Posted on 08/22/2002 6:44:48 AM PDT by KLT
Oh yes, I'm impressed about the policy of containment...Saddam is contained in a box...Geeze...some people...LOL
Hussein hasn't allowed inspectors in since '98. You'd rather sit back and wait until he actually uses WMD or threatens to as blackmail, or wait until he arms al Qaeda with WMD -- all on the chance that maybe he won't.
In the words of Bush, "The war on terror cannot be won by defense." I'm grateful that we have a President who knows this is true.
As for Colin Powell, you don't know where he stands on the issue of Hussein. You also don't know what Bush has demanded or not demanded privately of Hussein. You have no idea at all of what goes on behind the scenes.
Of course, Hussein is an evil dicator. However, in contrast to radical fundamentalist regimes there is a relative equality for women (equality of misery if you will) in that they have more equal rights in divorce, do not have to wear the veil, can teach and hold government positions, etc. All of this is an anathma to Bin Laden. Do you disagree or are you one of those who claim that Hussein and Bin Laden have the same fundamentalist views?
Your "let's bomb Pearl Harbor before they do" premptive strategy is unAmerican and a betrayal of the ideals of the founding fathers. America was supposed to be different than the swaggering militarist empires of Europe. You want to make us a mirror image. Three cheers for empire and world policing eh?
You should take a look at history. In WWII we didn't win by defense. We didn't just kick Germany out of France and Japan out of the Pacific and left it at that. We had a choice: to go all the way or revisit the problem later. Unfortunately, we didn't learn from history when we kicked Hussein out of Kuwait. We must now go all the way with al Qaeda too and that includes all countries which are knowingly harboring them.
To say that Hussein can't really be in alliance with al Qaeda because Muslim fundamentalism is anathema to him is like saying that Hitler would never side with the Russians because he hated communism and communists. People of that ilk are opportunists first.
As I stated more than once I didn't reject the possibility of limited and tenuous cooperation with Hussein, however, I disagree that only people of certain "ilk" get in bed with the devil when opportunity suits them.
Heck, the U.S. allied with Bin Laden in Afghanistan, Hussein against Iran, and with the two greatest mass murderers of the 20th century (Mao and Stalin) in WWII.
My main point, is that any "links" are merely a pretext for any invasion not the main cause.
I also would urge you to remember another "lesson of history" e.g. the law of unintended consequences. To quote, Hayek....grand social engineering projects, such as the attempt to police the planet, have unintended and disasterous consequences which no one can predict or anticipate. You call it "failure to learn from history." It is far more complicated, indeed far more natural, than that.
Don't worry. I am confident that you will get your war. Five years from now, please do me a favor, however. Don't brush off the disasterous consequences with the excuse that we yet again "failed to learn from the lessons of history."
Any legislative act cannot alter the Constitution.
You keep cutting and pasting meaningless, and useles quotes that do not pertain to the discussion at hand.
Those "meaningless" quotes are from the men that founded this country and wrote the Constitution that specifically address the issue at hand: Congress must be the organization that declares war, the Constitution applies in times of war as well as peace, congress cannot delegate the power to declare war, powers are vested forever.
Address the WPR, and detail what you believe to be unconstitutional about it. Which passage, which section, which article. You have yet to address that, which leads me to believe that you have no knowledge of the WPR, and are arguing against it blindly.
Section 2(a). The "War Powers Resolution" which delegates the power to the President: "the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks ..."
I hope you heard Cheney's speech today.
It isn't policing the world; it's protecting America and America's vital national interests. There's a big difference. There are certain rogue nations in this world that, for our own protection, we cannot and must not let develop nukes. That should be obvious.
"Policy of Containment" Hah, Hah, Hah, Hah.....now that was a good one...
Not quite. You have yet to refute any decision of SCOTUS, and I cited quite a few. You have cited exactly zero.
I asked you to specifically cite which part of the War Powers Resolution you found to be unconstitutional, I even provided a link to a great article discussing the WPR in detail, instead, you cited the resolution passed by Congress in the aftermath of the attacks on 9/11.
My bad. Even though you specifically addressed the WPR the text I cited from your post #115 was the latter resolution. I will correct my error below.
The War Powers Resolution was passed by Congress in the 1970's, while Nixon was president.
The War Powers Resolution (93-148) passed 7 Nov 1973, stated,
SEC. 2. (c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.Sections 2(c)(1) and 2(c)(3) follow the Constitution. The power of Congress to delegate the ability to declare war, or any other legislative power, has already been refuted by the Supreme Court of the United States (see previous comments from those 19th century luminaries. Secondly, the wording of the WPR cites "specific" statutory authorization, yet a blanket resolution against terrorists hardly meets that definition.
The Persian Gulf War was conducted under a 1991 congressional resolution, not the WPA of 1973. As noted in the header to this article, "President Bush has argued that the resolution Congress passed after the Sept. 11 attacks also gives him broad authority to conduct operations in Iraq."
Again, please refer to the decision by founding father Justice John Jay in Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, Federalist Paper #74 by Alexander Hamilton, the opinion held by Abraham Lincoln, the opinion Justice Davis in ex parte Milligan, and numerous other decisions by the Supreme Court.
Stick a fork in this one, he's done.
I hope you enjoy crow.
Just because it has not been challenged does not mean that it's Constitutional.
I don't bother refuting any SCOTUS decisions you have posted, because they do not apply...much as you would love to stretch them, they are irrelevant.
I cited references to 5 decisions by the US Supreme Court which specifically refute the delegation of powers. When you have time read them, each and every one specifically deals with the executive illegally exercising legisislative powers. Another held that the Constitution applies equally to rulers and men, in times of war and peace.
There was an attack on the United States, and whether you agree with the wording of the resolution passed after 9/11, it pertains.
Yes there was an attack. I despise those that attacked us and want them found and destroyed. But I refuse to believe that the Constitution granted one man the power to declare war at his sole discretion. Have Congress pass a resolution specifically naming Iraq, Iran, Syria, or al Queda, UBL, whomever, and the issue we're debating is moot.
Is that a feather sticking out of your mouth?
Not with 5 SCOTUS decisions backing up my position.
I cited references to 5 decisions by the US Supreme Court which specifically refute the delegation of powers.
Clause 18. Necessary and Proper ClauseThat this clause is an enlargement, not a constriction, of the powers expressly granted to Congress, that it enables the lawmakers to select any means reasonably adapted to effectuate those powers, was established by Marshall's classic opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland.1642 ''Let the end be legitimate,'' he wrote, ''let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional.''1643 Moreover, the provision gives Congress a share in the responsibilities lodged in other departments, by virtue of its right to enact legislation necessary to carry into execution all powers vested in the National Government. Conversely, where necessary for the efficient execution of its own powers, Congress may delegate some measure of legislative power to other departments.1644
The Theory of Presidential Power
.--The fullest expression of the presidential power proponents has been in defense of the course followed in Indochina. Thus, the Legal Adviser of the State Department, in a widely circulated document, contended: ''Under the Constitution, the President, in addition to being Chief Executive, is Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy. He holds the prime responsibility for the conduct of United States foreign relations. These duties carry very broad powers, including the power to deploy American forces abroad and commit them to military operations when the President deems such action necessary to maintain the security and defense of the United States. . . .''In 1787 the world was a far larger place, and the framers probably had in mind attacks upon the United States. In the 20th century, the world has grown much smaller. An attack on a country far from our shores can impinge directly on the nation's security. In the SEATO treaty, for example, it is formally declared that an armed attack against Viet Nam would endanger the peace and security of the United States.
''Under our Constitution it is the President who must decide when an armed attack has occurred. He has also the constitutional responsibility for determining what measures of defense are required when the peace and safety of the United States are endangered. If he considers that deployment of U.S. forces to South Viet Nam is required, and that military measures against the source of Communist aggression in North Viet Nam are necessary, he is constitutionally empowered to take those measures.''165
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.