Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Trying Times: Opponents of military tribunals don't want to admit this is war.
Opinion Journal ^ | 11/19/2001 | THOMAS J. BRAY

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 ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-118 next last
To: Travis McGee; ancient_geezer
Were Korea and Viet Nam wars?

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.


21 posted on 11/18/2001 9:17:03 PM PST by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
Hey Saber,

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

22 posted on 11/18/2001 9:17:19 PM PST by Cobra64
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
No they were not wars. They were police actions and should not have been engaged in without formal Declaration of War, by Congress. There was no excuse in either situtation to not have declared war.

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.

23 posted on 11/18/2001 9:18:14 PM PST by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
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.

24 posted on 11/18/2001 9:20:03 PM PST by Victoria Delsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Cobra64
No lawyer but in WW1 and 2 we declared war not only on a government but the people that supported them That is not the case here. The war on terrorism has been defined as terrorists both known and unknown and governments that actively support them. There is no constitutional requirement for us to declare a war that has been declared on us. The only constitutional requirement is for the CIC to act with the approval of the Congress. The Joint Resolution gave that approval.
25 posted on 11/18/2001 9:22:25 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
The DOW places Congressional approval for the President to assume his war powers as the CIC. The Joint Resolution did the same thing. The DOW is just a check and balance. That check and balance has been accomplished.

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?


26 posted on 11/18/2001 9:26:18 PM PST by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Cobra64
I think you are right about the Geneva Convention not applying until we declare war and that there was some concern about the convention limiting our options but don't remember the specifics.
27 posted on 11/18/2001 9:27:28 PM PST by Free the USA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
no, they were 'police actions' and jesse hi-jackson and fat@$$ sharpton are looking to sue the police!!
28 posted on 11/18/2001 9:27:47 PM PST by rockfish59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer
It is long passed time for this nation to start adhere to the Constitution, or admit that there is no Constitution and the Federal government is once again acting without authority or rule of law.

Here, here!


29 posted on 11/18/2001 9:27:52 PM PST by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
it's time for:

RULE # .303!

30 posted on 11/18/2001 9:29:30 PM PST by rockfish59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
The Times couldn't pass up the temptation to quote Justice Robert Jackson, the chief American prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials after World War II, who argued for as much due process as possible. "To pass those defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our lips as well," Jackson said. The Times counseled that Mr. Bush "would be wise to heed those words."

Should Bush desire a poisoned chalice, he need only pick up and read a copy of the New York Times.

31 posted on 11/18/2001 9:30:13 PM PST by Excuse_Me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Victoria Delsoul
The truth is, we are at war. Failure to act accordingly would only encourage far worse.

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.


32 posted on 11/18/2001 9:32:21 PM PST by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
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?

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 .

33 posted on 11/18/2001 9:32:40 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever

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.

34 posted on 11/18/2001 9:33:30 PM PST by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
I don't think that declaring war is a good idea in this case. Once war has been declared, the US would be bound by the Geneva treaty.

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.

35 posted on 11/18/2001 9:34:37 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer
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.

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.

36 posted on 11/18/2001 9:37:06 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
It is precisely that type of thinking that allows the national government to run roughshod over the individual rights of the citizen. The Constitution has been severly undermined and the consequence of that is the underming of respect for law and rule of law all up and down this society.

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.

37 posted on 11/18/2001 9:42:57 PM PST by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer
Defeating the Constitution out of expediency says you simply have no Constitution in reality.

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.

38 posted on 11/18/2001 9:48:03 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: america-rules
"Marshall Law"

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

39 posted on 11/18/2001 9:48:51 PM PST by AntiScumbag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Victoria Delsoul
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.

40 posted on 11/18/2001 9:52:31 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-118 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson