Pocono
|
posted on September 15, 2001 02:45:45 PM new
I agree with gaffen, get some sleep ken...
|
hepburn
|
posted on September 15, 2001 02:49:46 PM new
Burn some incense. It will make the snooze very peaceful and calming.
Count bonbons, not sheep. You can have my allotment.
[ edited by hepburn on Sep 15, 2001 02:50 PM ]
|
REAMOND
|
posted on September 15, 2001 02:52:22 PM new
Have we ever had a declaration of war or any other declaration that authorized "unnecessary" force ? This is basically a wide open declaration limited by only what is politically plausable.
What is "necessary" will be determined after the fact and will be politically defined by the politics of the time when it is questioned.
So what it means is that Bush can do anything which he can politically support with Congress.
Which also means he had better be successful with low casualities.
|
BufPuf
|
posted on September 15, 2001 02:53:28 PM new
What we witnessed on Black Tuesday were what I have coined as "Kamikaze Terrorists.
I think we need to tell the "Kamikaze Terrorists" "Don't Tread On Us." I have confidence in President Bush and others to do exactly that.
Revenge. No. Just to let them and other "enemies" that we mean business.
|
krs
|
posted on September 15, 2001 03:00:40 PM new
Yes, a declaration of war relinquishes all congressional control and it has been done before. A declaration of war would not include the wording "all necessary means" at all as by it's nature it gives up the ability of the congress to set that parameter.
|
spazmodeus
|
posted on September 15, 2001 03:09:50 PM new
Can the Rapture be far off?
|
toke
|
posted on September 15, 2001 03:10:13 PM new
So, krs...since,
"a declaration of war relinquishes all congressional control,"
do you want Bush to get one before proceeding against the terrorists?
|
krs
|
posted on September 15, 2001 03:12:58 PM new
No.
|
REAMOND
|
posted on September 15, 2001 03:17:11 PM new
A declaration of war has never reliquinished control by Congress of its Constitutionally mandated responsibilities.
A declaration of war allows the president to prosecute the war, but the Congress still controls the purse strings. The legs can be cut out from under the president at any time through the purse.
Bush has a declaration of war. There is no such thing as a declaration that authorizes "unnecessary" force.
Any act by Congress is only as good as the politics of the time will support. That includes war, impeachment, and any other act.
Declaration of War is an act for the president to do what ever he may think necessary to prosecute the war. And that is anything the Congress will ultimtely support.
It is politically interpreted.
[ edited by REAMOND on Sep 15, 2001 03:20 PM ]
|
Antiquary
|
posted on September 15, 2001 03:22:01 PM new
At present the phrase War on Terrorism is primarily rhetorical, much in the vein of War on Poverty or War on Drugs, etc. Let's hope that it's more successful.
|
BufPuf
|
posted on September 15, 2001 03:24:52 PM new
From my understanding the declaration of war
can be drafted with language the legislative branch and the president agrees upon.
for your information:
US Constitution Article 1, Section 1
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html
|
REAMOND
|
posted on September 15, 2001 03:29:23 PM new
That what I mean- it is a purely political question not subject to Supreme Court Review.
It is no different than the impeachment debate - an impeachable offence is anything that the Congress says it is.
The Congress next week could do a complete turn around and cut the legs out from under Bush.
If Bush totally screwed up they could impeach him.
The only thing that controls this is the voters. Congress acts to get re-elected.
|
krs
|
posted on September 15, 2001 03:42:11 PM new
not quite, reamond. a state of war allows the congress to relinquish any or all control over to the president. call it delegation if you like.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/41.html#18
As you'll see, it's been the subject of numerous reviews by the court, though not many on that specific point.
[ edited by krs on Sep 15, 2001 03:46 PM ]
|
gravid
|
posted on September 15, 2001 04:06:39 PM new
gaffan - Please elaborate what would be a reasonable middle course. I am not emotional about the issue at all so I can listen with an open mind. I just don't see a combination of moderate actions that would be effective. I would be very encouraged to see some examples.
|
REAMOND
|
posted on September 15, 2001 04:09:35 PM new
krs- The example you linked to doesn't apply to the issues and the newest case is the citation is 1961. The first law of legal research is make sure you're on point.
However what I am stating is that even if Congress were permitted to delegate their constitutional authority to Bush, which they can not necessarily do except under extraordinary situations, they could take it right back when they wanted to. That case law doesn't address this.
You said "relinquishes" (df- give up, abandon, surrender)which is not delegation.
I can delegate my secretary to pick up my mail, if I reliinquished that authority to my secretary, that means she has dominion over my mail, and I can't change it. By delegating that power, I can deny her the right to have possession of mail at any time.
Delegation of powers is a legal study unto itself. Especially when looking at the case law involving Federal agencies, Congress delegates huge Congressional responsibilities to Federal agencies.
In any event, Congress has never, and can not "relinquish" its constitutional powers and responsibilities to any other branch.
By the way, I don't want to call "relinquish" delegation, they are two very different things. Anytime you would like to relinquish your money to me I'll take, however, I don't want it delegated to me.
[ edited by REAMOND on Sep 15, 2001 04:12 PM ]
[ edited by REAMOND on Sep 15, 2001 04:23 PM ]
|
keziak
|
posted on September 15, 2001 04:21:49 PM new
Mostly I'm worried it's a trap. I don't know if it's a nuke-our-troops trap or some sort of diversion from what the terrorists really intend to do, or what. I have no way of knowing.
I also worry because I don't hear much analysis of what was happening about 2 years ago when this plot was apparently first hatched and some of the men arrived in the US. In many ways I fear that intelligence has failed, but it still seems utterly important to figure out motivations here. I am worried that in time we'll hear a lot of "we should have seen that coming"
keziak
|
REAMOND
|
posted on September 15, 2001 04:30:12 PM new
keziak- We've known their motivations for a long time, we just didn't pay attention to their abilities and the ends they would go to.
The next radical imam you hear calling us the great Satan and death to America, we'll know they mean it and will attempt to carry it out.
I too wonder if going into Pakistan and Afghanistan is not a trap.
|
REAMOND
|
posted on September 15, 2001 04:34:28 PM new
krs- I'll give you a first year law school hint; if you don't have the facts on your side, argue interpretation of the law; if you don't have either the facts or the law on your side, argue public policy.
|
pyth00n
|
posted on September 15, 2001 04:34:57 PM new
The following site has amongst a photographer's collection, a folio of over two dozen images of Afghanistan from the late 1970's. Surely some of the architecture must have been destroyed by the intervening Soviet invasion and civil warfare but the landscape will be the same. I found it interesting, perhaps some others might also.
http://cweb.middlebury.edu/cr/powell/index.htm
|
toke
|
posted on September 15, 2001 04:48:08 PM new
The photographs are gorgeous. Who knew? I sure didn't. Thank you.
|
SaraAW
|
posted on September 15, 2001 04:49:12 PM new
REAMOND,
Your Posting privileges have been Suspended for a period of 30 days.
Hate speach will not be tolerated on the AW Message Boards and your last post has been subsequently deleted.
Sara
[email protected]
|
toke
|
posted on September 15, 2001 05:05:53 PM new
Sara
Calling someone an a$$hole in the RT is commonplace. It hardly qualifies as "hate speech."
[ edited by toke on Sep 15, 2001 05:14 PM ]
|
gaffan
|
posted on September 15, 2001 05:10:44 PM new
Gravid, I just don't know. I don't think I'm qualified to state with certainty what the right set of responses would be. I suspect that nobody on the planet is, most of the posts to this and related threads notwithstanding.
That said, it appears to me that some of the more extreme actions being advocated here will do nothing more than ensure that the next generation of terrorists will be larger than the current one, and they'll have more on their list of resentments toward the US. Like dead families who did nothing more offensive to the US than to have been born in the wrong place. I have no idea how that can be considered a good thing. And to treat the killing of huge numbers of innocents as though it were somehow justified because "He hit me first" just doesn't cut it. Even the terminology distances the arguments from the reality. It's not "collateral damage". It's (at least) thousands more dead people.
What our options are and what they will be are very much dependent on the effectiveness of the first actions we take, and cooperation or lack of it we receive from the governments in the region. That's a dynamic thing, and it's going to be important to recognize that in the course of planning and execution. Some options disappear at the firing of the next shot, but more options may open as the process goes on, and offer a path out of this which none of us can see from our present vantage points. But taking the "Let's Make A Big Sheet o' Glass" approach precludes a lot of possibilities.
There exist paths through this which ultimately yield a world with a greater chance of long term peace. It's hard to see any from here and now; I'm just saying there's no reason to think that we'll know less tomorrow than we do today. Folks who've gotten whipped up into a blood-lust frenzy tend to be less able to recognize paths like that when the appear.
-gaffan-
[email protected]
|
Hjw
|
posted on September 15, 2001 05:11:44 PM new
Well, I'm sure that it's an opinion that all Americans share. REAMOND should not be suspended for such a remark!
Helen
|
SaraAW
|
posted on September 15, 2001 05:17:30 PM new
Please direct your questions and/or comments about moderation to the email address below.
I am re-reviewing the situation.
Thank you,
Sara
[email protected]
|
SaraAW
|
posted on September 15, 2001 05:22:27 PM new
BufPuf,
Your last post has been deleted - if you wish to dicuss moderation, please use the email address below.
Thank you,
Sara
[email protected]
|
BufPuf
|
posted on September 15, 2001 05:23:45 PM new
hjw I agree.
|
krs
|
posted on September 15, 2001 05:30:29 PM new
huh? Drive by posters always miss out.
|
SaraAW
|
posted on September 15, 2001 05:35:44 PM new
REAMOND,
After further review, I am retracting the words 'hate speach' from my previous moderation, and am reinstating your posting privileges with the understanding that we all must adhere to the Community Guidelines and inflammatory posts will be moderated accordingly.
Thank you for your understanding,
Sara
[email protected]
|
Microbes
|
posted on September 15, 2001 05:36:01 PM new
I don't think I'm qualified to state with certainty what the right set of responses would be.
Nor I. To much information we don't have. And if we DID have the information, we wouldn't be hanging around chat rooms talking about it. 
|
