posted on January 27, 2002 09:02:06 PM new"The President can direct troops to anywhere, but Congress has to maintain them."
Like KRS said (he beat me to it). Our Founding Fathers were as sick to death of single megalomaniacal leaders getting us into wars for fun and profit as were the nobles in getting King John to sign the Magna Carta (at sword point, BTW) limiting the power of Kings to commit and to conduct wars. The Big Idea is that Congress, being the representative of the People of the United States (not the corporate, Rich and Powerful interests ONLY), has all of the authority to commit troops and to conduct wars. Since more modern times, there has been given a little leeway for the President to mettle, Ronald Reagan being an obvious one (committing Federal Felonies and getting away with t in the process). This leeway keeps getting larger and larger each election cycle - like any loophole gets. It is time to close shut the loophole and CLEARLY DEFINE the "expanded" role of the Presidential power to act in times of national emergency (other than it already has).
"Why don't you write your Congressman?"
And why don't you read the Constitution?
sp.
[ edited by Borillar on Jan 27, 2002 09:06 PM ]
posted on January 27, 2002 09:36:22 PM new
Congress reserved for itself the sole right to DECLARE WAR. The President was given broad leway in the use of military power when the country OR ITS' CITIZENS was attacked or endangered. This was termed a defacto state of war. This has been done hundreds of times: Tripoli, Civil War, Philipines, Lebanon, etc, etc.
The War Powers Act was the real first limit on the President's military power in that he must consult Congress to commit troops and every six months he must file a report. If Congress votes to recall, he must recall.
George seems to have all the forms filled out properly so "illegal" this and "illegal" that seem mute.
posted on January 27, 2002 09:55:46 PM new
As stated earlier, Congress has the sole ability to declare war if it deems fitting to do so. They are NOT compelled to do so by the Constitution or any other rule of law. If they are, please post a relevent link.
The detainees in Guitmo are not Prisoners of War and they do not have to be classified as such. They are unlawful battlefield combatants (terrorists). They have NO protection under the Geneva Convention even though their treatment exceeds what would be required if they were.
These are the facts regardless of how much the America haters posting here wish they weren't.
I'll lay it all out here:
1 - The detainees will NEVER be declared POWs. You can take that to the bank.
2 - At the appropriate time they will be tries in military tribunals, not in civilian courts of law or courts martial.
3 - We'll "bomb the hell" out of any country tat is deemed to be in need of such by the President and his security and military advisors. The rest of the terrorists can look forward to a visit by the Special Forces.
4 - "Johnny Taliban" will be tried and convicted of several charges pending against him.
And for the benefit of Borillar, English is in fact the official language of the US, regardless of the non-sense spouted in the other thread. You can mark this down and remember it: English is the ONLY language that will EVER be used when conducting official US Government business. The American people won't have it any other way (not even the minority groups).
I was right about the outcome of the election last year. I'm right about this. Count on it...
posted on January 27, 2002 10:38:06 PM new
And yet during the white house celebration of cinco de mayo last year the resident gave an official speech completely in Spanish, considerately interpreted for those remaining non-spanish speaking Americans to aid in their understanding of what was said.
posted on January 28, 2002 07:38:56 AM new"The detainees in Guitmo are not Prisoners of War and they do not have to be classified as such. They are unlawful battlefield combatants (terrorists). They have NO protection under the Geneva Convention even though their treatment exceeds what would be required if they were.
These are the facts regardless of how much the America haters posting here wish they weren't."
I am not an American hater, but I'm not a total idiot either who automatically accepts whatever I'm told to accept. I think that is probably the most cherrished freedom we have and the most obvious thing that sets Americans apart from the rest of the world....We can question. Our leaders may not always be right. If we aren't happy with them we can make our dissatisfaction known at the voting booth.
The plain, unadorned truth is, we invaded Afganistan in an effort to apprehend a suspect believed to be responsible for the horrific 9/11 terrorist attack on our country. That was a decision made by our leader.
We started a "war" whether we want to admit it or not and I think we now have POW's to contend with. However, I am not a policy maker and my opinion makes absolutely no difference in how this will play out...but, when election time comes (provided we aren't all dead), I can vote my conscience.
Using the term unlawful battelfield combatants, to describe the Taliban would mean any soldier fighting would have to be considered a terrorist. Whether it be us or them.
posted on January 28, 2002 09:02:40 AM new
No, I believe we invaded Afgan. to shut down the Taliban terrorist networks, AND to find Bin Laden. To say that the Taliban probably had nothing to do with 9/11 twists all information learned and all the proven facts to support some kind of anti-American position. I am still mad as hell, and so is President Bush. If more terrorist camps, caves and training centers are found, they need to go the way of the previous ones found. And the next cave full of these Taliban terrorists we find, I wish the order would be "take no prizoners". That would satisfy the folks complaining about how they are held!
posted on January 28, 2002 11:20:16 AM new"To say that the Taliban probably had nothing to do with 9/11 twists all information learned and all the proven facts to support some kind of anti-American position."
I must have missed the presentation. Exactly what information and what proven facts are you referring to???
That the Taliban are anti-American? I will give you that. There are lots of folks in lots of countries that could be considered anti-American. Why there are even some of us Americans perceived as anti-American. That has been stated here already. But I firmly maintain (my opinion only) that there is a big difference in being anti-American and actually committing an act of terrorism against our country. That they committed acts of terrorism against their own people, and deserve to be punished, I won't argue, but who gets to judge?
To be honest, I don't know if the time is right for American to become the world's judge, jury and if need be, executioner. That is what we have gotten dangerously close to.
We can go from being a "hero" to being the "goat" real fast. I for one would like our country to remain a hero.
posted on January 28, 2002 11:40:24 AM new
Not even the administration describes any "taliban terrorist networks". They usually refer to al queda networks and those are not the same thing.
Not only that, US forces don't know which is which and have routinely depended on information from rival groups in trying to sort it out. The result is repeated killings af friendly afgani factions, as seems to have happened again just yesterday. http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,640507,00.html
note the phrase: "consistant with our intelligence" BWAA-HA! Intelligence-right.
posted on January 28, 2002 12:07:25 PM new
Taliban government, the Quaida terrorist networks and bin ladin's terrorists are all the same bunch. These terrorist camps simply could not have existed if the Taliban didn't complete support their objectives. To try to separate these tentacles of the same beast is what goes against everything we have learned. BTW, when routine punishment for minor infractions includes the amputation of limbs; yes, perhaps we do need to be involved as a world watchdog. Flame away, I'll not return to comment anymore.
posted on January 28, 2002 01:12:36 PM new
The world is a different place than when guys used to line up and shoot at each other. Conventions are out the windows. With a foe that seeks no material gain or follows the path of committing crimes that are unthinkable in the modern world, the only solution is to identify the source and seal with it massively. There can be no half measures.
These people exist because they operate in places which allow them to. We know where they trained, where the money came from, and I'm sure much, much more than has been released.
It doesn't make a difference that the merely "protected" their "guests". If you drive the getaway car you're equally guilty in the holdup.
The ex-president of Iran (you know the "moderate" one) was giving a speech the other day where he advocated acquiring nuclear weapons because Israel was a small country and could be easily wiped out, while the Arabs with their large populations could more easily absorb Israel's nuclear might.
Now of course, several members here could argue that we must extend an olive branch to Iran or "open a dialog" or send them sweets or something. And I'm sure it matters to them that if Iran did use a nuclear weapon, the PEOPLE there would just hate it and disapprove, but it doesn't matter to me.
This "network" is contained all around the world by nations who would not dare be our enemy by themselves, but they harbour and support these terrorists. They go to places like the UN and play government and have meetings, vote on "conventions" and say "it ain't us, it those guys staying in our hotels." Indonesia alone is estimated to have 20% of its' military budget diverted to terrorists by the generals.
So our only choice is to tell these countries to end it or we have to kick the door in and do it ourselves. I think right know the host countries are thinking that we will do nothing further and are just marking time. The next target we hit massively will cause borders to close and terrorists to run from every hole.
posted on January 28, 2002 08:19:41 PM newMrBusinessMan: "They are NOT compelled to do so by the Constitution or any other rule of law. If they are, please post a relevent link."
Boy, the only, and I mean the ONLY poster in here who is fixated on "Congress being Compelled" is you. Why you keep bringing up this issue when no one else is beyond my comprehension.
"America haters posting here"
I'll say it again: when anyone has to resort to personal attacks in order to express their viewpoint, it really means that what they have to say is nothing at all and is wasting everyone else's time with their posts.
"And for the benefit of Borillar, English is in fact the official language of the US ..."
Um... gosh, yes, if you say so. My only remark in that thread was that I felt that a person's telephone account could signify their language preference in advance of automated responses. So, what's yer point?
"Friends don't let Friends vote Republican"
sp.
[ edited by Borillar on Jan 28, 2002 08:22 PM ]
posted on January 28, 2002 08:47:52 PM new
newly annouced in the wild is the toys r us virus worm combination which infects george bush dolls by deleting the enron file then the tequila worm penetrates the speech file where it infects the doll making it speak spanish to audiences opposed to illegal immigration and nafta then its email component attempts to reach every paper shredder in the world with the ignore my social secuirty wall street investment idea while viewing any remaining enron files. The drive can be cleaned with ventura.2004 anti virus program
