Decision To Throw Out Antiwar Lawsuit Upheld

WSBTV.com ^ | March, 13, 2003 | ?

[PhilipFreneau]

The court did not address the plaintiffs' argument that a congressional resolution authorized war with Iraq only with United Nations approval . . .

. . . from CBSnews.com

The Congressional vote endorsing the resolution on Iraq is seen as a solid endorsement of Mr. Bush's insistence that he will work with the United Nations if possible, or alone if necessary, to disarm Saddam of his weapons of mass destruction.

House Democratic Leader Dick Gephardt of Missouri is one of the authors of the resolution.

"The issue is how to best protect America. And I believe this resolution does that," says Gephardt.

The bipartisan agreement gives the president most of the powers he asked for, allowing him to act without going through the United Nations. But in a concession to Democratic concerns, it encourages him to exhaust all diplomatic means first and requires he report to Congress every 60 days if he does take action.

Translation: the President is doing exactly what the Congress wanted him to do, as reported by CBS. But if one considers the names of some of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, it is easy to understand why they did not understand this fact: they are stupid as hell! Anyone with half-a-brain knows they are stupid as hell!

[lizma]

The Communist Caucus, figures.

LOL on Sheila! I wouldn't be the least bit surprised.

[Hadean]

I'm glad to see it was killed in Boston, of all places.

[300winmag]

I don't see a damn thing that REQUIRES a UN resolution to be passed BEFORE going to war.

It must be somewhere in the emanations of the penumbra of the law, which requires special goggles to make visible.

[ysoitanly]

Sorry pal - text be damned - NOTHING happens until Cameroon and Guinea have their say. Take this back now! Plus we've got a call into Haiti... ;)

[lizma]

JOHN DOE I, JOHN DOE II, JOHN DOE III, JOHN DOE IV, JANE DOE I

Say what? I always knew dead democrats could vote, but now their filing lawsuits?

I guess it's no surprise if you consider their last presidential candidate.

[ysoitanly]

sorry about my comment line that said 'SCREW' for so long - I just noticed it and couldn't believe it! I certainly didn't want it there and I think I got mad one night at a reply and hit the 'tab' key one too many times when I was starting a sentence with that word and it ended up in the wrong box. Been removed!

[nicmarlo]

lol!

[nicmarlo]

Here's a list of members of the "Progressive Caucus:" a/k/a Socialists

and here's a link to the 59 Socialists in Congress thread:

59 Socialists in Congress – 2002

This people are the plaintiffs and are current members of the Progressive Caucus, a front name, IMHO, for the Democratic Socialists of America:

Dennis Kucinich, CO-CHAIR, OHIO
Lynn Woolsey, VICE-CHAIR, CALIFORNIA
Jesse Jackson, Jr, OFFICER, ILLINOIS
John Conyers, MEMBER, MICHIGAN
Jim McDermott, MEMBER, WASHINGTON
Jose Serrano, MEMBER, NEW YORK
Sheila Jackson-Lee, MEMBER, TEXAS

[nicmarlo]

FYI, at the bottom of the Order (see my post #9, with link), there's a list of Representatives:

1. The military personnel and some of the parents are proceeding under pseudonyms, pursuant to an order by the district court that is not before us. <> The members of the House of Representatives are John Conyers, Dennis Kucinich, Jesse Jackson, Jr., Sheila Jackson Lee, Jim McDermott, José E. Serrano, Danny K. Davis, Maurice D. Hinchey, Carolyn Kilpatrick, Pete Stark, Diane Watson, and Lynn C. Woolsey. We also acknowledge the assistance provided by amicus curiae on behalf of the plaintiffs.

[Hadean]

I'm checking that website out now. I try to stay away from 'conspiracy' kind of stuff, but that site reads like the Manifesto itself. I wouldn't doubt that it's a front either. Thanks for the info.

[Hadean]

It's funny what you find. I read the Order you linked up to. In it, there's mention of the basis of the plaintiff argument referring to Ange v. Bush, 752 F. Supp. at 515. Did a search, and it led to this:

http://www.aclj.org/news/nf_010917_breakdown_expanded.asp

In this memorandum, it starts going into the North Atlantic Treaty. It then goes into Article 5, the "Mutual Defense Clause". Sept. 11 triggered this article, and the 19 member nations of the treaty agreed to invoke the Treaty's mutual defense clause.

The basis of the prosecution on the recent suit seemed to aim not only at the constitutional angle, but also at the sovereign right of the US to defend itself.

[goldstategop]

Sure. Go ahead and gum up the works so more Americans die. What idiots.

[nicmarlo]

Hadean.....I'm not much for conspiracy theories, either; however, the aims of the socialist democrats are too clear....I'm putting together some info on these people.....and I'll post it later tonight (I hope) when I'm done.....that's what I was doing last night....till the wee hours.....I think it's important to see who the "enemies within" are.

[Hadean]

I look foward to reading it.

[nicmarlo]

I'm still putting it together. There's a lot of work/time necessary. I'm about halfway through.....and because there's so much info., I'm almost thinking it might be better to have its own thread, with links to this site, and search around for possibly some other threads on these folks....I've found out some interesting info. regarding some of them that I bet many don't remember or know. In any event, it doesn't look like I'll be done for at least a few days.....