Posted on 11/18/2001 8:16:54 PM PST by Pokey78
Edited on 04/23/2004 12:03:54 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Out here in the real America, you can find almost nobody who wants to see Osama bin Laden captured and brought back to the U.S. for trial. Images of O.J. Simpson, Johnnie Cochran and Greta van Susteren spring to mind: All Osama, All the Time. Most people take it for granted that he should simply be killed on sight.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Nope, and we lost them both. Not a coincedence, IMHO.
There's no such thing as a draw for America. We're the best, and if anyone lese survives against us, the world sees it as a victory for them.
And they're right.
I agree about Congress, but there is no way the President wouldn't have gotten a formal declaration had he asked for it. It was his call, and he didn't make it. It's one of the few faults I have with him in this (southern border is the other), but it's a HUGE error on his part. Not a single strong argument against a formal declaration to be found anywhere, on either side of the aisle. The American public would have been more than 80% for it.
I seem to remember reading on FR that there were compelling reasons not to declare war. Declare war on what country, or state? I'm also not sure if the Geneva Convention applies unless war has been declared.
Any lawyers out there?
Regards
There is a function to be performed, by Congress in this as a performance of their duty as a check against the powers of the executive branch. That check has be bypassed and undermined to the extent that it can no longer be said that the national government is operating within the boundries and rule of law.
To act without Constitutitional authority undermines the very basis and reason for a constitition to prevent arbitrary acts of tyranny.
In war, the object is not to accord your enemy the same rights as your own citizens, but to get the enemy in your sights and then kill him. That is a sad duty, but Congress passed a resolution authorizing the president to pursue his announced goal of eliminating terrorist groups of global reach. Part of this process will look like old-fashioned combat, and part will look like old-fashioned police work. But it should all be seen as part of a war nonetheless.
The truth is, we are at war. Failure to act accordingly would only encourage far worse.
If the Joint Resolution accomplishes the same thing, then it is most certainly unconstitutional. The power to declare war was specifically granted in the Constitution. If it's not necessary, if a JR can do the same thing, why have the power to declare war in the Constitution at all?
Because from a Constitutional standpoint, it's not the same thing. It's a nudge and a wink between the branches of government to avoid their Constutional obligation and to accrue extra-Constitutional powers.
Further, if it really is the same thing, then why not actually declare war? If it's no different, then why avoid it?
Here, here!
Should Bush desire a poisoned chalice, he need only pick up and read a copy of the New York Times.
Agreed.
What would does the failure to follow the Constitution and Declare War do?
As stated above, I favor the military tribunals, with a big, but not unreasonable caveat. Just declare the war and we can go about our wartime business.
The DOW was a check on a president unilaterally attacking another country. I have a feeling that Bush privately consulted congress and it was determined that this was going to be a very long effort with new targets that no one could define. This was not a "wink and a nudge" as you call it was a way to give Bush the powers he needs as CIC without a never ending blank check. From my perspective the constitutional requirement for a declared war is there for conventional wars between nation states and their people .
The DOW places Congressional approval for the President to assume his war powers as the CIC. The Joint Resolution did the same thing.
The Joint Resolution did not declare war which should have been one of the provisions within it. The Joint Resolution allows for a short term temporary action that quite frankly is extra-constitutional. It certainly does not provide the "Check and Balance" that the DOW does. For if it did the DOW would been a provision of the Joint Resolution.
Please explain how a check was in place equal to the debate and resolution of a DOW. Seeing that DOW has been left out, it obviously was bypassed and provided no check whatsoever.
The hell with that, I don't want some multi-national tribunal overseeing what we do. Let's just take care of family business and end this.
That is exactly why they did NOT declare war. No one knows where and to whom this war is leading us. The check is in the fact that Bush must go before Congress to continue after Afghanistan. I think a lot of you are reading too much into the declaration of war and not enough into the parts that follow it.
Defeating the Constitution out of expediency says you simply have no Constitution in reality.
When that happens there is no authority of law, merely arbitrary fiat of whatever bureaucrat got a gun behind him to assure compliance with a whim.
No one is defeating the constitution except in your own mind. The Congress has the power to declare war, they also have the power not to do so OR declare it in a way they deem necessary. That has been done and for the life of me I don't see what your problem is other than it does not fit your definition of what a war and declaration thereof means. There is a DOW, it was issued by Bin Laden and the Taleban.
it's martial, as in military, law
george c. marshall is the general/secretary of state for whom the 1948 marshall plan for european recovery was named
In war, the object is not to accord your enemy the same rights as your own citizens, but to get the enemy in your sights and then kill him. That is a sad duty, but Congress passed a resolution authorizing the president to pursue his announced goal of eliminating terrorist groups of global reach. Part of this process will look like old-fashioned combat, and part will look like old-fashioned police work. But it should all be seen as part of a war nonetheless.
The truth is, we are at war. Failure to act accordingly would only encourage far worse.
That is the best statement I have seen on the issue!
The other word we need to understand is :
Al Taquiyah
Borrowed from a post earlier today!
...the Koranic concept of "Al Taquiyah", or "holy deception". Over the centuries, Al Taquiyah has meant that non-islamic nations are first penetrated by "moderate moslems" pretending to have only very limited aspirations for the advancement of islam in that nation. But all the while, they covertly advance the jihadists in the shadows, and attempt to bring in more and more moslems, and when 51% of the population in ANY JURISDICTION is reached, they demand the application of islamic law, controlled by themselves. That can be a school, a town, or a nation. And when that day comes, the early arriving "moderate moslems" turn out to be as radical as the rest. Al Taquiyah has been the pattern of islamic behaviour in non-islamic nation since the 7th century. Anyone who does not recognize the danger in this strategy is living in a fool's paradise, inviting "friendly" viruses to live "harmlessly" within his body.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.