Sensenbrenner: Don't Declare War

Human Events | October 28, 2001 | Human Events/rewrite/ninenot

[ninenot]

Human EventsPublished an article latest edition in which Jim Sensenbrenner (R, WI.) Chairman of House Judiciary, argues that 'declaring war is unnecessary' and 'may not be helpful,' because without such a declaration, Bush enjoys greater freedom in prosecuting 'military action' against terrorists. On the other hand, they also quote a lawyer who indicates that 'this means a criminal prosecution is necessary,' perhaps before some international tribunal.

Sensenbrenner further states that since Taliban and Bin Ladin are not signatories to the War Accords, they do not have to treat any US captives as prisoners of war--and not declaring war means that the US does not have to treat captives as prisoners of war, either--a military trial and executions are all that's required.

[ninenot]

I wondered why Congress was sitting on its hands. Now I think I know. Ron Paul wants Congress to issue orders of marque and reprisal, which would allow private entities to go after BinLadin, and is strictly Constitutional. Hmmmm...

[KC Burke]

It sounds to me like pragmatic rationalization for institutional failure to perform their duties as structuraly delegated by the Constitution.

We should face it, the Congress would rather snipe from the sidelines of policy making than outline a course of action and have it executed. They are more concerned with how they appear than with what they accomplish. They were meant to be the paramount branch and through party politics and institutionalized incumbancy, they have relegated themselves to detail scribes and backbiters.

[Ahban]

I trust Ron Paul. We need a declaration of war, with the explicit understanding that any expanded government powers over U.S. citizens ceases immediately when the war is over.

If they did not sign the treaty, I don't see how we can be bound by our signature. At any rate, rules for treatment of prisoners may only apply to uniformed soliers. I believe guerellias can be treated as spies and shot.

[ninenot]

It would suit me fine if same treatment were given to US 'sleepers' who are discovered. I cannot fathom how some turkeys construct the Constitution to provide 'due process' to aliens whose purpose is to kill citizens.

[DWSUWF]

"...On the other hand, they also quote a lawyer who indicates that 'this means a criminal prosecution is necessary,' perhaps before some international tribunal..."

LOL!

It is easier to obtain forgiveness than it is to obtain permission.

Silly lawyers... Events will unfold without their 'input' being required, or solicited.

The murdering raghead will be dead. Who are the ambulance chasers who are offended going to sue who has the power to change that reality?

[ninenot]

OTOH, Sensenbrenner is my Congressman. So I read the Congressional voting record that Human Events publishes every week--and I can only recall ONE vote in 5+ years on which I disagreed w/Sensenbrenner.

For the record, he was not at all happy with the "anti-Terrorist" legislation--it was shoved down his throat by the Administration. Sensenbrenner was and is VERY concerned about the civil liberties limits, and/or the growth of Federal powers under the legislation. Interesting that both Sensenbrenner and Feingold opposed the bill (although Sensenbrenner voted for it in the end and Feingold did not.) Feingold, of course, is a way-left Democrat.

[Sunburnt in Seattle]

After the Senate failed to conduct a serious trial of an impeached president and Congress as a whole failed to declare war after 5,000+ citizens and guests were murdered in three states in a single day, I can only conclude that Congress is an archaic institution of no real value to the citizens of this nation.

[ninenot]

Wisconsin bump

[ninenot]

Not entirely. Recall that some JAG-corps bozo nixed shooting the head of the Taliban--we had him in the sights of a drone w/cruise missles and a freaking LAWYER said that 'it doesn't pass the smell test' to take him out. I understand that Rumsfield almost turned his office into a junkyard he was so p****ed.

[Jolly Rodgers]

I cannot fathom how some turkeys construct the Constitution to provide 'due process' to aliens whose purpose is to kill citizens.

Due process is not to protect the guilty, it is to protect the innocent who are wrongly accused.

[DWSUWF]

"...I understand that Rumsfield almost turned his office into a junkyard he was so p****ed..."

Exactly... And THIS is why I don't expect OBL to survive.

The word is well and sufficiently out... Bringing the sand goblin in alive will be a career-stunter.

[GVnana]

they also quote a lawyer who indicates that 'this means a criminal prosecution is necessary,' perhaps before some international tribunal.

This is a key issue for me. I don't want Americans burdened with giving trials to these monsters. If an American citizen is involved, well, so be it. But for the foreigners? A military tribunal and swift execution will suffice. The lawyers won't like that. It cost the US taxpayers SEVEN MILLION DOLLARS to prosecute the WTC bombers, and nine years after the event, get a verdict. Life in prison. Much better that these issues are handled in the military.

[ex-snook]

Seems like we should always declare war on any country before we bomb it. Didn't we blame the Japanese for bombing Pearl Harbor without a declaration of war? A voted declaration of war will put the country behind the effort. A Representative should not be afraid to stand up and be counted.

[ninenot]

My first inclination is to agree with you, mostly because the precedent is quite frightening. We could have 'military actions' all over the place without war being declared--as was the case in Vietnam--you remember how that worked out.

The Constitution was written so that checks and balances were in effect--that a slightly loony President could not commit troops without the prior approval of Congress. When it is your own children who are off in XYZ-land you tend to pay attention--and, frankly, the Vietnam war was lost on the home-front, by both LBJ (and his idiot savant, Macnamara) and Nixon. It could happen again, although the WTC attack makes this particular effort quite different from Vietnam.

In the end, I am more comfortable if Congress does not abdicate its responsibilities. Either it is a war, or we don't send troops.

[max61]

For the record, he was not at all happy with the "anti-Terrorist" legislation--it was shoved down his throat by the Administration.

Great excuse. He's the sponsor. I didn't notice any footnotes stating he was forced or coerced by the administration into bringing it to the House floor.

Besides that, he could have always voted against it, but I'm sure that his arm was twisted during the vote as well.

---max

[brewcrew]

Bush is simply waging this war on his own terms, and in this case it's based on what I call playground justice. You remember the bully in school who always did stuff behind the backs of authorities, trying to get you in trouble. Well, where I went to school, the bully usually got his comeuppance on the playground - a place where, once again, you could get him out of view of the authorities. The bully had already set the rules by going behind the back of the teacher, so he got his later.

The Taliban is going to get its @$$ kicked, but an official declaration of war is like seeking justice in front of the teacher (or, in this case, the Geneva convention).

[dr_who]

I wouldn't burden down our troops in Afganistan with prisoners if the Taliban don't take prisoners. Simple as that.

[okie_tech]

"but an official declaration of war is like seeking justice in front of the teacher"

I disagree, I do not think our troops should be deployed in conflict with any other country without a declaration of war

[ninenot]

I am not techie enough to post the URL--but the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel of 10/21/01 had an absolutely terrific article on the topic. Sensenbrenner made it VERY clear that the Admin shoved their wishes into the bill. I don't know for sure that he actually voted for the end product (which was much more like the Senate's version.) If you can go to www.jsonline.com and find the article, it is a goldmine of info.

What bothers me about this is that I have been saying for years that when the 'rightists' get into power they have the potential to be far more authoritarian than the 'leftists.'

[brewcrew]

I disagree, I do not think our troops should be deployed in conflict with any other country without a declaration of war

Why? Do you believe it is unconsitutional? My own thought is that the president has quite a bit of latitude when it comes to a military response made in self defense.

Believe me when I say that I truly don't have a chip on my shoulder on this issue - I am seeking the opinions of others in an effort to solidify my own.