Topic: I got this in a Email :WHAT'S ALL THE FUSS?
lymebrat
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 3208
posted
War and Treaty Powers
The issue:
How have the war and treaty powers in the Constitution been interpreted? Introduction War Powers
The Constitution divides war powers between the Congress and the President. This division was intended by the framers to ensure that wars would not be entered into easily: it takes two keys, not one, to start the engine of war.
The Constitution's division of powers leaves the President with some exclusive powers as Commander-in-Chief (such as decisions on the field of battle), Congress with certain other exclusive powers (such as the ability to declare war and appropriate dollars to support the war effort), and a sort of "twilight zone" of concurrent powers.
In the zone of concurrent powers, the Congress might effectively limit presidential power, but in the absence of express congressional limitations the President is free to act.
Although on paper it might appear that the powers of Congress with respect to war are more dominant, the reality is that Presidential power has been more important--in part due to the modern need for quick responses to foreign threats and in part due to the many-headed nature of Congress.
The Supreme Court has had relatively little to say about the Constitution's war powers.
Many interesting legal questions--such as the constitutionality of the "police action" in Korea or the "undeclared war" in Viet Nam--were never decided by the Court.
(Although the Supreme Court had three opportunities to decide the constitutionality of the war in Viet Nam, it passed on each one.)
During the Civil War, the Court issued two significant opinions interpreting the war powers.
In the Prize Cases (1863), the Court on a 5 to 4 vote upheld President Lincoln's order blockading southern ports--even though the order was issued prior to a formal declaration of war on the Rebel states by Congress.
The Court found Lincoln's action authorized by a 1795 Act allowing the President to call out troops to suppress an insurrection.
The dissenters argued the President's action were unconstitutional, as a blockade is quite different that an action merely directed at those participating in an insurrection. Three years later, in Ex Parte Milligan, the Court found unconstitutional Lincoln's order authorizing trial by a military tribunal of Lambdin P. Milligan, an Indiana lawyer accused of stirring up support for the Confederacy.
The Court ruled that civilians must be tried in civilian courts, even during time of war, so long at least as the civilian courts are open and operating.
The Court also found the President lacked authority to declare martial law in Indiana. Four concurring justices argued that even though the President did not have the power to order a military trial of Milligan in the absence of congressional action, the power to authorize use of military tribunals did reside in Congress under its war power. Posts: 3154 | From NH , USA | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged |
lymebrat
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 3208
posted
Another article stating that this has been happening for a long time- even in the Clinton administration.. the only difference is that people didn't seem to care that Clinton went to war without congress's approval or that it was unconstitutional
Immoral, Unconstitutional War - Clinton David N. Mayer
The United States has no vital interests at stake in Yugoslavia; the conflict there is the kind of European war that Americans should avoid if we follow the advice of the early American presidents, beginning with George Washington in his famous Farewell Address. The situation in Yugoslavia has been ably summarized by journalist Philip Terzian:
"We are bombing a sovereign nation, not a member of NATO, which is not disturbing its neighbors but seeking, instead, to prevent one of its provinces from seceding.
Bear in mind that the United States fought a bloody, four year civil war, on the issue of secession (we're against it) and that NATO, in its action against the Serbs, now proposes to invade a European state - in the Balkans, no less - to resolve an internal ethnic dispute.
For the first time since 1945, the German air force is in action against another European country. And everyone agrees that air assaults are not conclusive. In order to achieve what we want, it might well be necessary to introduce ground troops."
The Clinton administration's decision to bomb Yugoslavia, under the rubric of NATO, is an incredible foreign policy blunder.
Not only is the situation there none of the United States' business, but our participation in the NATO bombings also threatens to destabilize eastern Europe far more than anything done by Slobodan Milosevic's government. (Indeed, it can be argued that the bombing of Kosovo worsened the so-called "ethnic cleansing" and other atrocities being committed by Serbian or Yugoslav forces in that province.)
Critics of the United States and of the West generally can point to the bombings as clear evidence of Western "imperialism. "
Undoubtedly, many communists and other leftists in the new NATO member nations of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic are doing just that- possibly setting back for decades whatever progress in foreign relations the United States has made in eastern Europe since the fall of the Soviet Union.
Regardless of the outcome of the war itself politically - whether it will bring about the demise of Slobodan Milosevic, and at what price - the lasting importance of the war to Americans will be its significance constitutionally.
What it reveals is that the actual balance of power in matters of foreign policy has shifted decisively toward the President, and that Congress has failed utterly to function as the institution the Framers of the Constitution intended it to be.
What that signifies, in terms of the concentration of unchecked power in the White House, should be a matter of profound concern to all Americans.
The decision to declare war - that is to say, the decision to initiate the use of force aggressively and not in self-defense - is a decision that only the Congress can make.
The debate over war - indeed, the debate not only over strategy (war versus economic sanctions) but also whether any American intervention is justified, as a matter of policy - should have taken place publicly in both houses of Congress, not in the Oval Office among a clique of presidential advisers.
By committing the United States to a course that led inevitably to war without the explicit authorization of Congress, President Clinton committed an act that violates the Constitution.
Congress's exclusive power to declare war under Article 1, Section 8, is not the only provision of the Constitution violated by Bill Clinton's war in Yugoslavia.
Arguably, the Yugoslav war also violates the first clause of Article 1, Section 8, which limits Congress's taxing power - and hence, the US. government's spending power - to matters that concern "the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States."
Nothing in the Constitution authorizes the President, even with Congress's consent, to use the military forces of the United States not for national defense, but for offensive military actions in Europe - in effect to transform the U.S. military into a kind of Peace Corps with guns.
Moreover, Article II, Section 2, provides, "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States."
By committing US. troops to a NATO operation, under NATO command (whether or not the NATO commander is an American), Clinton has abdicated his legitimate power as commander-in-chief (the power to actually wage war) in the name of asserting a fictitious power as commander-in-chief (the power to enter into war) that in fact usurps Congress's legitimate authority.
Some legal scholars have advanced the extraordinary argument that Congress has neither a constitutional obligation nor a right to declare war before the United States joins in a "police action" sanctioned by either the United Nations or NATO.
They argue that US. ratification of the U.N. Charter and of the North Atlantic Treaty after World II made us part of a "new world order" in which member nations can no longer "make war," in the classic sense.
The implication of this argument is that the Article 1, Section 8, grant of the war-making power to Congress has been rendered obsolete since 1945.
Even with concurrence of the Senate, however, the President cannot amend the Constitution; only the people can do that, according to the amendment procedures prescribed by the Constitution itself.
Until that happens, the Constitution binds all the branches of government, especially the President, who has no higher obligation than his duty to adhere to the oath he swore, to "preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution.
Advocates of presidential war power (whether defending George Bush's war in the Persian Gulf or the various actions in which Bill Clinton has committed U.S.
military forces in such places as Haiti, Bosnia, and now Kosovo) also have asserted that the need for an international consensus prior to a NATO - or U.N. - sanctioned "police action" provides a sufficient check on presidential power.
The validity of that argument, however, is belied by these presidential military actions themselves. It is not surprising that both Presidents Bush and Clinton bypassed Congress and the American people, choosing instead to first assemble international support.
Of course other nations will approve "police actions" staffed almost entirely by U.S. troops and funded almost entirely by U.S. taxpayers.
To be effective, the check on presidential powers must be given to Congress because Congress is directly representative of the American people, who must pay for these "police actions" with their taxes and their blood. International politics cannot adequately substitute for the checks and balances of the Constitution.
The Framers of the Constitution carefully devised a scheme of separation of powers and checks and balances to minimize the dangers of concentrating too much power in the hands of any one person, or group of persons.
They would be appalled at the resolutions in Congress expressing unqualified support of the president in whatever actions he should decide to take - resolutions that reveal the degree to which Congress has failed to fulfill its constitutional obligation to act as a check on presidential power. Nothing could be farther from the intent of the Framers.
American involvement in war is too important a matter to be left to the private deliberations of the president and a small group of advisers.
Surely the lives of tens of thousands of Americans lost in Korea and Vietnam - wars in which other presidents unilaterally embroiled the country - bear eloquent witness to the other, non-economic costs of war.
Just as surely, the domestic turmoil that resulted from those conflicts, particularly Vietnam, illustrates the danger of presidents' making commitments that the American people do not wholeheartedly support,
Bill Clinton and his apologists (who include many conservatives as well as so-called "liberals") defend U.S. involvement in Yugoslavia with the argument that the United States, as the world's only superpower, has a duty to use its military force for "humanitarian" purposes.
The argument assumes that Americans should take the responsibility for the world's troubles simply because their country is a superpower.
But the United States is a superpower - and, indeed, also is the world's richest nation - because its legal and constitutional system more fully protects free-market capitalism and the rights of the individual than any other system anywhere in the world. Americans should not feel guilty about their wealth or power; they've earned it.
And simply being successful does not make a nation responsible for the problems of other nations, just as being successful as an individual does not make one responsible for the problems of other individuals.
The fundamental rules of morality apply equally to nation-states as to individuals; and the basic rule of morality - the only rule of morality based on reason rather than emotion or mysticism -is the precept "do no harm to others."
Rather than following that basic rule of good behavior (for nation-states as well as for individuals), Bill Clinton has led the United States into acts of aggression that violate the principle.
And our so-called "humanitarian" effort-like similar assumed "humanitarian" policies domestically - is in fact exacerbating the problem, for the NATO bombing compounds the atrocities being committed on the people of Kosovo.
Posts: 3154 | From NH , USA | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged |
lymebrat
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 3208
posted
Another one...
December 21, 1998 Bill Clinton:
Unconstitutional wars gravest of crimes Congress must reclaim from president power to declare war
No proposition is more serious than placing in harms' way the lives of our nation's soldiers. Wars are instituted by governments, but it is the youth that pay the ultimate price.
It is for this reason that the Constitution speaks clearly about where the power for engaging troops in battle must rest.
In Article 1, Section 8, the Constitution gives the power to "declare war, grant letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water" solely to the House of Representatives.
The reason for this is clear; the House is the branch of the federal government closest to the people, standing for election the most often, and therefore the most accountable.
When our young men in uniform were sent into battle last week by the president (regardless of whether for honorable or dishonorable reasons), it was in direct contradiction to the United States Constitution, in keeping with the history of the past half-century.
Despite the thousands of Americans who have died in Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf and other locales, there has not been a declared war since World War II. Each of those actions occurred without the constitutional requirement of a declaration of war.
In what should be regarded as the gravest of all crimes, these citizens were sent to their deaths unconstitutionally.
It is commonly, but incorrectly, assumed that a president has the authority to send troops into battle, though under our Constitution, the highest law of the land, he does not.
Sadly, though, Congress has abdicated -- unconstitutionally -- its solemn responsibility in this matter. Members of Congress are eager to let presidents drop bombs on foreign nations for many reasons, though the underlying one is that it relieves them of personal responsibility while giving each a sense of strength and power.
An attempt was made to rectify this situation in the early 1970s, with the introduction of the War Powers Act, following the Korea and Vietnam wars. The legislation originally would have moved us closer to the Constitution.
What passed, however, has made things far worse in the intervening 25 years. Now the law allows presidents to send troops into any battle, anywhere, for any reason, without Congress having any chance to voice even opposition until long after lives have been endangered.
Under the War Powers Act, a president can send troops into battle to honor a UN request or to divert attention from personal problems.
Most recently, the Congress interrupted the important impeachment debate to pass a two-part resolution. The first half simply offered support for our troops, and was unobjectionable.
The second half, though, encouraged the president, praised his unconstitutional actions, and recommended that he engage in further unconstitutional actions by trying to topple the leadership of Iraq and replace it with what would amount to a US taxpayer supported puppet regime.
The gravest crime against our Constitution is the one never addressed: the senseless slaughter of our soldiers, our best and brightest.
Perhaps one day Congress will reclaim its constitutionally mandated power of sole authority over matters of war. Until then, more young men will die senseless deaths.
Posts: 3154 | From NH , USA | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged |
lymebrat
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 3208
posted
Congress Approves Iraq Resolution Friday, October 11, 2002
WASHINGTON -- Congress has given President Bush the authority to use military force against Iraq in a major policy victory for the White House.
The Senate approved the measure 77-23 early Friday morning at the end of a rocky week-long debate. The House voted for the resolution Thursday afternoon, 296-133.
Because the Democratic-led Senate approved the House version of the measure without changing a word, it now goes directly to Bush for his signature.
The resolution gives Bush the power to use American military force to enforce existing United Nations Security Council mandates that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein dispose of his weapons of mass destruction.
It encourages Bush to seek U.N. cooperation in such a campaign, but does not require it.
Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., the most outspoken Senate foe of the resolution, accused Congress of "handing the president unchecked authority."
Bush spoke after the House had passed the bill.
"The House of Representatives has spoken clearly to the world and to the United Nations Security Council: The gathering threat of Iraq must be confronted fully and finally," the president said.
Posts: 3154 | From NH , USA | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged |
lymebrat
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 3208
posted
The House passed a resolution, Thursday, October 10, 2002
Congress Moves Steadily Toward Iraq Vote WASHINGTON --
The House passed a resolution Thursday that allows President Bush to use force if necessary against Iraq.
The final vote tally of 296-133 saw 81 Democrats voting with Republicans to give the president the maneuvering room he said he needs to effectively confront Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.
"It is only when the Iraqi dictator is certain of our willingness to wage war if necessary that peace becomes possible," Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif., said prior to the vote.
A similar vote was expected in the Senate within days.
"The House debate was conducted in the best traditions of the United States Congress. It was spirited, civil and it was informed.
This is a debate and a decision that all Americans can be proud of," Bush said shortly after the House vote.
Earlier Thursday, just moments before a Senate test vote, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle threw his support behind the identical resolution.
Posts: 3154 | From NH , USA | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged |
lymebrat
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 3208
posted
Senate Roll Call Friday, October 11, 2002
The 77-23 roll call by which the Senate voted Friday to authorize President Bush to use military force, if necessary, to disarm Iraq.
On this vote, a "yes" vote was a vote to pass the resolution and a "no" vote was a vote to defeat it.
Voting "yes" were 29 Democrats and 48 Republicans.
Voting "no" were 21 Democrats, one Republican and one independent.
lymebrat
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 3208
posted
Congress Passes Iraq Resolution Overwhelming Approval Gives Bush Authority to Attack Unilaterally
By Jim VandeHei and Juliet Eilperin Washington Post Staff Writers Friday, October 11, 2002; Page A01
The House and Senate voted overwhelmingly to grant President Bush the power to attack Iraq unilaterally, remove Saddam Hussein from power and abolish that country's nuclear, chemical and biological weaponry.
Moving the nation closer to a possible second war with Iraq, 77 of 100 senators and 296 of 435 House members voted to authorize the president to "use the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq."
The president needs no further congressional approval to deploy troops, order airstrikes and wage a ground war with Iraq. "The gathering threat of Iraq must be confronted fully and finally," Bush said after the House vote yesterday afternoon . "The days of Iraq acting as an outlaw state are coming to an end."
Not since Congress passed the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin resolution -- which helped bring expansion of the Vietnam War -- has a president won such broad and flexible authority to carry out an undefined military operation, historians say.
The bipartisan endorsement of Bush's Iraq strategy shows how dramatically the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, have changed U.S. foreign policy and altered views about preemptive military action to disarm hostile regimes. "The events that tragic day jolted us to the enduring reality that terrorists not only seek to attack our interests abroad but also to strike us at home," House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) told the House.
Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) said the country's new enemies -- terrorists and the nations harboring them -- warrant a new response. "The speed and stealth with which an outlaw state or terrorists could use weapons of mass destruction, and the catastrophic damage they could inflict, require us to consider new ways of acting, not reacting," Biden told the Senate. He fought unsuccessfully to limit Bush's military options to disarming Hussein.
A decade ago, Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.), Gephardt and nearly three-quarters of their fellow congressional Democrats objected to President George H.W. Bush's deployment of troops to reverse the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Yesterday's debate often lacked the passion and unpredictability of the 1991 affair, when members sat late into the night listening attentively to a war of words. By contrast, the House chamber was largely empty most of yesterday: the arguments familiar, the outcome certain, the conclusion anticlimactic.
The Senate debate featured more drama, punctuated by sharp-tongued protests from Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W. Va.) that pushed the debate deep into the dark of night.
"The war on terrorism will be fought here at home unless we summon the will to confront evil before it attacks," said House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.). "Only regime change can remove the danger from Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Only by taking them out of his hands and destroying them can we be certain that terror weapons won't wind up in the hands of terrorists." Many of the House's most respected military and intelligence experts made similar remarks.
Daschle raised concerns throughout the debate about Bush politicizing national security, but in the end he backed the president "because this resolution is improved, because I believe that Saddam Hussein represents a real threat, and because I believe it is important for America to speak with one voice at this critical moment."
A U.S. military buildup is underway in the Persian Gulf, with munitions and other equipment being sent to strategic sites throughout the region. Defense officials would prefer to attack during the winter, when the desert en route to Baghdad is cool enough for troops to wear more comfortably the heavy suits designed to protect them from chemical and biological weapons.
"Confront Saddam Hussein now, or pay a much heavier price later," said Rep. Howard Berman, a liberal Democrat from California. "The idea of Saddam Hussein with a nuclear weapon is too horrifying to contemplate, too terrifying to tolerate."
Yet most lawmakers urged Bush to exhaust all diplomatic options, especially ongoing consultations with the world's most powerful countries at the United Nations, before striking Hussein.
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell is negotiating with Britain, France, China and Russia -- along with the United States, the U.N. Security Council's permanent members -- on a new U.N. resolution that would require Hussein to submit to immediate, unfettered weapons inspections.
The Iraqi government has agreed to inspections conducted under current U.N. guidelines, but has objected to the more stringent resolution sought by the United States and Britain. It is unclear whether France, China and Russia, which have veto power at the United Nations, will agree to enforce a new inspections regime including the threat of swift military action. If the U.N. talks collapse, Congress's actions provide Bush the authority to strike Hussein even if world leaders protest.
The president lost some Democratic support earlier this week when a CIA memo was declassified. It concluded that Hussein is more likely to strike the United States with weapons of mass destruction if he is attacked first.
"Once the battle is joined, however, with the outcome certain, [Hussein] will have maximum incentive to use weapons of mass destruction and give what he can't use to terrorists who can torment us long after he is gone," said Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who, like so many others who expressed severe reservations, nonetheless voted for the resolution.
Even as members debated, retired Marine Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, former head of U.S. Central Command, was telling the Middle East Institute in Washington that Hussein is "deterrable and containable at this point."
With the backing of many Democrats, the House soundly defeated two attempts to restrict Bush's options. One, by Rep. Barbara T. Lee (D-Calif.), would have urged the president to use diplomacy and work through the United Nations rather than launch a military strike. It failed by 355 to 72.
A second, sponsored by Rep. John M. Spratt Jr. (D-S.C.) and Rep. James P. Moran (D-Va.), would have authorized U.S military action only if it were sanctioned by the Security Council or by a second congressional vote later this year. It lost 270 to 55.
A similar resolution, proposed by Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.), was defeated 75 to 24 in the Senate.
Posts: 3154 | From NH , USA | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged |
One point stood out, re actions taken through Korea and Vietnam..that actually as a result of Vietnam, they tightened things up..from one of your articles:
Due to the Vietnam War buildup, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which curtailed the President's ability to commit troops to action without first obtaining Congressional approval.
I am also wandering if your point is that the mistakes of the past are OK to repeat in Iraq??
It sounds as if you are saying that because there has been past unconstitutuinal military action taken, it is OK now.. so it was unconstitutional to do so, but should be excused because others have done something along those lines (even if quite different circumstances).
In any event, the main point is there's allot more to the situation pre-Iraq and this admin.. it is not the same as the examples you have raised. Your points are taken... however..
There is ALLOT more that contributes to this War being unconstitutional than taking military action without Congress, or that the resolution was made on PARTIAL intelligence (and was not an amendment).. conspiring, witholding information, and fraud were intertwined with that action.
I'm pulling the meat of my last post up, because all this volume doesn't address the case of this War, in Iraq:
The Bush admin's unconstitutional actions are actually on many levels and issues, my post here is on the definitive actions taken to defraud congress and the nation into War.
This issue is not a matter of politics, but a matter of LAW.
it is ilegal, and I don't understand or agree at all if what you are saying is that because this has been 'done before' (has it really? with this magnetude of consequences?) but if you are saying this should be OK because it has been 'done before' .. legal or not.. I just don't get that. Is standing behind Bush more important to you than human life and American values?
In a nutshell:
There is plenty of documented evidence that shows (and you may remember some of the statements, otherwise, many are in news archives and tapes - state of the union address, ect, ect) that from early 2002 to at least March 2003 -- actually longer, the President and his aides conspired to defraud the United States by intentionally misrepresenting intelligence about Iraq to persuade Congress to authorize force... thereby interfering with Congress's lawful functions of overseeing foreign affairs and making appropriations, all of which violates Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.
which prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States...
The Supreme Court has defined the phrase "conspiracy to defraud the United States" as "to interfere with, impede or obstruct a lawful government function by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest."
Finally, "fraud" is broadly defined to include half-truths, omissions or misrepresentation; in other words, statements that are intentionally misleading, even if literally true. Fraud also includes making statements with "reckless indifference" to their truth.
These crimes are impeachable and colassal considering all the deaths that have resulted, and abuse if our military.
A huge number of Americans and some Senators have been voicing these issues since the inception of this War.
Pressure needs to continue on the Democratic party to pick up their neglected responsibilities to America to see that this information is acknowledged and consequences carried out.
It is working now, tho they were seriously negligent in dragging their feet so long. Reid and many others are focused on this now and hopefully will not drop the ball or become way-layed by further acts of deciet and distraction perpetrated by the Bush admin.
The Bush admin has not responded at all till this week, and now say that the Congress had all the info they did, and that is another lie.
They did not have a number of the reports that discounted the flimsy uranium issue.. fraud committed by OMITION of evidence had in White House posession, and inflation of the reports that supported their long-standing interests in controlling Iraq. For one thing, they told the country in the union address, and told congress Saddam had all that uranium, when they already had solid intelligence stating he did not..the Senators never saw that info among other things.
and now we are hearing more about the torture ..
Mo
[ 17. November 2005, 11:44 PM: Message edited by: Mo ]
-------------------- life shrinks and expands in proportion to one's courage -- anais nin Posts: 8337 | From the other shore | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
LymeBrat....you should never leave here again~!!! Thank you for all the hard work in proving the Constitutionality of the Congress/Presidents decisions.
Mo: and ShopRat explained herself (a remark about confusion as to why you suport Bush - she guessed it was mainly because you were Christian, that's how I remember it, and she is not here to explain, regretably - she never attacked folks here - just wrote on this admin, pretty much a class act I must say)
Meg: A class act would never make a bet thru many threads with another poster, a bet that had at stake valuable items.....and when the inevitable happened--losing the bet, never come back here to post again--no forwarding address.
Class would have been paying up on the bet and being an honorable human being.
Class would never attack someone for their RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, their income, or their intellect, among other things.
Revisionism is not an alternative.....in politics or relationships, it is what it is.
Anybody reading this?? HEL-LO
[ 18. November 2005, 01:53 AM: Message edited by: meg ]
posted
Can the points in my post be addressed by anyone??
ShopRat isn't here to defend herself.. therefore all I see now is you guys attacking HER behind her back. My bet is she left because of this junk (and I don't blame her)...which ran rampant when she left, and had died down until RECENTLY stirred up again. All this bantering and jabbing makes it really difficult to discuss a topic!
Can we cut it out puhleeeeeese?
PS to my post:
The infamous sixteen words in the presidents state of the union, "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa",
(while the British Government may have reached a conclusion on this issue (it did, but not the conclusion the administration wished for), it was not Tony Blair giving the state of the union.)
This applies to a wide variety of tactics used by the administration in the run up to the Iraqi invasion. For an administration official, on background, to be the source of a story by Judy Miller for publication on the front page of the N.Y. Times on Sunday, and then to have the same official on all the talking heads programs trumpeting the fact that since the Times ran it, it must be true.. is deceptive. Nearly every feature in the selling of the Iraq war was fraudulent.
So which governmental function was impeded?
It was the function of the U.S. Congress to authorize the president to use any means necessary to enforce U.N. sanctions. The Congress was quite clearly a victim of the misrepresentations of the administration. The sixteen words in the state of the union, a constitutionally mandated presentation to the congress, is just one example of this.
They were not provided with accurate intelligence and they made the decision based upon this misinformation. No amount of faux Republican congressional hindsight can reverse that fact. Also we the people were impeded by this concerted effort to sell the war and a majority at the time based their opinions on this misdirection. This also led to pressure on Congress to give the president carte blanche with Iraq.
This is absolutely a pile if impeachable offenses.
Afterall..no one died over a stained blue dress.
Hypocracy comes to mind yet again.. regarding anyone who supported Clinton's impeachment who looks the other way when it comes to FACTS involving multiple counts of manipulation of the public and Congress, multiple violations of the US Constitution, the Geneva convention (torture and chemucal weapons), the UN Charter.. and all resulting in massive death and destruction, and trillions in debt.
Mo
Posts: 8337 | From the other shore | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
heiwalove
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 6467
posted
none of those articles are stating that previous war infringes were constitutional - so perhaps similar things have happened before (i'll concede that, though i still think the situations were very different), but THEY WERE UNCONSTITUTIONAL TOO. it is NOT okay, in any way, shape, or form, for the president to have the power to unilaterally declare war. EVER. not now, not vietnam, not korea. not ever.
posted
This whole subject is so old. How many times can you try to lead the lefty extremists to water? It's hopeless. LOL. Posts: 600 | From Las Vegas, NV | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
heiwalove
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 6467
posted
i love how we're called lefty "extremists" just because we're anti-war. yeah, wanting to keep people alive and to prevent our planet from being blown to bits is really an extreme position.
posted
Calling anything outside your line of thinking regarding Iraq and the Bush admin 'lefty extremist' (like it's a dirty word) is obsolete..
if you are reading anything these past several weeks, that should be evidant.
Among several REPUBLICAN SENATORS.. public opinion polls, and public statements by Congressmen.. support for Bush's path in Iraq has taken a sharp nose dive in recent months.
Most recently, yesterday.. a highly decorated Vietnam Vet, former work also in War intelligence during Vietnam.. and while a 'Democrat', he voted for the War and held support for it for some time.
This is his statement (not an editorial, his statement).. and the public is noted as largely supporting his statements on Iraq.
I'm certain there will be a 'swift' media smear campaign coming after this decorated Veteran.. purely because of his statement, as that is the way the Right works..(it even happens here sometimes )
but by now, I would hope the majority of the American people will see the rabid Right's ways clearly. What obstruction of truth comes out of this culture of attack!
People are FINALLY speaking up.. meanwhile, 10 more soldiers have dies in 2 days, and 65 people were killed in a suicide bombing today.
His words, and hardly a 'lefty extremist'...........................
BBSNews
John Murtha Demands Iraq War Pull-out Friday, November 18 2005 @ 11:01 AM EST
Congressman John Murtha's Courageous Iraq War Statement
John Murtha Iraq Statement - 2005-11-17
Washington D.C.- "The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us.
The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction.
**Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We can not continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region.
General Casey said in a September 2005 Hearing, ``the perception of occupation in Iraq is a major driving force behind the insurgency.'' General Abizaid said on the same date, ``Reducing the size and visibility of the coalition forces in Iraq is a part of our counterinsurgency strategy.''
For 2 1/2 years I have been concerned about the U.S. policy and the plan in Iraq. I have addressed my concerns with the Administration and the Pentagon and have spoken out in public about my concerns.
The main reason for going to war has been discredited. A few days before the start of the war I was in Kuwait - the military drew a red line around Baghdad and said when U.S. forces cross that line they will be attacked by the Iraqis with Weapons of Mass Destruction - but the US forces said they were prepared. They had well trained forces with the appropriate protective gear.
We spend more money on Intelligence than all the countries in the world together, and more on Intelligence than most countries GDP. But the intelligence concerning Iraq was wrong. It is not a world intelligence failure. It is a U.S. intelligence failure and the way that intelligence was misused.
I have been visiting our wounded troops at Bethesda and Walter Reed hospitals almost every week since the beginning of the War. And what demoralizes them is going to war with not enough troops and equipment to make the transition to peace; the devastation caused by IEDs; being deployed to Iraq when their homes have been ravaged by hurricanes; being on their second or third deployment and leaving their families behind without a network of support.
The threat posed by terrorism is real, but we have other threats that cannot be ignored. We must be prepared to face all threats. The future of our military is at risk. Our military and their families are stretched thin. Many say that the Army is broken. Some of our troops are on their third deployment. Recruitment is down, even as our military has lowered its standards. Defense budgets are being cut. Personnel costs are skyrocketing, particularly in health care. Choices will have to be made. We can not allow promises we have made to our military families in terms of service benefits, in terms of their health care, to be negotiated away. Procurement programs that ensure our military dominance cannot be negotiated away. We must be prepared. The war in Iraq has caused huge shortfalls at our bases in the U.S. Much of our ground equipment is worn out and in need of either serious overhaul or replacement. George Washington said, ``To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace.'' We must rebuild our Army. Our deficit is growing out of control. The Director of the Congressional Budget Office recently admitted to being ``terrified'' about the budget deficit in the coming decades. This is the first prolonged war we have fought with three years of tax cuts, without full mobilization of American industry and without a draft. The burden of this war has not been shared equally; the military and their families are shouldering this burden.
Our military has been fighting a war in Iraq for over two and a half years. Our military has accomplished its mission and done its duty. Our military captured Saddam Hussein, and captured or killed his closest associates. But the war continues to intensify. Deaths and injuries are growing, with over 2,079 confirmed American deaths. Over 15,500 have been seriously injured and it is estimated that over 50,000 will suffer from battle fatigue. There have been reports of at least 30,000 Iraqi civilian deaths.
I just recently visited Anbar Province Iraq in order to assess the conditions on the ground. Last May 2005, as part of the Emergency Supplemental Spending Bill, the House included the Moran Amendment, which was accepted in Conference, and which required the Secretary of Defense to submit quarterly reports to Congress in order to more accurately measure stability and security in Iraq. We have now received two reports. I am disturbed by the findings in key indicator areas. Oil production and energy production are below pre-war levels. Our reconstruction efforts have been crippled by the security situation. Only $9 billion of the $18 billion appropriated for reconstruction has been spent. Unemployment remains at about 60 percent. Clean water is scarce. Only $500 million of the $2.2 billion appropriated for water projects has been spent. And most importantly, insurgent incidents have increased from about 150 per week to over 700 in the last year. Instead of attacks going down over time and with the addition of more troops, attacks have grown dramatically. Since the revelations at Abu Ghraib, American casualties have doubled. An annual State Department report in 2004 indicated a sharp increase in global terrorism.
I said over a year ago, and now the military and the Administration agrees, Iraq can not be won ``militarily.'' I said two years ago, the key to progress in Iraq is to Iraqitize, Internationalize and Energize. I believe the same today. But I have concluded that the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is impeding this progress.
Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are united against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence. U.S. troops are the common enemy of the Sunnis, Saddamists and foreign jihadists. I believe with a U.S. troop redeployment, the Iraqi security forces will be incentivized to take control. A poll recently conducted shows that over 80% of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition troops, and about 45% of the Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified. I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis.
I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy. All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free. Free from United States occupation. I believe this will send a signal to the Sunnis to join the political process for the good of a ``free'' Iraq.
My plan calls:
To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces. To create a quick reaction force in the region. To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines. To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq
This war needs to be personalized. As I said before I have visited with the severely wounded of this war. They are suffering.
Because we in Congress are charged with sending our sons and daughters into battle, it is our responsibility, our OBLIGATION to speak out for them. That's why I am speaking out.
Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily.
IT IS TIME TO BRING THEM HOME.
Congress in both parties are speaking in these terms, and it's well past TIME they did.
Mo
-------------------- life shrinks and expands in proportion to one's courage -- anais nin Posts: 8337 | From the other shore | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
lymebrat
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 3208
posted
Mo said:
In any event, the main point is there's allot more to the situation pre-Iraq and this admin.. it is not the same as the examples you have raised. Your points are taken... however..
Why isn't it the same as the countless examples I gave...you said this was an unconstitutional war..I said there were many presidents who waged war without prior consent from the congress. I then listed a FEW of the wars where congress never officially declared war. So what is so different?
Mo said:
it is ilegal, and I don't understand or agree at all if what you are saying is that because this has been 'done before' (has it really? with this magnetude of consequences? a three year War?)..
and
It sounds as if you are saying that because there has been past unconstitutuinal military action taken, it is OK now..
If the time was taken to read these posts, then you will find the answers you are looking for. I didn't post these just to fill up space.. LOL! I'm actually not big on cut and paste. I did it so it would be right here in black and white for all to see.
Yes, many presidents in the past, have gone to war without congress declaring war..sometimes congress wasn't even aware that war was waged, until after the war was well under way...
You asked if it was really been done before, and these articles show undisputable proof, that yea, it has...many many many times..for years!
Does it make it right? I can't answer that in a way that will please you, so I won't even try:).
I do feel that a big chunk of the responsibility for us getting into this war, needs to fall squarely on the shoulders of the congress, who failed to do their job.
As many of these articles state, the congress has been shirking their responsibility for YEARS. They have basically stepped aside and handed over their powers to the presidents...
I know the posts I posted were lengthy. So below I will highlight information about how the congress has been severely lacking in their duties where declaration of war and war powers are concerned.
It seems like some here are saying that Bush alone went to war. Like he was so war hungry that he woke up in the middle of the night, snuck into the oval office and pushed a "war button", while everyone else was sleeping..
That isn't the case at all. As these articles point out, the war was discussed in depth..everyone was aware of what was going on..the Congress once again didn't step up to the plate and use their powers as they were created and intended..
democrats and republicans alike voted to give Bush the power to go into war.. ( with very little restrictions)
As one can obviously see, this wasn't a one man war... the House and Senate voted to give the President the power...and like it or not, they knew darn well what he would do with that power.
( as far as the same old speech about WMD's..please lets not go there again ...We all or at least most of us, thought their was a high probability of WMD...dating back to President Bush the senior and Clinton. I have countless articles ( don't make me dig them up..lol )and facts stating that Bush Sr. and Clinton and their advisories, considered Iraq a definite and threat. Not possible, a definite threat. Clinton said in his own words that Iraq and Saddam were an imminent threat to American and Americans... )
okay back to the topic....
According to the "Encyclopedia Britannica" The United Sated Congress is: "the legislature of the United States of America, established under the Constitution of 1789 and separated structurally from the executive and judicial branches of government.
It consists of two houses, the Senate (q.v.), in which each state, regardless of its size, is represented by two senators, and the House of Representatives "
The Senate is: one of the two houses of the legislature of the United States, established in 1789 under the Constitution. Each state elects two senators for six-year terms, the terms of about one-third of the Senate membership expiring every two years. The role of the Senate was conceived by the Founding Fathers as a check on the popularly elected House of Representatives.
The House of Representatives is: The House of Representatives shares equal responsibility for lawmaking with the U.S. Senate. As conceived by the framers of the Constitution, the House was to represent the popular will, and its members were to be directly elected by the people.
Here is an excerpt from one of the articles:[b/]
[b] The House and Senate voted overwhelmingly to grant President Bush the power to attack Iraq unilaterally, remove Saddam Hussein from power and abolish that country's nuclear, chemical and biological weaponry.
Moving the nation closer to a possible second war with Iraq, 77 of 100 senators and 296 of 435 House members voted to authorize the president to "use the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq."
The president needs no further congressional approval to deploy troops, order airstrikes and wage a ground war with Iraq.
Not since Congress passed the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin resolution -- which helped bring expansion of the Vietnam War -- has a president won such broad and flexible authority to carry out an undefined military operation, historians say.
--------------------------------------------
If the U.N. talks collapse, Congress's actions provide Bush the authority to strike Hussein even if world leaders protest.
-------------------------------------------------
With the backing of many Democrats, the House soundly defeated two attempts to restrict Bush's options. One, by Rep. Barbara T. Lee (D-Calif.), would have urged the president to use diplomacy and work through the United Nations rather than launch a military strike. It failed by 355 to 72.
A second, sponsored by Rep. John M. Spratt Jr. (D-S.C.) and Rep. James P. Moran (D-Va.), would have authorized U.S military action only if it were sanctioned by the Security Council or by a second congressional vote later this year. It lost 270 to 55.
-------------------------------
Senate Roll Call Friday, October 11, 2002
The 77-23 roll call by which the Senate voted Friday to authorize President Bush to use military force, if necessary, to disarm Iraq.
The House passed a resolution, Thursday, October 10, 2002
Congress Moves Steadily Toward Iraq Vote
WASHINGTON --
The House passed a resolution Thursday that allows President Bush to use force if necessary against Iraq.
"The House debate was conducted in the best traditions of the United States Congress. It was spirited, civil and it was informed.
-------------------------------------
Sadly, though, Congress has abdicated -- unconstitutionally -- its solemn responsibility in this matter. Members of Congress are eager to let presidents drop bombs on foreign nations for many reasons, though the underlying one is that it relieves them of personal responsibility while giving each a sense of strength and power. [b]
--------------------
[b] An attempt was made to rectify this situation in the early 1970s, with the introduction of the War Powers Act, following the Korea and Vietnam wars. The legislation originally would have moved us closer to the Constitution.
What passed, however, has made things far worse in the intervening 25 years. Now the law allows presidents to send troops into any battle, anywhere, for any reason, without Congress having any chance to voice even opposition until long after lives have been endangered.
------------------
The Framers of the Constitution carefully devised a scheme of separation of powers and checks and balances to minimize the dangers of concentrating too much power in the hands of any one person, or group of persons.
They would be appalled at the resolutions in Congress expressing unqualified support of the president in whatever actions he should decide to take - resolutions that reveal the degree to which Congress has failed to fulfill its constitutional obligation to act as a check on presidential power. Nothing could be farther from the intent of the Framers.
-----
What it reveals is that the actual balance of power in matters of foreign policy has shifted decisively toward the President, and that Congress has failed utterly to function as the institution the Framers of the Constitution intended it to be.
What that signifies, in terms of the concentration of unchecked power in the White House, should be a matter of profound concern to all Americans.
--------
The Supreme Court has had relatively little to say about the Constitution's war powers.
Many interesting legal questions--such as the constitutionality of the "police action" in Korea or the "undeclared war" in Viet Nam--were never decided by the Court.
(Although the Supreme Court had three opportunities to decide the constitutionality of the war in Viet Nam, it passed on each one.)
Okay, that about sums it up Posts: 3154 | From NH , USA | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged |
lymebrat
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 3208
posted
I forgot to add...
As for your comment "(has it really? with this magnetude of consequences?"
I can answer than with one word: Vietnam.
Posts: 3154 | From NH , USA | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged |
OK, you are saying it's OK for the executive branch to act against the Constitution in War because it has happened before, got it.. but that was just one small part of what was posted regarding the legality of this War and the Constitution as well as the Law. (and as Heiwa says, it's still unconstitutional)
But, moreover --
I never asked if going to War without Congress' approval had been done before.. I made a comment on this particular situation in Iraq, and it's magnitude (and consequences)..largely having to do with manupulation of Congress and conspiracy in order to act...among other things as well. Not JUST military action without Congress' approval, and also the resolution after Vietnam tightened that up as well.
Actually, this is far worse than the examples you raise in regard to the conspiracy going in, and faaaar worse than any instance in which government took military action without congress! This level of crime is pretty unique to the Bush admin.. and of course it isn't just Bush..
if you look up PNAC, you will see Cheney, Rumsfeld, Abdams, Wolfowitz, and Libby signed on to this plan in 1993 -- that we must gain a military stronghold in the Middle East. Once put together, the evidance is very damning and very grim, I'm afraid.
Lymebrat, I fully understand the parallels you are drawing and am acknowledging them, I agree, Congress has on several occasions given power over, ect, and IMO before Iraq should have done more investigating -- for one thing --
However.. I have to point out you have ignored 90% of the issues raised regarding Iraq.. and that regardless of shirking some responsibility.. they were NOT GIVEN all of the intelligence reports, namely the ones that found no imminent threat and refuted the issue on WMD. Don't you think in that case they were at a disadvantage?
-- the White House officials involved manipulated Congress into going along with this War.
Please see my post in it's entirely, please do not cut up it's meaning and post just the phrases that these articles seem to refute -
ie: this was my comment right before the one you extracted and posted all these articles in response to --
"The Bush admin's unconstitutional actions are actually on **many levels and issues, my post here is on the definitive actions taken to defraud congress and the nation into War.
This issue is not a matter of politics, but a matter of LAW.
Also, the post by the War Veteran, Congressman Murtha I put just above yours states much of the issue. That post says allot as well.
Regarding Saddam's threat...the 911 commission (government investigations) which went over the issue with a fine toothed comb and found NO imminent threat..
that doesn't matter?...and you feel confident there WAS a threat..and that we were justified going to War based on assumption and our administration's manipulation of intelligence both to the public and Congress?
Mo
[ 18. November 2005, 09:10 PM: Message edited by: Mo ]
Posts: 8337 | From the other shore | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
My God, here it is just as predicted, straight from the White House..
another blatant smear rather than address of the issue Congress is actually meeting on tonight..
No wonder we have a culture of hate and attack among Americans!
Murtha has been a career military analyst, noone has supported our troops more than he.. he made the above statements, calling for a clear plan for the troops and an effective focus on Terror.. he says there needs to be effective actions, and that this War has weakened our military.
The administration has put allot of credibility in this man in the past, until he publicly disagrees with them.
-- the White House makes a public statement linking him to Michael Moore -- As well as accusing him of wanting to surrender to terrorists!
Do they even know or care about who this man is? Not only has he been a strong supporter on both sides of the political isle on various issues, he is nothing if not an advocate for our troops and one who understands War, and served with high honor in Vietnam.
Discusting! This administration considers nothing but it's own pre-concieved agenda.
Here's their response to Murtha's statement posted above:
"Congressman (John) Murtha is a respected veteran and politician who has a record of supporting a strong America. So it is baffling that he is endorsing the policy position of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party," the White House said in a statement.
"The eve of an historic democratic election in Iraq is not the time to surrender to the terrorists."
Unbelievable. Wake up and smell the Facism.
The story will be out tomorrow I'm sure.. but as a result of Murthas statement and proposal, which cuts to the heart of the problems for the military and this failed War on Terror..
If you see his proposal.. he said it was time to make a plan to begin to pull military out as soon as practicable ...not immediately.. and remember this man has ben a staunch advocate of the military for years, and in favor of the White House till he brought up valid points about the War that they DON'T WANT BROUGHT UP.
--so the Repibs pull a fast one and propose a resolution for vote to pull troops IMMEDIATELY!
This move essentially stifled any opportunity for the Congress to DEBATE the issue, propose various solutions, ect..
pulled the rug out, another dirty trick! Playing politics with the lives of our troops and the War on Terror, and the Iraqi people.
The House went wild.. congressman yelling out of order.. complete chaos.
These tactics are now raw and exposed.
The Republicans and the White House have tried to stifle any conversation.
The bogus resolution was voted down 400 and something to 3. Of course they did.
NOONE proposed immediate pullout.
I can't even believe they pulled this stunt. It's mind boggling. No discussion allowed in Americamn congress anymore??
There is no Democracy in our government at this time. The Republicans in support of the War stifled debate entirely out of fear. If this War was on solid ground, they would never have had to pull such a dirty and childish trick.
Check out the news tomorow, kids.. appahrently the floor was like the Jerry Springer show.
Mo
[ 19. November 2005, 12:31 AM: Message edited by: Mo ]
Posts: 8337 | From the other shore | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
The Lyme Disease Network is a non-profit organization funded by individual donations. If you would like to support the Network and the LymeNet system of Web services, please send your donations to:
The
Lyme Disease Network of New Jersey 907 Pebble Creek Court,
Pennington,
NJ08534USA http://www.lymenet.org/
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[dizzy]](graemlins/dizzy.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
)![[confused]](graemlins/confused.gif)
![[lol]](graemlins/lol.gif)
I'm actually not big on cut and paste. I did it so it would be right here in black and white for all to see.![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
...We all or at least most of us, thought their was a high probability of WMD...dating back to President Bush the senior and Clinton. I have countless articles ( don't make me dig them up..lol ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)and facts stating that Bush Sr. and Clinton and their advisories, considered Iraq a definite and threat. Not possible, a definite threat. Clinton said in his own words that Iraq and Saddam were an imminent threat to American and Americans... )
![[shake]](graemlins/shake.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic