Page 16 of 24 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 239
Like Tree33Likes

Thread: Is America at war, or not?

  1. #151
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 06:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254
    Likes Received
    9346 times
    Likes Given
    28036

    Re: Is America at war, or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    The AUMFs combined with long-standing precedent qualifies these conflicts as "wars" under the Constitution.

    RONALD V
    Only Congress Can Declare War

    "The framers of the Constitution attempted to balance the power of the President as commander-in-chief with that of Congress, the representatives of the People.

    Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution gives to the Executive Branch the command of the nationís armed forces, while Article I, Section 8 gives to the Legislative Branch the power to decide when the United States goes to war."
    Only Congress Can Declare War|Tenth Amendment Center
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  2. #152
    OWL Forever
    katiegrrl0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    at the computer
    Last Seen
    08-05-14 @ 03:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    3,869
    Likes Received
    1839 times
    Likes Given
    2171

    Re: Is America at war, or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    Both of which perpetrated numerous acts of war against the U.S. prior to their liberation.
    what is it exactly that Afghanistan did? you may want to refresh me on what Iraq did to us as well. i would like to see exactly what things they did. Iraq invaded Kuwait. they attacked someone and they were pushed out. that was not an attack on us. what did they do after the first Gulf conflict.

    i can't seem to think of anything the actual nation of Afghanistan did.

    liberation what a laugh. you have got to be kidding.
    The flame that is between us could set every soul on fire. I would love to take that heat and let's fill the whole world with desire.
    Sophie B. Hawkins

  3. #153
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 06:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254
    Likes Received
    9346 times
    Likes Given
    28036

    Re: Is America at war, or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    No unlawful enemy combatants and war criminals perpetrated the attacks.

    Only by Bush's designation, which was reversed by Obama.

    Refresh my memory but I don't recall AQ being a member of the Saudi government, but they were a part of the Taliban government.

    All but two of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi. Most of the funding for Al Qaeda comes from Saudi Arabia. Almost all of the suicide bombers in Iraq also came from SA. Never heard of the al-Qaeda being part of the Afghanistan government. They were not even in Iraq until we invaded.

    Iraq had perpetrated numerous acts of war against the U.S. and Saddam was conspiring with Islamist extremists (including AQ affiliates) to attack the U.S. right up to the fall of Baghdad.
    Not according to the Pentagon report who found no connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. They did not get along.

    We killed far more innocent Iraqis than the accused terrorists killed Americans. Should we have a trial or a military tribunal for our crimes?
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  4. #154
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 09:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894
    Likes Received
    12543 times
    Likes Given
    3140

    Re: Is America at war, or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Only Congress Can Declare War

    "The framers of the Constitution attempted to balance the power of the President as commander-in-chief with that of Congress, the representatives of the People.

    Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution gives to the Executive Branch the command of the nationís armed forces, while Article I, Section 8 gives to the Legislative Branch the power to decide when the United States goes to war."
    Only Congress Can Declare War|Tenth Amendment Center
    And Congress did, via the AUMFs. You're operating under the mistaken assumption that Congress must say the magic words: "This is a declaration of war." That's false. Read Dellums, or Bas v. Tingy:

    The decision of this question must depend upon another, which is whether, at the time of passing the Act of Congress of 2 March, 1799, there subsisted a state of war between the two nations? It may, I believe, be safely laid down that every contention by force between two nations in external matters, under the authority of their respective governments, is not only war, but public war. If it be declared in form, it is called solemn and is of the perfect kind; because one whole nation is at war with another whole nation, and all the members of the nation declaring war, are authorized to commit hostilities against all the members of the other, in every place, and under every circumstance. In such a war, all the members act under a general authority, and all the rights and consequences of war attach to their condition.

    But hostilities may subsist between two nations more confined in its nature and extent, being limited as to places, persons, and things, and this is more properly termed imperfect war; because not solemn, and because those who are authorized to commit hostilities, act under special authority, and can go no further than to the extent of their commission. Still, however, it is public war, because it is an external contention by force between some of the members of the two nations, authorized by the legitimate powers. It is a war between the two nations, though all the members are not authorized to commit hostilities such as in a solemn war, where the government restrain the general power.
    BAS V. TINGY, 4 U. S. 37 (1800) -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

    Or Orlando v. Laird:

    We held in the first Berk opinion that the constitutional delegation of the war-declaring power to the Congress contains a discoverable and manageable standard imposing on the Congress a duty of mutual participation in the prosecution of war.� Judicial scrutiny of that duty, therefore, is not foreclosed by the political question doctrine.� Baker v. Carr, supra; Powell v. McCormack, supra. As we see it, the test is whether there is any action by the Congress sufficient to authorize or ratify the military activity in question.� The evidentiary materials produced at the hearings in the district court clearly disclose that this test is satisfied.

    The Congress and the Executive have taken mutual and joint action in the prosecution and support of military operations in Southeast Asia from the beginning of those operations.� The Tonkin Gulf Resolution, enacted August 10, 1964 (repealed December 31, 1970) was passed at the request of President Johnson and, though occasioned by specific naval incidents in the Gulf of Tonkin, was expressed in broad language which clearly showed the state of mind of the Congress and its intention fully to implement and support the [**7]� military and naval actions taken by and planned to be taken by the President at that time in Southeast Asia, and as might be required in the future "to prevent further aggression." Congress has ratified the executive's initiatives by appropriating billions of dollars to carry out military operations in Southeast Asia n2 and by extending the Military Selective Service Act with full knowledge that persons conscripted under that Act had been, and would continue to be, sent to Vietnam.� Moreover, it specifically conscripted manpower to fill "the substantial induction calls necessitated by the current Vietnam buildup." n3



    n2 In response to the demands of the military operations the executive during the 1960s ordered more and more men and material into the war zone; and congressional appropriations have been commensurate with each new level of fighting.� Until 1965, defense appropriations had not earmarked funds for Vietnam.� In May of that year President Johnson asked Congress for an emergency supplemental appropriation "to provide our forces [then numbering 35,000] with the best and most modern supplies and equipment." 111 Cong.Rec. 9283 (May 4, 1965).� Congress appropriated $700 million for use "upon determination by the President that such action is necessary in connection with military activities in Southeast Asia." Pub.L. 89-18, 79 Stat. 109 (1965).� Appropriation acts in each subsequent year explicitly authorized expenditures for men and material sent to Vietnam.� The 1967 appropriations act, for example, declared Congress' "firm intention to provide all necessary support for members of the Armed Forces of the United States fighting in Vietnam" and supported "the efforts being made by the President of the United States *** to prevent an expansion of the war in Vietnam and to bring that conflict to an end through a negotiated settlement * * *." Pub.L. 90-5, 81 Stat. 5 (1967).

    The district court opinion in Berk v. Laird, 317 F. Supp. 715 (E.D.N.Y.1970), sets out relevant portions of each of these military appropriation acts and discusses their legislative history. [**8]�

    n3 In H.Rep.No.267, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. 38 (1967), in addition to extending the conscription mechanism, Congress continued a suspension of the permanent ceiling on the active duty strength of the Armed Forces, fixed at 2 million men, and replaced it with a secondary ceiling of 5 million.� The House Report recommending extension of the draft concluded that the permanent manpower limitations "are much lower than the currently required strength." The Report referred to President Johnson's selective service message which said, "*** that without the draft we cannot realistically expect to meet our present commitments or the requirements we can now foresee and that volunteers alone could be expected to man a force of little more than 2.0 million. The present number of personnel on active duty is about 3.3 million and it is scheduled to reach almost 3.5 million by June, 1968 if the present conflict is not concluded by then." H.Rep.No.267, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. 38, 41 (1967).



    There is, therefore, no lack of clear evidence to support a conclusion that there was an abundance of continuing mutual participation [**9]� in the prosecution of the war.� Both branches collaborated� [*1043]� in the endeavor, and neither could long maintain such a war without the concurrence and cooperation of the other.

    Although appellants do not contend that Congress can exercise its wardeclaring power only through a formal declaration, they argue that congressional authorization cannot, as a matter of law, be inferred from military appropriations or other war-implementing legislation that does not contain an express and explicit authorization for the making of war by the President.� Putting aside for a moment the explicit authorization of the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, we disagree with appellants' interpretation of the declaration clause for neither the language nor the purpose underlying that provision prohibits an inference of the fact of authorization from such legislative action as we have in this instance.� The framers' intent to vest the war power in Congress is in no way defeated by permitting an inference of authorization from legislative action furnishing the manpower and materials of war for the protracted military operation in Southeast Asia.

    The choice, for example, between an explicit declaration on [**10]� the one hand and a resolution and war-implementing legislation, on the other, as the medium for expression of congressional consent involves "the exercise of a discretion demonstrably committed to the *** legislature," Baker v. Carr, supra 9 at 211, 82 S. Ct. at 707, and therefore, invokes the political question doctrine.

    Such a choice involves an important area of decision making in which, through mutual influence and reciprocal action between the President and the Congress, policies governing the relationship between this country and other parts of the world are formulated in the best interests of the United States.� If there can be nothing more than minor military operations conducted under any circumstances, short of an express and explicit declaration of war by Congress, then extended military operations could not be conducted even though both the Congress and the President were agreed that they were necessary and were also agreed that a formal declaration of war would place the nation in a posture in its international relations which would be against its best interests.� For the judicial branch to enunciate and enforce such a standard would be not only extremely unwise [**11]� but also would constitute a deep invasion of the political question domain.� As the Government says, "*** decisions regarding the form and substance of congressional enactments authorizing hostilities are determined by highly complex considerations of diplomacy, foreign policy and military strategy inappropriate to judicial inquiry." It would, indeed, destroy the flexibility of action which the executive and legislative branches must have in dealing with other sovereigns.� What has been said and done by both the President and the Congress in their collaborative conduct of the military operations in Vietnam implies a consensus on the advisability of not making a formal declaration of war because it would be contrary to the interests of the United States to do so.� The making of a policy decision of that kind is clearly within the constitutional domain of those two branches and is just as clearly not within the competency or power of the judiciary.

    Beyond determining that there has been some mutual participation between the Congress and the President, which unquestionably exists here, with action by the Congress sufficient to authorize or ratify the military activity at issue,� [**12]� it is clear that the constitutional propriety of the means by which Congress has chosen to ratify and approve the protracted military operations in Southeast Asia is a political question.� The form which congressional authorization should take is one of policy, committed to the discretion of the Congress and outside the power and competency of the judiciary, because there are no intelligible and objectively manageable standards by which to judge such actions
    Salvatore ORLANDO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  5. #155
    OWL Forever
    katiegrrl0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    at the computer
    Last Seen
    08-05-14 @ 03:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    3,869
    Likes Received
    1839 times
    Likes Given
    2171

    Re: Is America at war, or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    lol yep I guess the ten official U.S. inquiries which cited incompetence, underestimation and misapprehension of Japanese capabilities and intentions, problems resulting from excessive secrecy about cryptography, and lack of adequate manpower for intelligence (analysis, collection, and processing) were all in on the conspiracy, right up until 1995.



    No they were unlawful combatants committing a war crime. A civilian is a non-com and doesn't engage in hostilities.



    Lemme guess you're a ****ing twoofer as well as a Pearl Harbor conspiracy theorists? Bust out the aluminum foil lady you're going to ****ing need it.



    No he is officially a unlawful enemy combatant.



    Not true for example during the IRA border campaign in 1961 military courts were established by Charles Haughey. The U.S. has tried terrorists within our civilian court system as well even after 9-11 but I see absolutely no reason to try non-citizen unlawful enemy combatants in a civilian court, this is a war whether you want to recognize it or not.

    More over the Geneva Conventions do not in any way prevent unlawful enemy combatants from being tried by military court.
    just the bolded. you must be joking when you say the official reports. are you really so naive to think that the government tells you the truth. my goodness. how many lies are issued by government everyday? stop your so funny.
    The flame that is between us could set every soul on fire. I would love to take that heat and let's fill the whole world with desire.
    Sophie B. Hawkins

  6. #156
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 03:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324
    Likes Received
    916 times
    Likes Given
    97

    Re: Is America at war, or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Yes, I know what superfluous means.
    No you obviously don't.

    I never knew it to be applied to criminal charges before.
    Bin Laden has already been indicted for "conspiracy to attack defense utilities of the United States", and for the "Murder of US Nationals Outside the United States, Conspiracy to Murder US Nationals Outside the United States, and Attacks on a Federal Facility Resulting in Death," tell me why would a 3 indictment be necessary at this point?

    Every other criminal I have seen did not have any superfluous charges.
    He is already wanted on capital charges, why would a third indictment be necessary at this point?

    Every single charge was brought against them. So if I commit a dozen murders, I would only be charged with one, because the other 11 were superfluous?
    Many indictments for murder are issued after the person has already been taken into custody on previous indictments and in many cases where they have already been sentenced for other murders. And once again Bin Laden has been indicted in Spain by Investigative Magistrate Baltasar Garzon specifically for the 9-11 attacks.

    You don't have to convince me. Convince the FBI!
    So do you believe OBL is responsible for 9-11 or not?

  7. #157
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 06:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254
    Likes Received
    9346 times
    Likes Given
    28036

    Re: Is America at war, or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    And Congress did, via the AUMFs. You're operating under the mistaken assumption that Congress must say the magic words: "This is a declaration of war." That's false. Read Dellums, or Bas v. Tingy:
    Does not apply, all congress did was Authorize Bush to make the decision to invade Iraq. Bush made the decision.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  8. #158
    OWL Forever
    katiegrrl0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    at the computer
    Last Seen
    08-05-14 @ 03:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    3,869
    Likes Received
    1839 times
    Likes Given
    2171

    Re: Is America at war, or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    And Congress did, via the AUMFs. You're operating under the mistaken assumption that Congress must say the magic words: "This is a declaration of war." That's false. Read Dellums, or Bas v. Tingy:



    BAS V. TINGY, 4 U. S. 37 (1800) -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

    Or Orlando v. Laird:



    Salvatore ORLANDO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v
    any such permission that your Congress gave was under the false information issued from the Executive. they were lied to. you can keep believing all the lies you want. that is up to you.
    The flame that is between us could set every soul on fire. I would love to take that heat and let's fill the whole world with desire.
    Sophie B. Hawkins

  9. #159
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 03:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324
    Likes Received
    916 times
    Likes Given
    97

    Re: Is America at war, or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Thank you for confirming there is no US indictment for OBL in regards to 9/11.
    A third indictment is not necessary, at least not at this point.

    Can you provide a link for the indictment for OBL in Spain?
    USATODAY.com - Spanish judge indicts Osama bin Laden, 34 others for terrorism

    How many troops does spain have looking for him btw?
    Appx. 1,000.

  10. #160
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 09:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894
    Likes Received
    12543 times
    Likes Given
    3140

    Re: Is America at war, or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Does not apply
    Oh, well if you say so...

    all congress did was Authorize Bush to make the decision to invade Iraq. Bush made the decision.
    And even if that mattered (which it doesn't) what the **** does that have to do with the AUMF Afghanistan?

    Quote Originally Posted by katiegrrl0 View Post
    any such permission that your Congress gave was under the false information issued from the Executive. they were lied to. you can keep believing all the lies you want. that is up to you.
    And how exactly does that change the fact that they were duly enacted?
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Page 16 of 24 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •