posted on June 17, 2002 05:35:18 PM new
Oh and one last thing I'd like to share. On Fox News this weekend, Rita Cosby was interviewing clinton....and when asked how he felt President Bush was handling the war on terrorism...clinton said he too supported the way it's being handled.
On any major polling site...krs.
[ edited by Linda_K on Jun 17, 2002 05:36 PM ]
posted on June 17, 2002 06:05:02 PM new
The War Powers Act says that the President cannot maintain troops abroad without Congressional approval. So, there is a "violation" here somewhere?????
"the Supreme Court overstepped its' legal authority" Hmmmmm.
So the President is promolgating illegality, Congress is also illegal, and the Supreme Court is illegal.
Man, are you guys gonna have a problem.
Aurora
You constantly bring up the attack on the Liberty, which nobody here denies that I've seen. If this is a reason not to support the Israelis, wouldn't the WTC (twice), the Cole, the various embassies, the barracks, etc give the Arabs the big "win" in this type of contest?
posted on June 17, 2002 06:10:53 PM new
War Powers Resolution, SEC. 2. (c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
This little highlighted section above refers to the ability of the President to quickly respond to Acts of War against the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. This was written during the Cold-War and before the advent of the modern terrorist. It was thought that only a State could attack us; e.g. the Soviet Union, and that demanded a Quick and Timely response. In other words, if Russia was launching missles or China was landing troops on U.S. soil to invade, the President had to have the authority to act quickly and forcefully to counteract the attack at least as long as it took Congress to enact a State of War.
This is where Bush is wrong, I keep saying. We were attacked - sure. But the response was anything, but timely. We took our sweet time after identifying the culprit(s). We tried asking for the criminals, then we demanded them, then after months of preparation, we went and blew the hell out of them! This defies the intent of the War Powers Act and the United States Constitution!
posted on June 17, 2002 06:19:21 PM new>The real question is WHY didn't Congress simply Declare War on Afghanistan?
"Because after 9-11 it was determined that 60 different countries harbored terrorists. So why only focus on Afghanistan rather than making it an across-the-board 'any person/group' wishing to do what the terrorists did to the WTC will feel America's rath."
Linda, where did anyone ever say that since these terroroists were in over 60 different countries that we couldn't declare War on each of them if we had to? All Bush would have had to do was demand the criminals be turned over, like he did to the Taliban, and if they refuse, like the Taliban did, THEN Congress could have declared a legal State of War. And fter Afghanistan was done, as it is except for the mopping up, then we go on to Al-Queda Stronghold #2 - the Sudan, and make the same offer. If the Sudan refused, then we Declared War and LEGALLY went in and wiped them out and grabbed the criminals for ourselves. We do that over and over again and Delcare War on every country that refuses to give in. OR, Congress could have delcared that a State of War exists in the United States and that we are on a War footing. That wold be lame, but perhaps workable and certinaly better than nothing at all like we have now.
Please try a different answer to the question. This time, don't use the ridiculous baloney Bush is feeding you.
posted on June 17, 2002 06:22:18 PM new"The War Powers Act says that the President cannot maintain troops abroad without Congressional approval. So, there is a "violation" here somewhere?????"
"the Supreme Court overstepped its' legal authority" Hmmmmm."
"So the President is promolgating illegality, Congress is also illegal, and the Supreme Court is illegal."
"Man, are you guys gonna have a problem."
Still getting those headaches, DeSquirrel? Why don't you play like a nice boy and go hang out in the Lightbulbs thread and leave the Adult discussions to those that can comprehend them.
posted on June 17, 2002 06:32:25 PM new
"Man, are you guys gonna have a problem."
It started out with small things.
The government prints paper money instead of coining it, without seeking to change the constitution. They change the constitution to make income tax legal but the proper people never sign the documents and ratify it correctly. The social security number is used as a universal ID in exactly the way it is forbidden for it to be used.
After awhile of all these smaller infractions year by year weaken peoples perception of what is acceptable until it becomes acceptable to do whatever you want without even trying to put a face of legitimacy on it, and it becomes accepted that that is how it has to be for government to function.
Now the public perception is that the government can and will do whatever it pleases and nothing can or should be done about it because they are looking out for us.
Some have noticed they seem to be looking out for themselves pretty well along the way.
posted on June 17, 2002 08:40:12 PM new"I'm not the one making the imbecilic statements here"
I wouldn't be so sure of that. You did say "The War Powers Act says that the President cannot maintain troops abroad without Congressional approval. So, there is a "violation" here somewhere?????" didn't you?
Aside your imbecilic use of emphasis you said that without considering that the war powers resolution does stipulate that the president provide to the congress "the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement". I'm quite sure that statements such as those that the president has made on the subject of duration of hostilities, things like "a long time" or "will never end", or "for ever and ever" do not meet the intent of that restriction, so yes there probably is a violation such probability sufficient to render your question as stated imbecilic, I'd say.
That same resolution goes on to require of the president periodic reporting as well as renewal of approval to and by both houses of congress "Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces." Such reporting and renewal never have been reported to be done, the three relieving conditions have not occurred so unless you have direct knowledge that they have been done you are not once but twice imbecilic within a single statement of yours.
posted on June 17, 2002 09:18:22 PM new
You Know desquirrel you claim to be an educated person then trythis on for size. Just because I wan tthe government of Israel to turn over the thugs that murdered our servicemen does not mean I am taking sides.
What it mean is that I want the government of Israel to turn the murderers over for trial.
Somehow out of what I said you have managed to glean some sort of bastion of support for the arabs in general. This definitly shows that you have missed an awful lots of my posts.
I do not support heavily armed troops of any nation shooting a defenseless child in their umarmed parents arms I think this is Murder. I think someone who does this is a murderer and ought to be brought to trial for murder. I am not just selecting the little defenseless arab boy the entire world saw murdered I would not support it here, is say for example Lon Horiuchi used his position to Murder randy Weaver's wife and baby. and the government covered it up because they are not so much a big conspiracy as a bunch of Violent Jerks.
For the record i do not have this tunnel vision that says I must pick up paper and arrive at one of two preselected positions.
I would rather see the Chicago tribune or the Milwaukee journal sentinal pravda used as fish wrap bird cage liner or a bedding for a cat box.
This serious mental block you have is not an isolated incident it has caused a great country to lose 2 major wars in a row and to become stagnant in the growth of infrastructure and caring for the nations health.
The fact is that other than the pussbags that killed our soldiers I dont care what Israel and her neighbors do and neither do 98 percent of us we are sick of it and would like the media to change the channel. The problem is is that now both sides seek to bring this ancient bickering here, Guess what we dont want it and when it spills over into kiling our troops the middle class here wants our troops out of there.
A lot of think that we should erect a glazed surface 40,000 acre parking lot when bin laden shows his face.
and what exactly do you mean by support the Israelis let them continue to milk our treasury ? Go to hell. The supporters of both sides over there should be classified as agents acting in the favor of foreign governments and treated accordingly. If you want to give money to them go ahead dont ask for tax money, and if you want soldiers there send your familiy members. and if you want politician like this then go live there
cause it dont seem like heaven to the rest of us. Washington said avoid foreign entanglements the fact is is that since carter the money the clowns over there have bleed from our economy would pay off our national debt. This is bogus.
And yes there are several weirdos here that think this attack should continue to be covered up.
This is not some glib contest you adroit thinker. this is the future of democracy here right now,
posted on June 17, 2002 10:05:33 PM new
Did you guys all miss the Bill passed by Congress givng consent and funding for the war on terrorism?
Many of you keep referring to these hostilities as "Bush's War", when in fact the Congress has given its consent and funding for this war.
Bush has done nothing thus far without the consent and funding from Congress. There is nothing that has been done to offend the War Powers Act.
There is also a very good reason why the funds and consent for Bush to prosecute the war didn't name 60 countries, but instead terrorism.
First, it isn't necessary. Second, declaring war against a country rather than its terrorist elements may unnecessarily trigger treaties and/or cause groups not to participate. This would tie the hands for diplomatic and intellegence sources to perhaps prevent the introduction of US troops. As example,we would not be able to operate in Pakistan as we now are if we had declared war on Pakistan due to its terrorist contingents. The same would apply with Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Sudan. Murbarak of Egypt is cooperating and providing intellegence because he has as much to fear from the terrorists as we do, and there may be a situation in which we have to go into these countries to get the terrorists or the governments of these conutres. If we declared war, all cooperation would stop.
The war can only go on "forever" or for any period of time only as long as Congress funds and consents to such actions. The Vietnam and Korean wars went on only as long as it did because Congress and the President(s) allowed it to.
I am at a loss as how or why anyone could claim that this is "Bush's war" or that the Congress has not given its funding and consent.
The Congress also gives the Executive some discretion and oversight in these matters as Commander-in Chief. The President may move into areas not actually covered by the acts of Congress, and Congress may take no action and generally remain silent.
BUT, the President better be right and his tactics better be successful, or the Congress can pull the rug out from under him in a variety of ways. And as we saw in the Vietnam War, political pressures can end a presidency, such as Johnson's, as well as political careers of Congressmen.
I sure hope you all put as much energy into the upcoming Congressional elections.
posted on June 17, 2002 11:18:02 PM new
REAMOND, we're now repeating ourselves. I'm only going to respond to this last post of yours unless you come up with some new arguments.
"I am at a loss as how or why anyone could claim that this is "Bush's war" or that the Congress has not given its funding and consent."
That statement sums it all up for your position, which you detailed in the rest of that post. So let me explain it clearly for you.
First, IF Bush had pointed to Afghanistan and Congress had discharged its lawful duties and had declared War on Afghanistan at the time, none of this would be a problem. Bush had the complete backing of the American people to pursue these wrongdoers, even into multiple countries on multiple fronts if need be. Excluding China and Russia and India, we can wipe out any nation on this planet with our conventional weapons alone and possibly not lose a single man doing it. India would be harder, but I doubt that it would take long before they folded.
So, what kind of message does this send out to the rest of the world? It says, "We want your Al-Queda and any other person or group that we demand, and if you don't, you'll be gone before you can hit your rug to pray!"
After Afghanistan, the Sudan is the very next logical target to hit because it is the #2 Al-Queda spot on the planet. The government of Sudan, although as bad as the Taliban, was also trying to get somewhere with the West before Bush came onboard. It is only somewhat likely that after seeing the total annihilation of power in Afghanistan and the mopping up of holdouts and the minimal loss of life and materiels on the part of the USA, that the Sudan would commit suicide in the face of a determined United States, both government and its people and refuse to co-operate in handing over Al-Queda. And if they did not, we would declare War and do to them what we did to Afghanistan. The others would fold right away and declaring War from then on would not be necessary because it would just be a moping-up of the remnants of Al-Queda.
But Bush had other plans.
Bush and/or the group running him from behind got grandiose ideas. Instead of pursuing the next logical target right away, the Sudan, he/they thought about Bush, Sr.'s failure during the Gulf War by letting Sadaam Hussein stay in power. Well, now they had the American People right where they wanted them: ready and willing and almost total 100% backing, right from a quick and decisive victory, and they grew confident in themselves. Instead of pursuing the War on Terrorism, they turned back to harassing Sadaam. Bush, Jr. has been after Sadaam since he took office and now was his big chance.
Well, I'll just bet that Big Daddy stepped in and demanded that they get the cooperation of all of the surrounding régimes like Daddy did before they go waltzing in there. And this is the big mistake: it gave the Arab countries an excuse to trip up Bush & Co. by refusing to cooperate unless the endless, hopeless Palestinian problem could be resolved. Notice how at that point, the Palestinians redoubled their efforts to piss off Israel to go make matters worse by seeking necessary revenge, whereby atrocities could and did occur, thereby further derailing the so-called "War on Terrorism". It worked beautifully.
Now, here we are: Al-Queda has had a chance to regroup and to cause trouble. It's bases in the Sudan and other countries that support them are left largely untouched. The American People being excited to go get the next bunch of Wrongdoers has had to end up cooling their heels. In order to keep the American People busy, they distract them with constant attacks on their civil liberties and telling us that we're waiting on replacements for weapons and make other smoke screens while waiting for the Palestinian situation to jell.
Now, Why it's "Bush's War" ought to be obvious to you by now - we aren't even going after the terrorists, but the Bush Family's Favorite Pet Whipping Boy, Sadaam. And the Arabs aren't stupid. Instead of keeping them all off-balance and knocking them down one after the other during and after Afghanistan, now Bush & Co. are in a quagmire and can hardly make much headway. I predicted months ago that this would happen and that Sadaam would still be in power when Bush gets forced to resign for complete incompetence.
And there you have it, REAMOND. If you have anything really new to contribute, I'm all for discussing it.
edited for spelling
[ edited by Borillar on Jun 17, 2002 11:26 PM ]
Reamond, you've refered to both Korea an Vietnam in your justifications but the war powers act wasn't passed until they were over for all intents and purposes. It was enacted to PREVENT a president from doing what those in power during vietnam did.
The urgent funding bush received did not remove the conditions of the act, and he has had to return at least once to request more money. The current politics are such that no one has raised a question, but that is evidently only out of fear of being branded or hounded in a fevered irrational political environment.
The patriot act has to do with domestic issues for the large part and is not very pertinent to this question.
posted on June 18, 2002 02:02:22 AM new
There is a set legal way to do things and the people who want to ignore procedures and just wing it with ideas like - congress gave the money so it is equal to having gone through all the legal procedures - are wrong.
I have seen this sloppy way of thinking many times.
It is the sort of thinking as an example that makes someone rent a house and ignore all the well worked out procedures of signing a lease and taking possession on a set date.
Then when everything turns to crap later and they are told the rent is half again what they expected and they are responsible for the water heater that broke and the landlord invades their privacy and snoops in the place when they are gone they come crying to their friends how mistreated they were.
But you ask them did you sign a lease and get the keys, and they say - "Well no it was my Uncle Loise (or Sam) and I trusted him to treat us right and was too shy to go through all that stuff like I didn't trust him.
Guess what? There are reasons people have developed all these procedures for doing things - it is called history - which is the sum of all the times people have been screwed over by their fellow man. But you know better and don't see the need for following all these silly forms and rules (laws). After all the government is on your side - right? Cut them some slack. And don't come bellyaching to me later when you are screwed over because it is as predictable as anything you act like space cadets and you will have cosmic adventures. But they never see it coming. Professional victims I call the whole class of fuzzy thinkers.
posted on June 18, 2002 03:17:51 AM new
Bor- You can assign any motivations you may wish to Bush's tactics or strategies as to when, where and how the war will be prosecuted, but it is makes no difference if Congress consents and funds it.
What duties did Congress fail to carry out ? There is nothing that compels Congress or the President to call a Bill which gives consent and funding for war a declaration of war against any nation. All that is necessary is that Congress consents to and funds the prosecution of the war. What you seem to be disturbed about is Bush's motivations in executing his duties as commander-in-chief. Do you really think that the Joint Chiefs and Congress would remain silent if Bush were carring out a family vendetta ?
The reason we seem to be going in circles is because you are confusing how our democracy consents to and funds a war with the strategy and tactics of the commander-in-chief of the armed forces in prosecuting the war.
What you seem to suggest is that the Congress has some power through the war powers act that permits the legislative branch to mirco-manage the war through specific declarations. The Congress has never had that power.
Legislatively Congress can consent and fund, they can not act as commander-in-chief of the armed forces. They can however exert political pressure on the president to do certain things or do them in a certain manner or they will cease funding and rescind consent. But then they will bear the political responsibility for such actions.
I fail to see any tangent with the Constitution whether we go after Iraq next or Sudan next. The mandate from Congress is to go after terrorists wherever we may find them.
German and US intellegence sources have estimated that Hussein will have nuclear weapons in 24 months. So what do we do ? Clear the 5th fleet from the region and remove all military and stop going after terrorists ? Take a nuclear hit while we're in the Sudan as you suggest ?
How do you think it might go if we had to ask Iraq or Iran's permission before we place troops in the Persian Gulf region ? Because that is exactly what the situation would be if they have nuclear weapons. The scenario gets even worse if they supply these weapons to the terrorists.
While you may disagree with Bush and Congress, there is nothing in the prosecution of the war thus far that offends the Constitution or the war powers act.
posted on June 18, 2002 05:43:01 AM new
If the funding legislation mentioned as authorization contained specific language saying US armed forces were to be introduced into hostilities I have not seen it reported. The War Powers Act says such authority shall not be inferred from law but be specific.
If Pres. Bush made report in writting to the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tempore of the Senete and updated that report after 6 months nobody has reported it. If he obtained an authorization to continue after 60 days from that report date they have not made an issue of it in the news.
I find it hard to believe if these necessary things were being done they would not be newsworthy. They would be of such historical significance as to merit wide reporting. I have to conclude they are being ignored.
posted on June 18, 2002 10:34:00 AM new
REAMOND, it should be clear that I am not, nor have I ever suggested that Congress take over the role of the President as Commander-in-Chief and frankly, I do not see how you derived that conclusion. Rather, I have emphasized the importance of Congress playing a role that is destined to them through the United States Constitution. Once only has to recall Article I, Section 8, to see that the ability to run all necessary LEGAL matters is reserved to Congress. It therefore behooves Congress to act in such manner as to properly discharge its duties. When the United States of America invades a foreign country for the purpose of overthrowing the legitimate governing body that is a clear act of War on the part of the United States. But the question is not "IS it a War or not," but rather, are these actions sanctified by just legal action taken on the part of Congress, who has the duty to oversee the legality of such actions? REAMOND, without the legal process of Congress to declare War, the President Can Not declare war on his own, which he has.
I want to make a point here without sidetracking the issue, but historically, the founders of the Constitution were tired of Monarchy constantly getting them into Wars for personal agendas. The Magna Carta tried to limit the powers of the King, due to such ongoing personal agendas. Our Constitution is so written as to limit the power of the President to commit a whole nation into such wars and certainly to prevent the President to use the military for personal agendas. The purpose of requiring Congress to make Declarations of War and not the Executive Branch is to put the reigns into the hands of the People via their representatives in Congress.
The important point being this: The way that it is now, the reigns are NOT in the hands of the People, but in the hands of Congress. And even that is debatable, as Congress is compromised in many fashions as we've discussed here in the past.
Once again, a rereading of Article I, Section 8 it clearly shows that the avenues of opportunity for the President to cause our troops to be put into harm's way is taken away. And with the War Powers Act, such notions are further refined.
Now, your inference that by Congress giving it's tacit approval for this venture and giving such funding as is requested constitutes the fulfillment of all legitimate requirements on the part of Congress is absurd, as such "approval" is clearly political in nature and not a legal matter. Certainly, the initial lapse on the part of Congress to sanctify the invasion of Afghanistan by first Declaring War against the state of Afghanistan may be overlooked by the events of 9-11. However, it is time for the Congress to stop playing their damned political game and to put out. Just because Congress holds the reigns for funding does not guarantee the oversight that an official Declaration of War would and please don't try to tell me that it does, as that too is absurd. Nor does the War Powers Act do any more for this situation in terms of oversight than declaring War would.
