We beat the Nazi's adhering to the Geneva convention, I don't see why this should be a problem here.
In any case, I'd rather see us bust a treaty out of necessity than bust the Constitution for no good reaason.
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]
No one knows where and to whom this war is leading us.
Same could be said concerning the situation when we went after the Barbary Pirates. The DOW then did not state the specific persons nor countries. But did define a state of war with regard to those persons engaged in piracy, and those nations harboring them.
The point of the DOW is that it declares the status of the nation at war and the conditions of the War for all to know. Those conditions having been acceptable after full debate of Congress.
The Congress chose not to Declare War, it had ample precident and form to act within out of our history. This kind of action just undermines the authority of the Constitution, and destories respect for law and the authority of our institutions.
We beat the Nazi's adhering to the Geneva convention, I don't see why this should be a problem here.
In any case, I'd rather see us bust a treaty out of necessity than bust the Constitution for no good reaason.
The Nazis were also subject since Germany had signed the accords. No one in the Middle East ever did so.
It is my understanding that the constitution allows for the President to mobilize the armed forces under certain circumstances, and for a certain period of time without declaring war.
Under the Constititution He may call upon the Navy on the high seas to protect our shipping and boarders, or call up militias to repell invasion or put down insurrections within our national boundries. The Declaration of War is a law governing our actions with regard to law of nations and our invasion of foreign lands in the prosecution of a war. It is a clear statement of our intent to the rest of the world.
If 9/11 wasn't sufficient reason to declare war, what would it take?
Ask yourself this: Would any President from George Washington through Franklin Roosevelt have hesitated to ask Congress to declare war on 9/11?
I think not.
Great. Then we engage them on their own terms. We have no accord with them.
I'd rather unilaterally bust a treaty than multilaterally twist the Constitution.
See you on the income tax threads.
Say goodnight Gracie.
Once again you are making a false analogy. The joint resolution was this Congress' method of a war declaration. It gave the president full war powers to act as the CIC. The constitution is silent on what method the Congress must follw to declare war. In this instance they used a joint resolution in lieu of a fill in the blank DOW as nations or individuals are targeted. The Barbary Pirates were a defined entity with a defined base of operations that is NOT the case here.
Then it is my turn to accuse you of wanting to act unconstitutionally.
You: "Then it is my turn to accuse you of wanting to act unconstitutionally."
So, if it's a choice between the two, you'd take the treaty?
How can we be bound by a treaty about the rules of war that our opponents are not bound by?
For the sake of a treaty, you'd do an end around the Constitution?
No but according to the constitution only congress can ratify a treaty or abridge that treaty. The CIC has NO authority to do so.
I don't really know the answer to that question, and I don't think that you do either.
The Barbary Pirates were a defined entity with a defined base of operations that is NOT the case here.
The Al Queda is not known, the countries it operates in and is supported by are not known. Hardly. The declaration of war simply states who we are going after, Al Queda and their allies and those nations that support and harbor Al Queda. If there be others, they should be named as well, otherwise there exists nothing that Constititutionally authorises the president order out troops into a foriegn land.
The Congress does not have authority to do anything other than give the CIC a proper Declaration of War and turn him loose where actions against another nation is concerneced. The DOW is to War, as Consent is to the Ratification of Treaties.
We're No. #1. Ties count as wins for the other side. A Kim is still in power in North Korea, and now he has WMDs.
That's no tie,
Going to war with China then would have been a tremendous waste.
Waiting to go to war with China until they had ICBM's will prove to be a greater waste.
Failing to go to war with them when they eventually provoke it will prove to be even worse.
Do you think that if the President asked for a Decalration of War, and an abrogation of Geneva Treaty where our opponents are not likewise bound, Congress would have denied him this?
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.