutionally mandated declaration of war. Afterall, the issue is debated and Congress voted on it, which IMO are the essential components of Congress' role of authorizing the President to go to war.

:hmmm: So what part of the material posted did you miss?

I have to disagree with that.

For one, Congress did not debate it first, if at all, the administration did behind closed doors and were actually were planning on going in before 9/11. Bush was going to go whether they gave the resolution or not. Congress did not do it's job...it went along.

Also, "use of military force" "resolution" is NOT a "declaration of war." The words don't mean the same thing. Not all use of military force is war. "Resolution" is finding a solution to a problem. To "declare" means to state something [war] emphatically, authoritively and formally. Constitution uses the word "declare" which are the words...and Constitution does not need to elaborate it further than that. It's very simple. It gets complicated when you want to do something else.


EXAMPLE:
Declaration
• a legal state created by a declaration of war and ended by official declaration during which the international rules of war apply; "war was declared in November but actual fighting did not begin until the following spring"


BTW this is one of the many reasons, I am against certain treaties...they do an end round around our Constitution. This is ESPECIALLY true of our treaty with the UN. We should never have to ask it if we need to go to war to defend ourselves. Bogus.

patteeu
05-02-2006, 08:22 PM
:hmmm: So what part of the material posted did you miss?

I have to disagree with that.

For one, Congress did not debate it first, if at all, the administration did behind closed doors and were actually were planning on going in before 9/11. Bush was going to go whether they gave the resolution or not. Congress did not do it's job...it went along.

Your opinion as to the quality of the debate (or lack thereof) might well be justified (and I don't really disagree with you on that point), but that isn't really a matter that can be considered a constitutional defect in the process, IMO. And whether Bush had already made up his mind to attack Iraq prior to the Congressional authorization and whether or not he was going to go ahead with or without their approval are irrelevant as well because the fact is that he did get their authorization before attacking.

Also, "use of military force" "resolution" is NOT a "declaration of war." The words don't mean the same thing. Not all use of military force is war. "Resolution" is finding a solution to a problem. To "declare" means to state something [war] emphatically, authoritively and formally. Constitution uses the word "declare" which are the words...and Constitution does not need to elaborate it further than that. It's very simple. It gets complicated when you want to do something else.


EXAMPLE:
Declaration
• a legal state created by a declaration of war and ended by official declaration during which the international rules of war apply; "war was declared in November but actual fighting did not begin until the following spring"

Here is the text of the formal declaration of war from World War I. Note that it is a "resolution."

Joint Resolution Declaring that a state of war exists between the Imperial German Government and the Government and the people of the United States and making provision to prosecute the same.

Whereas the Imperial German Government has committed repeated acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America; Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress Assembled, that the state of war between the United States and the Imperial German Government which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and that the President be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial German Government; and to bring the conflict to a successful termination all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.

I would be much happier if Congress had authorized the use of force in the GWoT and in Iraq with explicit language indicating that they were "formally declaring war," but given that there is no guidance in the supreme law of our land (i.e. the Constitution) on what form a declaration of war must take, it's hard for me to understand why an authorization to use military force is not exactly the same thing. I realize that we might be at some kind of an impasse here, but if the links you provided explained this to me, I was too dense to recognize it. We might have to just agree to disagree on this point.

BTW this is one of the many reasons, I am against certain treaties...they do an end round around our Constitution. This is ESPECIALLY true of our treaty with the UN. We should never have to ask it if we need to go to war to defend ourselves. Bogus.

I certainly agree with you here.

BucEyedPea
05-02-2006, 08:37 PM
Your opinion as to the quality of the debate (or lack thereof) might well be justified (and I don't really disagree with you on that point), but that isn't really a matter that can be considered a constitutional defect in the process, IMO. And whether Bush had already made up his mind to attack Iraq prior to the Congressional authorization and whether or not he was going to go ahead with or without their approval are irrelevant as well because the fact is that he did get their authorization before attacking.
Quote:

BTW, I said that because I felt I had to post certain things again...and literally thought they were missed. It had nothing to do with intelligence.

1) Bush already had authority without Congress for the "use of force" short of outright war due to the UN resolutions was I said earlier.(Link at the Federalist
Society) I also read somewhere that he wasn't even going to go to Congress.

2) Congress did not really debate it though. It was rubber stamped. If they had the same intel, it is highly likely it would have never survived an up and down vote in Congress.

3) Since there were no WMD found, no connection to 9/11 the document is actually based on fraud...which makes it null & void; makes us the aggressor.

Even if you want to insist Congress authorized a "use of force," it really was more than that...it was making outright war on another nation and as such that is the exclusive right of Congress.

I think you and I are going to have to agree to disagree because it's just repeating in a circle at this point. I'll agree with you that other Presidents, not just Bush have gone down this path. I think it's bad precedent from our UN Treaty. Most of what goes on today is not Constitutional. Most people today are not originalists.

banyon
05-03-2006, 09:11 AM
BTW this is one of the many reasons, I am against certain treaties...they do an end round around our Constitution. This is ESPECIALLY true of our treaty with the UN. We should never have to ask it if we need to go to war to defend ourselves. Bogus.

:hmmm: did you mean pre-emptive war?

Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

BucEyedPea
05-03-2006, 01:21 PM
:hmmm: did you mean pre-emptive war?

Absolutely not....I am 99.5% opposed to pre-emptive war which is immoral.
Unless there is an imminent strike on the horizon...and that would be easier to tell.

As far as the UN goes...that all sounds good on paper, but they are POWERLESS to stop wars of aggression. It has failed at it's primary mission, preventing war.

But my own country using preemptive war I do not support.

But really now banyon, why would you choose a UN document and hold it more sacred than our own Constitution? I could show you phrases from the UN Resolutions on Iraq, that is legalese that justifies going into Iraq.

Be careful what you wish for.