If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fark)   Fark Politics Forum   (fark.com) divider line 2661
    More: Misc  
•       •       •

7831 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Feb 2007 at 5:32 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite   |  Watch    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



2661 Comments   (+0 »)
   

First | « | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | » | Last
 
  2007-05-06 11:38:37 PM  
dottedmint: This means that when people say that the War Resolution somehow goes against the "method of declaring war" spelled out in The US Constitution they are being dishonest because there is NO "method of declaring war" spelled out in The US Constitution.

Again: relevance?

If you're answer is because of the discussion with DrTambo, the fact that we haven't technically "declared war" the way we did in WWII and before that was not meant to be a major point, or even really that significant, but was instead part of a larger question as to how we should define war. Unfortunately now it seems to have sidetracked the main focus of our most recent discussion, which was the deception in the lead up to war and the failure of the current strategy to accomplish anything constructive or beneficial to the United States.

Regardless of who declared war, or how, or if this is even a "war" or not, the fact remains that the reasoning for the war was bogus and based on--at best--highly questionable evidence.

If the people who we are supposed to believe in the lead-up to war are shown to be untruthful and incapable of performing their duty, why should we trust them to continue handling the war?

When someone proves they are incompetent, incapable of doing their job and dishonest, and then instead of owning up to their mistake they vehemently deny any responsibility and instead attempt to blame others, is this person given the further responsibility of fixing the problem they started or in any way continuing with their job? No, of course not. The President has proven that he cannot be trusted and that as a Commander in Chief he has strategically failed to successfully accomplish his objective.
 
  2007-05-07 03:23:08 AM  
dottedmint: It does NOT have a set of standards that must be met before the military can be used...

If the Constitution very explicitly gives Congress the power to declare war, and they bypass this protocol, then technically we are not at war.

Iraq is a police action requisitioned by the Executive Branch.

Authorizing military force without a formal declaration violates the spirit of Article I.

[The Constitution] does NOT even say that a DoW (or even resolution) is needed before the military can be used...

Without a declaration of war, the case can be made that the President is ignoring Constitutional protocol and he is also abusing his power as Commander-in-Chief.


I really don't see why you continue to defend abusing the Constitution in ways it was not intended to be used. What could you possibly gain from putting your faith in this government's actions? Do you like your government twisting and ignoring Constitutional procedure when it suits them?
 
  2007-05-07 06:58:08 AM  
Whidbey: Without a declaration of war, the case can be made that the President is ignoring Constitutional protocol and he is also abusing his power as Commander-in-Chief.

Except that you are unable to show me a Constitutional definition of a DoW....

IF instead of having a title of "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq" it had been titled "Declaration of War against Iraq" and everything else had been the same what real differece would there have been?
 
  2007-05-07 02:08:05 PM  
dottedmint: IF instead of having ta title of "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq" it had been titled "Declaration of War against Iraq" and everything else had been the same what real differece would there have been?

It would have been an actual declared war, that's the difference, and not another police action drummed up by the Executive Branch.

Perhaps, had the entire decision and responsibility been in the hands of Congress, an invasion against Iraq would not have been launched at all.

A formal declaration makes the effort a much more important event. A war resolution is a cheap means of loosening the purse strings to wage war when convenient. It's a hell of a difference, and I seriously doubt the a declaration and a war resolution would contain the same text.
 
  2007-05-07 03:48:56 PM  
DrTambo: My question to you now is what will have changed over that 10 years if we go? Do you believe as I do that Iraq would erupt into a civil war, which the Iranian Shiites would help end by desimating the Sunis and Kurds, making Iran-Iraq a super-Islamic state? What will the region look like in 10 years?

It's already a civil war. I don't think the Sunni's will be decimated, and I don't think the Kurds will be either.

1) Hostilities do not mean genocide. The Shiites aren't going to get very far rounding up and exterminating Sunni's, if that's what you mean, as any such action surely would enrage the international community and make any Iraqi independence illegitimate, as well as Iraq's neighbours in Saudi Arabia, who are wahabi-ists,(sp?) a brand of Sunni. Not to mention al-qaeda or other Middle Eastern countries and political parties. In fact, Shiites are the minority within Islam, comprising only 15% of the world's Muslim population.

Anyways, shiite deathsquads currently roam Iraq right under our nose, many of them as police and with American training. If we cannot stop them now, what good are we?

2) The Kurds are fiercely independent and can hold their own. They essentially have their own army and their own police, and have so far been able to maintain a functional civil society without much assistance. They should be more worried about Turkey than any Iraqi threat.

3) Iran and Iraq will not become a super-islamic state. Although they share the same majority religious sect, Iraqis and Iranians still remember the bloody war which they fought about 20 years ago. Iran and Iraq haven't ever really gotten along throughout history, even before they were known as "Iran" and "Iraq." Persia had a history of colonizing the Iraq region dating back to ancient history.

Put another way, they aren't friends and probably won't ever be. They don't even speak the same language.

I don't really think anywhere in the Middle East will make much progress towards democracy until the political basis for favoring hard-line Islamic extremism is taken away. The problems of the Middle East echo the problems of other parts of the world: poverty, abuses of power, and the perception of Western control and domination.

Of course, we could also simply recognize the reasons for our involvement in the Middle East--oil--and find an alternative to our massive energy consumption, or at least decrease the massive amounts of energy we consume. I mean, thats what this really boils down to doesn't it? Who cares what happens in the Middle East if we don't need their oil?
 
  2007-05-07 10:50:46 PM  
Whidbey: "It would have been an actual declared war, that's the difference, and not another police action drummed up by the Executive Branch.

Except that it was Congress that passed the resolution. Not the Executive Branch. If they had NOT passed the resolution there wouldn't have been much (if anything) that Bush could have done.


"A formal declaration makes the effort a much more important event. A war resolution is a cheap means of loosening the purse strings to wage war when convenient. It's a hell of a difference, and I seriously doubt the a declaration and a war resolution would contain the same text."

As I have pointed out many times there is no template for what a DoW should/must say. This means that if you only changed the title that the resolution could pass for a DoW.

It would have required the same amount of effort and would have had the same impact.
 
  2007-05-07 11:09:53 PM  
We need wars to keep the population down.
 
  2007-05-07 11:52:24 PM  
If [Congress] had NOT passed the resolution there wouldn't have been much (if anything) that Bush could have done.

Then Congress is also at fault for this ill-conceived police action.

This means that if you only changed the title that the resolution could pass for a DoW.

I disagree. It wasn't a Declaration, it was a Resolution, a cheap go-around of Constitutional protocol. It should be regarded as invalid.

It would have required the same amount of effort and would have had the same impact.

Maybe not to the rest of the world, but to those of us who have seen our Constitution eroded for the pleasure of warmongering and other power abuses, it is not a recognized Declaration of War against Iraq, it is a Congressional Loosening of the Purse Strings to suit the Executive Branch's whim. It's disgraceful, and the mechanism should be repealed. Real wars need to be declared, or we have no business engaging in them.
 
  2007-05-08 07:11:56 AM  
Whidbey: "I disagree. It wasn't a Declaration, it was a Resolution, a cheap go-around of Constitutional protocol. It should be regarded as invalid."


You keep making this claim that it violates the "protocol" but you have NOT quoted anything from TUSC that supports your claim.

There is no set "protocol" for declaring war.

BTW....

The Iraq Resolution was alot more extensive than the Japan Resolution...
 
  2007-05-08 03:31:03 PM  
dottedmint: There is no set "protocol" for declaring war.

So what does the legislative authority to declare war mean to you then. Just curious.
 
  2007-05-08 04:53:09 PM  
dottedmint: You keep making this claim that it violates the "protocol" but you have NOT quoted anything from TUSC that supports your claim.

I've said plenty, actually. The Congress has the power to declare war, not the President. You're the one who's reading between the lines and justifying abuses of power. Just because they've been doing it since 1950 doesn't make it right. Truman was the one who began using the term "police action" as a euphemism for "war."

You're OK with this kind of deceitful terminology, I see.

It's clear that you believe the President should be able to conjure up a war any time he sees fit, and all Congress has to do is fund it. This is completely antithetical to the spirit of the Constitution. You're down with that.

And countering "well then they need to change that law" is dishonest. Our patriotic duty is to recognize when our government circumvents protocol and call them out on it.

But as I've said, it's pretty obvious that you support the United States as nationbuilder. It's the only conclusion, the only reason you defend this wrongdoing.

First Iraq, then Iran, right? Which country should we invade after that?

The Iraq Resolution was alot more extensive than the Japan Resolution...

So what? All that tells me is that more lies were needed to sell it. Japan was concise, clear, compelling.

Iraq was disgraceful, deceitful and desperate. Kind of like your defense of this administration.
 
  2007-05-08 09:53:55 PM  
C-S: So what does the legislative authority to declare war mean to you then. Just curious.

Good question.

But since TUSC does not have a template for what a DoW should/must say it is dishonest to say that the JR goes against what TUSC says.

Saying that a President has the authority to use military force against a country sure sounds like declaring we are going to war.
 
  2007-05-08 10:12:34 PM  
dottedmint: Saying that a President has the authority to use military force against a country sure sounds like declaring we are going to war.

Not even. And I'm still waiting to hear why you support these abuses of power.
 
  2007-05-09 03:16:41 AM  
I didn't read any of this thread, but it seems like rather civilized poo-flinging.

Fark is going to get pretty insane in the next year and a half. The politics is going to rise to a fever pitch and all sorts of loonies are going to crawl out of the woodwork. I don't know about you, but I am salivating at the thought of squashing reactionary mental-midgets underneath my boots.

That's all I wanted to say. Thank you, drive through.
 
  2007-05-09 03:20:10 PM  
dottedmint: Saying that a President has the authority to use military force against a country sure sounds like declaring we are going to war.

Well, like you said, the USC doesn't have "a template for what a DoW should/must say," so if I may use your own words from your comment on 2007-05-03 06:51:37 AM:

that is nothing more than your OPINION.....not fact.

So really it's just as unreasonable for you to say the AUMF was a declaration of war as it is for someone else to say it wasn't, because according to you we don't know what a declaration of war is. Correct?
 
  2007-05-09 04:10:27 PM  
spamdog: I didn't read any of this thread, but it seems like rather civilized poo-flinging.

Maybe you should read the thread then? It's a bit more than "civilized poo-flinging" IMHO.
 
  2007-05-10 12:10:08 AM  
I am so sorry!!!!

We have been going back and forth for some time now.

I have said that the ONLY thing that TUSC says about war is that "Congress has the authority to declare war" but I have been told that the Iraq resolution is not a DoW...that the Iraq resolution does not follow the Constitutional protocol.

So I pulled out my copy of TUSC from my desk and looked through it again but all I could find is that "Congress has the authority to declare war".

I could not find any template for what a DoW must/should say...

I could not find any protocol for delcaring war...

I could not find any standard that must be met before declaring war....

But again I was told that the Iraq resolution is not a DoW...that the Iraq resolution does not follow the Constitutional protocol.

So I went on line and searched through the on-line version of TUSC.....

But to my surprise....

I could not find any template for what a DoW must/should say...

I could not find any protocol for delcaring war...

I could not find any standard that must be met before declaring war....

All that I could find was that "Congress has the authority to declare war".

I asked myself how on Earth could this be????

I am told that the Iraq resolution does not fit the Constitutional protocol for declaring war.

I am told that the Iraq resolution does not fit the template for a DoW.

I was thinking about this today and it dawned on me.....

I must not have accurate copies of TUSC.

The copy that I have sitting in my desk must not be complete.

I realize that I printed it up several years ago and I either lost the pages that contain the template for a DoW and the protocol for going to war or for some reason my PC simply didn't download them properly.

But what about the on-line version of TUSC???

That took me awhile to figure out and I have to admit that I am embarrassed that I didn't think of it before.

It was so obvious.....

Bush hired a computer hacker to remove the pages of TUSC that have the template of a DoW and the protocol for declaring war.

So for all those that I have been going back and forth with....

I am sorry....

But I have a favor to ask.

Could you please post the constitutional template for a DoW and the protocol for declaring war.

Or at least could you please post a link to the COMPLETE TUSC that hasn't had pages removed by Bush.

IF I am going to debate TUSC I need to have the COMPLETE US Constitution and clearly mine is not comlete.

I look forward to reading the template for a DoW and seeing the protocol for declaring war...
 
  2007-05-10 02:57:24 PM  
dottedmint

Yeah you're a real comedian.

Just saying, you can't have it both ways. You can't say the AUMF "looks like a declaration of war" while simultaneously arguing that there is no such thing as a protocol on "how to go to war."

By the way, what (in your opinion) is a valid way to resolve constitutional ambiguities? Maybe, say, looking at past declarations of war? Maybe ones that even occurred soon after the Constitution was drafted? Under Presidents that actually participated in drafting the Constitution? I don't know, call me crazy I guess... but that seems to be the way everyone that actually knows anything about the Constitution usually goes about it. Like this one:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That war be and the same is hereby declared to exist between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the dependencies thereof, and the United States of America and their territories; and that the President of the United States is hereby authorized to use the whole land and naval force of the United States to carry the same into effect, and to issue to private armed vessels of the United States commissions or letters of marque and general reprisal, in such form as he shall think proper, and under the seal of the United States, against the vessels, goods, and effects of the government of the said United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and the subjects thereof."

That was the War of 1812. Enacted during the Presidency of James Madison. Surely a Constitutional Scholar such as yourself is well aware of who James Madison is, right?

Notice the difference? Congress declaring war. Not a spineless Congress pussyfooting around and saying "well Mr. President, you can use the military IF you deem it necessary but we'd like you to try diplomacy first. Pretty please?"

I am not really blaming Bush for this particular issue, but rather the spineless fools in Congress who didn't have the guts to question the President on his completely baseless claims, and instead shirked their Constitutional responsibilities and passed the torch to the President based on nothing more than a fear of being unpopular in the polls. Disgusting.

Hopefully this side-argument will die, and we can get back to discussing the abject failure of the Bush administration to accomplish anything in Iraq and their deception and lies in the lead-up to war.
 
  2007-05-10 06:33:40 PM  
Cleveland-Steamer: the spineless fools in Congress who didn't have the guts to question the President on his completely baseless claims, and instead shirked their Constitutional responsibilities and passed the torch to the President based on nothing more than a fear of being unpopular in the polls. Disgusting.

I have to admit I really don't understand the conventional wisdom that allows for ignoring the Constitutional phrase "The Congress shall have power...to declare war".

A Resolution is neither necessary nor proper if a war has not been declared.

Congress acted on its own authority and outside the protocols of the Constitution.

Hopefully this side-argument will die

There is still something incredibly audacious about our government making it easy to have a "war" on demand, ignoring international law and continuing to degrade the world's respect of this country.
 
  2007-05-10 10:12:02 PM  
Well....wait aminute guys....

I'm still waiting for the complete copy of TUSC....

Obviously I can't debate Constitutional issues if I don't have a complete copy of TUSC.

I want to read specifically where the protocol for declaring war is spelled out in TUSC.

I want to see the Constitutional template for a DoW.

Obviously "The Congress shall have power...to declare war" can't be all that is in TUSC.

It must have that template and the protocol for declaring war in it...

Right???

I await either the posting of these items or the posting of the link to the complete TUSC so that I can continue this discussion.
 
  2007-05-13 03:18:08 AM  
dottedmint: Well....wait aminute guys....

I'm still waiting for the complete copy of TUSC....


Wow, talk about going off on a tangent.

Please make your point so the rest of us can comment, mmkay?
 
  2007-05-13 07:11:29 AM  
My point??????

I thought my point was rather clear.

I have been told that the Iraq resolution is not a DoW...that the Iraq resolution does not follow the Constitutional protocol for going to war.

I have checked my copy of The US Constitution several times and the only thing that I could find is....

"The Congress shall have power ..... To declare war..."

This could only mean that my copy of TUSC is incomplete and I am hoping someone in here will provide either a the text of the template for a DoW and the text of the protocol for going to war OR I hope someone will provide me a link to a complete copy of TUSC.

OR could it just possibly be that my copy of TUSC is complete and that there is NO template for a Dow and NO Constitutional protocol for going to war?
 
  2007-05-13 07:15:36 PM  
Well, color me dense and call me a fence, I was under the impression that congress chickened out and handed the war baton over to Bush. All through early 2003(Jan,Feb and early March) congress had more than enough info at their disposal to know that invading Iraq was not the only alternative to squelching Saddam. Too bad it wasn't politically smart to rescind the 'authority to use force' measure if Bush continued ramping up for Iraq. Far easier to use the purposefully manipulated crap from Cheney's little war cabinet, and tell anyone who would listen that they went by the intel they were given.
 
  2007-05-13 11:33:00 PM  
dottedmint: OR could it just possibly be that my copy of TUSC is complete and that there is NO template for a Dow and NO Constitutional protocol for going to war?

"The Congress shall have power...to declare war."

That's the protocol. You keep defending police actions, which are not spelled out in the Constitution, and really, it doesn't take rubbing two brain cells together to figure out that this "war" wasn't brought about through official channels but by misinterpreting Article I to mean that declaring a war is the same as funding a police action. They aren't the same.

This "war" is illegal under the Constitution: it was not declared by Congress as required.

To disagree with this means interpreting the Constitution outside standards.

Maybe it's one of Bush's "signing statements"?

So, let's recap Iraq:

1. NO WMDs found

2. Iraq was not a threat

3. The UN voted against the Resolution

4. Bush ignores the no vote, convinces Congress to fund a military action with a rogue so-called "Coalition of the Willng" against Constitutional protocols and in violation of international law.

5. Shortly after Baghdad fell, the insurgency broke out.

6. Quagmire

This is what you're defending, dottedmint.
 
  2007-05-14 06:54:24 AM  
Whidbey: "The Congress shall have power...to declare war."

That's the protocol.


OH..........

So where is the Constitutional template for a DoW?

I've always said that TUSC says that Congress has the power "to declare war".

The problem is that there is no template for how a DoW must be written.

There is no definition of what a DoW must include.

In order for you to say that the Iraq resolution violates the "Constitutional protocol" you need to show how TUSC defines or says a DoW must be written.

What is a "war"???

Using the military to blow things up and kill people....

Right?
 
  2007-05-14 02:10:13 PM  
dottedmint:

In order for you to say that the Iraq resolution violates the "Constitutional protocol" you need to show how TUSC defines or says a DoW must be written.

I really don't. You seem to think that not declaring a war is a fine and acceptable policy despite what the Constitution requires. That's our big disconnect.

What is a "war"???

I don't know. We haven't actually had one since 1941...:)

Using the military to blow things up and kill people....

Your cynical opinion. My point is that Congress ignored official protocol and voted to fund a police action.

So where is the Constitutional template for a DoW?

How many times are you going to keep asking about this and actually address my points?
 
  2007-05-14 07:49:50 PM  
dottedmint

Do you agree that it is proper look to historical precedent to resolve questions of Constitutional interpretation?
 
  2007-05-14 11:25:39 PM  
whidbey: I really don't. You seem to think that not declaring a war is a fine and acceptable policy despite what the Constitution requires. That's our big disconnect.

"What the Constitution REQUIRES????"

As I have pointed out the ONLY thing that TUSC says is that Congress has the power to declare war.

There are NO requirements that are set out in TUSC.



What is a "war"???

I don't know. We haven't actually had one since 1941...:)

You don't know what it is to be at war????

Gee....typically one country uses their military to attack another country....

Cleveland-Steamer: "Do you agree that it is proper look to historical precedent to resolve questions of Constitutional interpretation?"

Well.....The War Powers Act has set a new precedent....
 
  2007-05-15 01:15:51 AM  
dottedmint: As I have pointed out the ONLY thing that TUSC says is that Congress has the power to declare war.

Then why do you think it's all right to ignore this power?

There are NO requirements that are set out in TUSC.

They have the power to declare war. A police action is not a war, and it is not covered under Constitutional protocol.

You don't know what it is to be at war????

I know the conflict in Iraq isn't is illegal under the laws of our land and also under international law. It was dishonestly crafted, and the American people were lied to. What kind of "war" is that? Why do you support it?

The War Powers Act has set a new precedent

In allowing the Congress to abuse its powers. Why do you support dishonest policy? They drafted the War Powers Act to cover their asses for Vietnam. Post partum.

I think it's time you reconsider your support, seriously. Go back over the steps and if you're somehow not convinced Bush and Cheney are war criminals, try it again a few times.

And what's more, World War II is the "precedent" for war. We were attacked by an enemy who was allied with an enemy to take over the world. Not the piecemeal political vendetta we're seeing in the Middle East.

I'm sorry, man, but your arguments are just too easy to see through. You either support what's bad about all this or no. There is no "good" middle ground.
 
  2007-05-15 10:19:57 PM  
Whidbey: Then why do you think it's all right to ignore this power?

Since TUSC does not say what a DoW must say or what steps Congress must take in order to declare war I'm not sure this power is being ignored.


They have the power to declare war. A police action is not a war, and it is not covered under Constitutional protocol.

Again as I said above....

There is no Constitutional definition of a DoW.

There is no Constitutional protocol for declaring war.

There isn't even a Constitutional defintion of "WAR".


I know the conflict in Iraq isn't is illegal under the laws of our land and also under international law. It was dishonestly crafted, and the American people were lied to. What kind of "war" is that?

Dropping 1,000 lb bombs on buildings is not a "police action".

Launching rockets at enemy instalations is not a "police action".

Handing out speeding tickets would be a "police action".

Arresting drunk drivers would be a "police action".

We went to WAR with Iraq.

The War Powers Act has set a new precedent

In allowing the Congress to abuse its powers. Why do you support dishonest policy? They drafted the War Powers Act to cover their asses for Vietnam. Post partum.


Since Congress had the authority to establish The War Powers Act it wouldn't really be an abuse of their powers.
 
  2007-05-15 10:57:40 PM  
dottedmint: Since TUSC does not say what a DoW must say or what steps Congress must take in order to declare war I'm not sure this power is being ignored.

You don't seem to want to err on the side of caution, dottedmint. That's what's disturbing to me.

The Constitution gives the Congress the power to declare war, and your answer is:

"So what? They don't have to."

I find that disturbing, especially for someone who claims to be some sort of Constitutional aficionado.

Dropping 1,000 lb bombs on buildings is not a "police action, [etc]

Wrong. Any military action without a declaration is exactly that.

A police action is by definition

"a localized military action undertaken without a formal declaration of war."

Simple dictionary definition.

We went to WAR with Iraq.

Wrong. We invaded them, ignoring both Constitutional protocol and international law. And you're not making much of a convincing counterpoint.

Since Congress had the authority to establish The War Powers Act it wouldn't really be an abuse of their powers.

They no such authority. Their actions were also in violation of Article I, Section I of the Constitution.

And I'm still waiting to hear why you defend these abuses of power.

What's in it for you, for me and America when we ignore the Constitution when convenient?
 
  2007-05-16 12:33:03 AM  
dottedmint: Well.....The War Powers Act has set a new precedent....

I'm confused, because the War Powers act doesn't define what a "declaration of war" is, which seems to be the big thing you have a problem with. Precedent for "declarations of war" comes from, surprise surprise, declarations of war.

On another note, why are you even bringing the Act up? The War Powers act tries to more firmly establish Congressional control over our military and was enacted by Congress as a Joint Resolution OVER Nixon's veto due to exactly the kind of scenario that is playing out right now, although this time around the quagmire was Vietnam. The Act specifically tries to carve out and maintain Congressional control over declaring war and in general dictating where and when and how long we use our military.

No President has ever admitted it's constitutional. Several, including Clinton and Bush, have actually said it doesn't apply to them. If you're trying to argue for more power to the Executive for war mongering, the War Powers act doesn't help you very much.

So I'll rephrase my original question: Do you think looking at past declarations of war is a valid method of determining what a declaration of war is?
 
  2007-05-18 11:31:25 AM  
dottedmint: Since TUSC does not say what a DoW must say or what steps Congress must take in order to declare war I'm not sure this power is being ignored.

Whidbey: You don't seem to want to err on the side of caution, dottedmint. That's what's disturbing to me.

I am interested in following what TUSC says and perhaps MORE IMPOPRTANTLY what it DOES NOT SAY.

TUSC does NOT say what a DOW must say.

TUSC does NOT have a 'protocol' for going to war.

The Constitution gives the Congress the power to declare war, and your answer is:

"So what? They don't have to."


Do us both a favor and don't put words in my mouth.

I find that disturbing, especially for someone who claims to be some sort of Constitutional aficionado.

But you see.... I'm not the one claiming TUSC says things that it doesn't.

A police action is by definition

"a localized military action undertaken without a formal declaration of war."

Simple dictionary definition.


Here is a simple dictionary definition of WAR:

1 a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : STATE OF WAR b : the art or science of warfare c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war
2 a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end


Please note that it says "usually open and declared".

Saying "usually" means that sometimes it is NOT "open and declared".

Hypothetical:

Let's say 50 years in the future we are attacked by ...say... China. In a sneak attack they blow up DC with a mushroom cloud. All of Congress is gone. The President is luckily out of town. China does not want to use nukes on any other areas because they don't want to make this country uninhabitable so they would use conventional attacks on the rest of the country.

Obviously we manage to launch a nuke or two against china but eventually things end up being a conventional conflict.

Are we at "WAR"?

Congress was never able to "declare war" as you put it.

Would this hypothetical be nothing more than a "police action"?

They no such authority. Their actions were also in violation of Article I, Section I of the Constitution.

And I'm still waiting to hear why you defend these abuses of power.


Article 1, Section 8 says that

"Congress shall have power...."

"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."


One of the "foregoing powers" is "to declare war".

And one of the "other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States" would be the power of "Commander in Chief" that the President has.

C-S: I'm confused, because the War Powers act doesn't define what a "declaration of war" is, which seems to be the big thing you have a problem with. Precedent for "declarations of war" comes from, surprise surprise, declarations of war.

I am only pointing out that precedents change over time.

On another note, why are you even bringing the Act up? The War Powers act tries to more firmly establish Congressional control over our military and was enacted by Congress as a Joint Resolution OVER Nixon's veto due to exactly the kind of scenario that is playing out right now,

The scenario now is that Congress authorized the use of the military.

In Korea and Vietnam there was no DoW but there was also no authorization to use the military.

The WPA basically says a President can't use the military without at least Congressional approval.

This gets us away from situations like Korea and Vietnam.

"If you're trying to argue for more power to the Executive for war mongering, the War Powers act doesn't help you very much.

I have never argued that the President should have more power for "war mongering".

The WPA makes sure that Congress has a say in going to war.

So I'll rephrase my original question: Do you think looking at past declarations of war is a valid method of determining what a declaration of war is?

As I said before...

Precedents change.....
 
  2007-05-18 04:52:39 PM  
dottedmint: Do us both a favor and don't put words in my mouth.

Don't deny it. That's exactly what you're saying. You want to erode Constitutional protocol to satisfy a warmonger. The truth hurts, I'd say.

But you see.... I'm not the one claiming TUSC says things that it doesn't.

But you think we can go to "war" without it.

Are we at "WAR"?

You're painting a hell of a lot more compelling scenario than the embarrassment that is Iraq. Apples and pistachios.

And even so, I would have problems with the United States going it alone. I would hope the rest of the world would condemn such an action, and the response would be an international one. I strongly object to the United States thinking it's the only country that matters, hence it makes all the big military decisions.

But specifically in this scenario, Bush had no real justification to invade, so he had to invent one.

And it's funny how this has become the "Iraq War Forum."

Funny, because this boils down to the actual reasons why Bush should be impeached and charged with war crimes more than any of the other shenanigans we've had to endure these past six years.

But dottedmint you really haven't much of a good job as to why we should be defending these despicable actions. Bush, Cheney and whatever shadow forces that use them as mouthpieces should be charged with treason.
 
  2007-05-18 08:13:21 PM  
dottedmint: In Korea and Vietnam there was no DoW but there was also no authorization to use the military.

Bzzzt. Half points. There was the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which from what I know was largely similar, if not the exact same in principle, to the Iraq AUMF.

Korea was a UN resolution, so yeah that's even worse by my standards. But maybe by yours that's even better? I mean, the Constitution doesn't say what war is, so who cares right? I mean, if it isn't in the Constitution, it must not exist!
 
  2007-05-18 08:57:16 PM  
Cleveland-Steamer: Korea was a UN resolution, so yeah that's even worse by my standards

A resolution makes more sense if it's done as an international body like the United Nations.

But I really don't see how this country can get away with committing what amounts to the trappings of "war" without going through the prescribed motions.

I'd like to know why it just can't be done the way it was intended. If we really had the justification and the compelling need, then why didn't Congress declare war on Iraq?

The precedents mentioned here haven't been called out as un-Constitutional and Presidents since World War II have been getting away with abusing the system. It doesn't matter if Congress merely agrees to the funding, what they are doing violates the spirit of the Constitution, no matter.
 
  2007-05-19 05:35:12 PM  
Whidbey: "The Constitution gives the Congress the power to declare war, and your answer is:

"So what? They don't have to."

Don't deny it. That's exactly what you're saying. You want to erode Constitutional protocol to satisfy a warmonger. The truth hurts, I'd say."


Not exactly...

As I have said countlessly TUSC ONLY says that Congress has the power to declare war.

No matter what you may suggest, it does NOT say what a DoW must say.

I am arguing that when Congress passed the Iraq Resolution that they did indeed pass a DoW.

The wording may be different than what you are saying TUSC requires for a DoW but the end result (WAR) is the same.

"But you think we can go to "war" without it."

See above.

"And even so, I would have problems with the United States going it alone."

As I pointed out before, we DIDN'T.

"Bush, Cheney and whatever shadow forces that use them as mouthpieces should be charged with treason."

Shadow forces????

Gee....Whidbey....

You are sounding like a conspiracy nut....

BTW...

Was my hypothetical an example of a "WAR" or would it be a "POLICE ACTION"?

Congress is 'vaporized' in a sneak attack and never is able to "declare war" but we find ourselves in a bloody military conflict lasting several years....

"war" ???

"police action" ???

C-S: "I mean, the Constitution doesn't say what war is, so who cares right? I mean, if it isn't in the Constitution, it must not exist!"

IF something is NOT in TUSC (such as a definition for a DoW) it is a lie to say/suggest that TUSC has a definition of a DoW.

OH....I also noticed nobody responded to the fact that Article 1, Section 8 of TUSC gave Congress the authority to enact The War Powers Act.
 
  2007-05-19 06:48:52 PM  
dottedmint: No matter what you may suggest, [the Constution] does NOT say what a DoW must say.

I don't know why you keep harping on this. The point is that no DoW was used regarding Iraq, or even considered. Why that doesn't bother you is puzzling.

I am arguing that when Congress passed the Iraq Resolution that they did indeed pass a DoW.

I don't see any basis for that argument, nor do I understand why a "resolution" passes for a declaration. The fact is, it doesn't. It gives the impression that Congress is not comfortable with actually declaring a war, hence the suspicion that, at the very heart of it, this isn't one. It's dishonest and irresponsible.

Was my hypothetical an example of a "WAR" or would it be a "POLICE ACTION"?

It's a "police action." War was not declared.

we find ourselves in a bloody military conflict lasting several years....

And we'd be defending ourselves in an invasion scenario, which is Constitutionally covered. Iraq is not a war of defense, it is an opportunistic bout of empire-building.

Shadow forces????Gee....Whidbey....
You are sounding like a conspiracy nut.


Bush and Cheney are mouthpieces for groups that have tried to get this government to invade the Middle East for years. Google the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) if you don't believe me.

The insinuation that the very idea to nose around in a region where we don't belong should disgust you. Really, I thought Republicans such as yourself believed in an isolationist philosophy. But it's pretty clear that you must be a neo-con, dottedmint. You don't mind the government interfering in our lives if there can be an argument made for "public safety" in the event of possible "terrorism."

I also noticed nobody responded to the fact that Article 1, Section 8 of TUSC gave Congress the authority to enact The War Powers Act.

No, I did notice it, and it gives no such authorization to circumvent the Constitutional protocol of declaring war by passing an euphemistic "resolution" whenever convenient. The Elastic Clause does not mean "Congress can do whatever the hell it wants whenever it feels like it."
 
  2007-05-19 06:57:40 PM  
dottedmint: OH....I also noticed nobody responded to the fact that Article 1, Section 8 of TUSC gave Congress the authority to enact The War Powers Act.

I don't see anything in Article 8 about drafting legislation for war powers. I don't see anything in Article 8 about giving the President authority to use the armed forces without a declaration of war. I don't see anything in Article 8 about giving the President the authority to use the armed forces for 30 days before providing a reason to Congress for why he did so. Hmmm interesting maybe my Constitution is incomplete, obviously I can't debate this with you until you provide me with a full version yada yada yada blah blah blah.

Like I said earlier, no one has actually proven the War Powers act to be constitutional. That's still up for debate.


whidbey: A resolution makes more sense if it's done as an international body like the United Nations.

I never thought about it that way, but that makes sense. Certainly it's better if the rest of the world agrees with you. (Although at the time of the Korean War, the Soviets and the other communists, which at that time comprised half of the world, either refused to vote on the Security Council (USSR) or didn't even have a vote so arguably we didn't have an international consensus even then. Although I guess its kinda hard to get Communists to agree you need to fight a war against Communism...)

But in a constitutional sense, like what we've been saying,a UN resolution as authorization for war, without Congress, is still arguably unconstitutional, if not undemocratic and irresponsible.
 
  2007-05-19 07:09:11 PM  
Cleveland-Steamer: no one has actually proven the War Powers act to be constitutional. That's still up for debate.

Sounds like a case of "Don't Ask--Don't Tell." Or, hey, since it's been around for 34 years, it must be all right...:)
 
  2007-05-19 08:34:00 PM  
Whidbey: "I don't see any basis for that argument, nor do I understand why a "resolution" passes for a declaration. The fact is, it doesn't."

That is your opinion and since TUSC does NOT say what is or is not a DoW your opinion is pointless.

You say it was NOT a DoW and I say it WAS a DoW and since there is no Constitutional definition to determine who is right we will never get past this point.

"Was my hypothetical an example of a "WAR" or would it be a "POLICE ACTION"?

It's a "police action." War was not declared.

we find ourselves in a bloody military conflict lasting several years....

And we'd be defending ourselves in an invasion scenario, which is Constitutionally covered."

OH....?!?!?!

But according to you "police actions" are NOT covered by TUSC.

This means that we would be at "WAR" even without a DoW...

IF it was a "police action" then obviously it would NOT be covered by TUSC....

"No, I did notice it, and it gives no such authorization to circumvent the Constitutional protocol of declaring war by passing an euphemistic "resolution" whenever convenient."

"Congress shall have power...."

"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

Declaring war would be one of the "foregoing powers" and Congress has the power to make "all laws" for carrying into execution that power.

Since TUSC does NOT spell out a "protocol" for going to war Congress has the authority to make a law that does indeed spell out a "protocol" for going to war.

C-S: "Like I said earlier, no one has actually proven the War Powers act to be constitutional. That's still up for debate."

Actually until it is proven to be UNconstitutional it stands.... And the fact that after all these years nobody has found it to be Unconstitutional I wouldn't hold my breath for it....


 
  2007-05-19 08:51:33 PM  
dottedmint: You say it was NOT a DoW and I say it WAS a DoW and since there is no Constitutional definition to determine who is right we will never get past this point.

You need to concede that it isn't. A declaration of war would have the intended "declaration" within. A resolution is not a declaration of war. Your point fails by simple semantics.

But according to you "police actions" are NOT covered by TUSC.

In your scenario, you described an emergency situation where the United States was attacked. Iraq is not that situation.
No one was attacked, no emergency. Pretty simple.

Declaring war would be one of the "foregoing powers" and Congress has the power to make "all laws" for carrying into execution that power.

It's not a war unless it's declared. Otherwise, it's a military police action. And again, passing a war resolution in place of a formal declaration cheapens the process. Congratulations. Military action is so much easier to "authorize."

Why do you defend it? The question you haven't answered.

Actually until it is proven to be UNconstitutional it stands.

That's a cop-out. Do you automatically support every law in America simply because it is on the books? Obviously there is a moral and ethical question here you don't seem to have.

Apparently, the Constitution is a living document to you that can be cut up and loosely interpreted when convenient.
 
  2007-05-19 11:21:33 PM  
Whidbey: "You need to concede that it isn't.

Hardly.....

A declaration of war would have the intended "declaration" within. A resolution is not a declaration of war. Your point fails by simple semantics.

My point stands that TUSC does NOT have a definition of or a template for a DoW.

You can say that a DoW MUST say 'THIS' or 'THAT' but TUSC does not support your claim.

In your scenario, you described an emergency situation where the United States was attacked. Iraq is not that situation.
No one was attacked, no emergency. Pretty simple.


But you said this situation would be a "police action" because it was NOT declared while you also had said earlier that TUSC does NOT cover "police actions".

2007-05-15 01:15:51 AM They have the power to declare war. A police action is not a war, and it is not covered under Constitutional protocol.

So how exactly could my example be a "police action" when you said "police actions" are not covered under Constitutional protocol???

It's not a war unless it's declared. Otherwise, it's a military police action. And again, passing a war resolution in place of a formal declaration cheapens the process. Congratulations. Military action is so much easier to "authorize."

Since TUSC does NOT define/spell out how Congress should/must goto war Congress passed a law that spells out specifically how this country goes to war.

"That's a cop-out. Do you automatically support every law in America simply because it is on the books? Obviously there is a moral and ethical question here you don't seem to have.

Not at all.

There are all sorts of laws and even judicial rulings that I question but until they are overturned they are the law.

UNTIL The War Powers Act is ruled UNconstitutional it stands as Constitutional and is a valid legislative protocol to follow.

You can disagree with it all you want but until the courts rule it as being illegal it is LEGAL.
 
  2007-05-20 12:28:04 AM  
dottedmint: My point stands that TUSC does NOT have a definition of or a template for a DoW.

You're repeating yourself. We do not need a template for a DoW. To insist so is irrelevant to the argument. Again, I refer you to the 1941 declaration against Japan.

Nor do we need a definition. What we need is for Congress to DECLARE war, not pass a "resolution" in its stead. There is nothing in the Constitution that allows Congress to skirt their forgoing powers. If Congress is expected to declare war, it shouldn't be trying to anything less than that. That's my point.

So how exactly could my example be a "police action" when you said "police actions" are not covered under Constitutional protocol???

Why do you insist on comparing two different scenarios of varying degree?

In an emergency situation, the United States is Constitutionally committed to protecting the states because of invasion. Article 4. I'm sure that in such an event you described, habeas corpus would also be suspended and martial law would be declared. You need to see the difference between a national catastrophe and an offensive military campaign like the Iraq military action.

There are all sorts of laws and even judicial rulings that I question but until they are overturned they are the law.

But I don't really see you questioning anything.

Our government violated our trust and also circumvented Constitutional protocol to their advantage. It's not merely my opinion, there is enough of a case to warrant impeachment.
 
  2007-05-20 01:12:20 AM  
dottedmint

You are aware that the War Powers act is not a "law" correct? You understand the difference between a Joint Resolution and a "law?"

dottedmint: UNTIL The War Powers Act is ruled UNconstitutional it stands as Constitutional and is a valid legislative protocol to follow.

That's great-- little problem though, we aren't following it right now. Read the act and then get back to me on how Congress and the President are actually following that right now.

Don't you think that if the War Powers act had any actual authority, we wouldn't be having this silly little dance we are now having with Congress wanting a pull out date and the president saying no? The WPA EXPLICITLY PROVIDES that Congress can order our troops out after a certain amount of time. Why isn't that happening? Because they are scared that if they test the WPA, it'll be proven wrong.

So if we aren't even using the WPA right now, what good is it then? It's worthless.
 
  2007-05-20 11:24:28 AM  
C-S: "You are aware that the War Powers act is not a "law" correct? You understand the difference between a Joint Resolution and a "law?""

Not a "law"????

Of course it is a "law".

It is recorded as "Public Law 93-148".

The fact that the President did not sign it does not make it any less of a law.

The President vetoed it and then Congress overrode his veto and passed it.

If you insist on calling it a resolution. Sobeit...

It does not change the fact that until the WPA is ruled UNconstitutional it stands as VALID legislative protocol for going to war.

"That's great-- little problem though, we aren't following it right now. Read the act and then get back to me on how Congress and the President are actually following that right now.

?!?!?!?

The WPA was the basis for the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

"The WPA EXPLICITLY PROVIDES that Congress can order our troops out after a certain amount of time."

Really???

I've read through the WPA several times in debating this situation and I don't recall seeing what you are claiming.

I admit that since there is alot of legal doubletalk I easily could have missed it but could you please provide the specific section where your claim can be backed up.

Whidbey: "In an emergency situation, the United States is Constitutionally committed to protecting the states because of invasion. Article 4. I'm sure that in such an event you described, habeas corpus would also be suspended and martial law would be declared. You need to see the difference between a national catastrophe and an offensive military campaign like the Iraq military action."

But you had once told me that "police actions" are NOT covered by Constitutional Protocol. I beleive that you had ever pointed out that TUSC doesn't even mention "police actions".

So explain how my situation could be a "police action" and still be Constitutionally permitted.

You had told me that TUSC does NOT permit "police actions".

Now it does????

Every citizen in the US who would see this country being invaded by China would clearly say we were at WAR....Congress or no Congress....
 
  2007-05-20 04:14:41 PM  
dottedmint: But you had once told me that "police actions" are NOT covered by Constitutional Protocol. I beleive that you had ever pointed out that TUSC doesn't even mention "police actions"

A "police action" was some BS Truman came up with because his administration decided that the public wouldn't be comfortable with the notion of a war in Korea. So they set the stage for Presidents to order sporadic military activity. That's what's happened since WWII.

Every citizen in the US who would see this country being invaded by China would clearly say we were at WAR....Congress or no Congress....

Third time, dottedmint: your scenario is NOT Iraq, it is a national emergency covered by Article IV of the Constitution. Iraq is not even the same ballpark.

Third time:
Iraq is not an emergency or an attack on the United States. It is an unauthorized police action. Why do you keep going back and forth with this?

Why can't you realize that the actions of this administration are not Constitutionally supported?

Just admit that you believe that the President has the power to call up military forces whenever he wants with little Constitutional authority? At least we'd be on the same page, then.
 
  2007-05-20 05:19:53 PM  
Whidbey: "Third time, dottedmint: your scenario is NOT Iraq, it is a national emergency covered by Article IV of the Constitution. Iraq is not even the same ballpark.

Article IV, Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.


Gee.....

Article IV says nothing about a "police action"....

So I ask again.

How can my example be a "police action" when you told me TUSC does NOT cover "police actions"?

This country would be defending itself against an invasion...

Would we be in a state of "war"

or...

Would we be in a state of "police action"

You had told me once that Congress does NOT have authority to fund a "police action"...

Now you are saying that they DO have authority to fund a "police action"...

It is one or the other....

Either TUSC covers "police actions" or it doesn't....

You can't have it both ways...

So again....

Is my example a "police action" or would we be at "war"???
 
  2007-05-20 06:50:33 PM  
dottedmint: How can my example be a "police action" when you told me TUSC does NOT cover "police actions"?

Doesn't matter, and thanks for missing the point the last few go-arounds...:)
 
  2007-05-20 07:27:41 PM  
LOL....

I didn't miss your point.

Not by a long shot....

You told me TUSC does NOT allow for a "police action".

You told me that Congress does NOT have the authority to fund a "police action".

But then you told me that my example would be a "police action" and would be allowed under TUSC.

You pointed to Article IV but failed to point out that Article IV does NOT even mention a "police action".

I understand that my example and Iraq would be two different situations.

But I am trying to get past your contradiction.

Either a "police action" is allowed by TUSC or it is NOT.

You basically ripped me a new one pointing out that TUSC does NOT allow for "police actions"...that Congress is ONLY allowed to declare wars and fund wars but now you say a "police action" would be allowed by TUSC.

Nope...I didn't miss your point...
 
Displayed 50 of 2661 comments

First | « | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | » | Last


 
   Forgot password? Create an account to make comments
  Use HTML Buttons
If you can see this, something's wrong with your browser's CSS support.
 
Before posting, please take a minute to review our posting rules and our legal/privacy policy.
By posting, you agree to these terms.
Got questions about Fark? See our FAQ.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report