A question for people about the use of military

[Cordelier]

As far as presidential overreach is concerned, when has that ever stopped a President before? It certainly didn't stop Obama from using Public Law 107-40 to justify using military force in Syria, Yemen, and Libya, because Congress never gave their approval. Obama established the precedent, so don't be surprised when Trump also uses Public Law 107-40 to bomb the living crap out of Iran.

Obama overreached his authority and should have been called out for it. If Trump doubles down on that and makes what would very probably be the biggest blunder in US history by going to war with Iran, well, then he'll reap the consequences.... whatever they happen to be.

 

[Glitch]

Obama overreached his authority and should have been called out for it. If Trump doubles down on that and makes what would very probably be the biggest blunder in US history by going to war with Iran, well, then he'll reap the consequences.... whatever they happen to be.

If Congress did not want Public Law 107-40 used in the manner that Obama used it, they would have repealed the law - particularly when the Republicans controlled Congress. But they never did. The law is still in effect, and the President is legally free to use military force against any "nation, organization, or person" of his choice at his whim, without consulting Congress or obtaining their approval.

 

[Cordelier]

If Congress did not want Public Law 107-40 used in the manner that Obama used it, they would have repealed the law - particularly when the Republicans controlled Congress. But they never did. The law is still in effect, and the President is legally free to use military force against any "nation, organization, or person" of his choice at his whim, without consulting Congress or obtaining their approval.

Public Law 107-40 (AUMF) empowers the President to use military force against the terrorists responsible for 9/11 and anyone who supported them. I think it's a stretch to include either the Governments of Libya or Iran under that classification, don't you? To do so would be akin to LBJ or Nixon using the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution to invade North Korea.

 

[Glitch]

Public Law 107-40 (AUMF) empowers the President to use military force against the terrorists responsible for 9/11 and anyone who supported them. I think it's a stretch to include either the Governments of Libya or Iran under that classification, don't you? To do so would be akin to LBJ or Nixon using the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution to invade North Korea.

Public Law 107-40 has been morphed into the War Against Terrorism and has thus far included every nation that has sponsored international terrorism. In that context Iran certainly falls into the category of actively sponsoring international terrorism. When the law was enact in 2001 Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Syria were actively sponsoring international terrorism. Syria and Iran still are.

I agree with your interpretation of the law. It should only be applied to those who were involved in the 09/11/01 attacks. However, I can't get past the fact that the law has been in place for 18 years and Congress has allowed the law to be misused and applied to other terrorist sponsoring nations, even though they have no involvement in the 09/11/01 attacks (such as Libya, Syria, and Yemen). Therefore, it is not a stretch to see this law being abused yet again by Trump. The question is whether or not Congress will be hypocrites or allow Trump to abuse the law just like Obama.

 

[Glitch]

Public Law 107-40 (AUMF) empowers the President to use military force against the terrorists responsible for 9/11 and anyone who supported them. I think it's a stretch to include either the Governments of Libya or Iran under that classification, don't you? To do so would be akin to LBJ or Nixon using the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution to invade North Korea.

Public Law 107-40 has been morphed into the War Against Terrorism and has thus far included every nation that has sponsored international terrorism against the US - except Iran. In that context Iran certainly falls into the category of actively sponsoring international terrorism. When the law was enact in 2001 Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Syria were actively sponsoring international terrorism. Syria and Iran still are.

I agree with your interpretation of the law. It should only be applied to those who were involved in the 09/11/01 attacks. However, I can't get past the fact that the law has been in place for 18 years and Congress has allowed the law to be misused and applied to other terrorist sponsoring nations, even though they have no involvement in the 09/11/01 attacks (such as Libya, Syria, and Yemen). Therefore, it is not a stretch to see this law being abused yet again by Trump. The question is whether or not Congress will be hypocrites and hold Trump accountable when they refused to do the same for Obama, or allow Trump to abuse the law just like Obama.

 

[Glitch]

Public Law 107-40 (AUMF) empowers the President to use military force against the terrorists responsible for 9/11 and anyone who supported them. I think it's a stretch to include either the Governments of Libya or Iran under that classification, don't you? To do so would be akin to LBJ or Nixon using the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution to invade North Korea.

Public Law 107-40 has been morphed into the War Against Terrorism and has thus far included every nation that has sponsored international terrorism. In that context Iran certainly falls into the category of actively sponsoring international terrorism. When the law was enact in 2001 Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Syria were actively sponsoring international terrorism. Syria and Iran still are.

I agree with your interpretation of the law. It should only be applied to those who were involved in the 09/11/01 attacks. However, I can't get past the fact that the law has been in place for 18 years and Congress has allowed the law to be misused and applied to other terrorist sponsoring nations, even though they have no involvement in the 09/11/01 attacks (such as Libya, Syria, and Yemen). Therefore, it is not a stretch to see this law being abused yet again by Trump. The question is whether or not Congress will be hypocrites or allow Trump to abuse the law just like Obama.

 

[ataraxia]

That's pie in the sky, Ataraxia.... maybe one day when we start reaching out into space it'll seem pretty silly to keep squabbling over patches of dirt on this little spheroid, but until then - when this planet is all we've got, it's going to keep revolving the same way it always has.

The Bible had it right... the meek will inherit the Earth - only catch is that it'll only be when everyone else is done with it.

But that’s exactly the problem: the mindset that we do better by squabbling and competing rather than cooperating may have been true in the preindustrial world. But since the scientific/industrial revolutions, that has become an obsolete concept. Scientific/industrial advancement, international trade, increasing globalization, etc... have shown that this does not have to be a zero sum game. Not even close. The logarithmic benefits to all which come from cooperation, from rigorous and sound systems of law,order, and justic and competent systems of government, have been astounding. We desperately need to have that at the international level. I just don’t think many people, or governments, have been able to get past that obsolete old world mindset.

Our kindergarten teachers and Sesame Street episodes who tried to teach us so hard about the critical importance of basic social skills, sharing, empathy, following the rules, not taking others’ stuff, basic manners, etc... may have had it right all along after all. It turns out our future, humanity’s future, and whether it survives and thrives and prospers, or whether it tears itself apart over petty and shortsighted squabbles, may hinge on it.

 

[Cordelier]

Public Law 107-40 has been morphed into the War Against Terrorism and has thus far included every nation that has sponsored international terrorism. In that context Iran certainly falls into the category of actively sponsoring international terrorism. When the law was enact in 2001 Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Syria were actively sponsoring international terrorism. Syria and Iran still are.

I agree with your interpretation of the law. It should only be applied to those who were involved in the 09/11/01 attacks. However, I can't get past the fact that the law has been in place for 18 years and Congress has allowed the law to be misused and applied to other terrorist sponsoring nations, even though they have no involvement in the 09/11/01 attacks (such as Libya, Syria, and Yemen). Therefore, it is not a stretch to see this law being abused yet again by Trump. The question is whether or not Congress will be hypocrites or allow Trump to abuse the law just like Obama.

What made the Libyan situation different was the passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1973 - as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, I feel President Obama was empowered to act under the terms of Article VI of the Constitution (Treaties - including the UN Treaty - are the supreme law of the land). In that way, he was in much the same position as President Truman when he intervened in Korea. Obviously he would have been in a much better position if he were able to obtain Congressional approval for his actions, but I don't think it was necessary for him to do so. My only fault with President Obama on Libya is that he didn't seem to do enough to adhere to the War Powers Resolution and keep Congress informed... but that's more an issue of style than substance.

With Iran, I very much doubt that President Trump would be able to obtain passage of a similar Chapter VII UN Security Council Resolution nor Congressional approval... so in that instance, I think PL 107-40 is going to be too weak a reed for him to lean on.

 

[liedttoagain]

Americans, at least in the last 100 years, are not naturally "warlike."

Woodrow Wilson was elected on a promise to keep us out of wars. It took 3 years from the sinking of the Lusitania, through unrestricted submarine warfare, to a German "memorandum" (Zimmermann Telegram) to get us in toward the end.

FDR desperately wanted the US to get into WWII, but it took a sneak attack on Hawaii to push us into war with Japan, and it still took Hitler's declaring war on us to also include Europe.

It took an invasion of South Korea for us to go to war with North Korea.

In your own example, it took a "faked" attack to get involved in Vietnam.

Finally it took an attack on 9/11 to create such "fervor" that we not only mobilized against Iran (again) but also Afghanistan (but not the nation who supplied the terrorists, Saudi Arabia)

Note that 9/11 "panicked" so many people it lead to the Patriot Act, FISA Courts, and a slue of other liberty restrictions we still suffer in the "War on Terror."

So where is the foundation of your premise, we like and support military adventurism?

Say what? The U.S. has been in armed conflicts for 222 years of our 239 year existence. In just 4 years in the U.S. Marines I was in 3 armed conflicts, 4 if you want to call Nixon's Cambodian BS a separate conflict! Our country has only been not at war with someone, for 11 years since this country was founded. And we have been in a major war about every 20 years. Sorry dude, but you failed American military History 101, big time.

 

[Cordelier]

But that’s exactly the problem: the mindset that we do better by squabbling and competing rather than cooperating may have been true in the preindustrial world. But since the scientific/industrial revolutions, that has become an obsolete concept. Scientific/industrial advancement, international trade, increasing globalization, etc... have shown that this does not have to be a zero sum game. Not even close. The logarithmic benefits to all which come from cooperation, from rigorous and sound systems of law,order, and justic and competent systems of government, have been astounding. We desperately need to have that at the international level. I just don’t think many people, or governments, have been able to get past that obsolete old world mindset.

Our kindergarten teachers and Sesame Street episodes who tried to teach us so hard about the critical importance of basic social skills, sharing, empathy, following the rules, not taking others’ stuff, basic manners, etc... may have had it right all along after all. It turns out our future, humanity’s future, and whether it survives and thrives and prospers, or whether it tears itself apart over petty and shortsighted squabbles, may hinge on it.

Here's the problem with that, Ataraxia... among nations as well as men there are always going to be haves and have-nots. I'm all for peace, cooperation, and scientific advancement... but I also know that the benefits derived from those things aren't going to be distributed equally among all. There are always going to be people and nations who feel they aren't getting their fair share. It's like the whole Capitalism vs. Communism debate.... sure, we can all cooperate and work together in a capitalist system - and the people who are smarter and more talented and work harder will tend to get ahead. But if the people who get left behind continue to get left further and further behind, what happens then? Eventually they come to realize the capitalism and cooperation only tend to favor the rich.

And then on the other side of the coin, there's Communism, where ideally, the benefits of cooperation are shared equally by all. But if all you get is your fair share - the same as the guy next to you - then what's the incentive to work any harder than him? Then it just turns into a lowest common denominator thing and all we end up with is stagnation.

It seems to me that the ideal situation - for humanity as a whole - is a situation where the poorest countries are growing and developing at a faster rate then the rich ones based on their own merits, but one where the rich countries are somehow able to see the erosion of their relative share of global wealth as an opportunity and not a sign of their economic decline. That's a pretty difficult balance to maintain, don't you think?

 

[ataraxia]

Here's the problem with that, Ataraxia... among nations as well as men there are always going to be haves and have-nots. I'm all for peace, cooperation, and scientific advancement... but I also know that the benefits derived from those things aren't going to be distributed equally among all. There are always going to be people and nations who feel they aren't getting their fair share. It's like the whole Capitalism vs. Communism debate.... sure, we can all cooperate and work together in a capitalist system - and the people who are smarter and more talented and work harder will tend to get ahead. But if the people who get left behind continue to get left further and further behind, what happens then? Eventually they come to realize the capitalism and cooperation only tend to favor the rich.

And then on the other side of the coin, there's Communism, where ideally, the benefits of cooperation are shared equally by all. But if all you get is your fair share - the same as the guy next to you - then what's the incentive to work any harder than him? Then it just turns into a lowest common denominator thing and all we end up with is stagnation.

It seems to me that the ideal situation - for humanity as a whole - is a situation where the poorest countries are growing and developing at a faster rate then the rich ones based on their own merits, but one where the rich countries are somehow able to see the erosion of their relative share of global wealth as an opportunity and not a sign of their economic decline. That's a pretty difficult balance to maintain, don't you think?

Yes, of course there is always going to be some inherent tension in the system. But looking at how countries like Germany or the Scandinavian countries have been able to juggle and balance these often competing (but equally legitimate) demands- it makes me hopeful that it’s not impossible. There are clearly better and worse ways of doing it, even if there may not be any perfect way. There may not be perfect ways to do it, but that doesn’t mean we give up, or stop making efforts in that direction, or that any movement in that direction is a slippery slope to communist tyranny, or that there aren’t just better ways of doing the juggling.

 

[Cordelier]

Yes, of course there is always going to be some inherent tension in the system. But looking at how countries like Germany or the Scandinavian countries have been able to juggle and balance these often competing (but equally legitimate) demands- it makes me hopeful that it’s not impossible. There are clearly better and worse ways of doing it, even if there may not be any perfect way. There may not be perfect ways to do it, but that doesn’t mean we give up, or stop making efforts in that direction, or that any movement in that direction is a slippery slope to communist tyranny, or that there aren’t just better ways of doing the juggling.

Sure, there's always hope... and I'd like to believe the general trend of human advancement is upwards - even if we do tend to backslide from time to time. So how do you overcome greed & nationalism without stagnation? In essence, what drives our progress is what also holds us back.

 

[ataraxia]

Sure, there's always hope... and I'd like to believe the general trend of human advancement is upwards - even if we do tend to backslide from time to time. So how do you overcome greed & nationalism without stagnation? In essence, what drives our progress is what also holds us back.

I am thinking economic and capitalistic competition would be the new spur to growth. Beats killing people and just taking their stuff. And it’s OK to have socialist safety nets for basic human rights ( like food, clean water, access to a basic education, access to healthcare, etc...) to prevent people from getting hurt too badly when they lose in that game. It would allow them to brush themselves off and get back into the game.

I am fairly confident that would be a much more humane, and prosperous, world.

 

[Cordelier]

I am thinking economic and capitalistic competition would be the new spur to growth. Beats killing people and just taking their stuff. And it’s OK to have socialist safety nets for basic human rights ( like food, clean water, access to a basic education, access to healthcare, etc...) to prevent people from getting hurt too badly when they lose in that game. It would allow them to brush themselves off and get back into the game.

I am fairly confident that would be a much more humane, and prosperous, world.

Yes, but you're a valley person. The way I figure it, there are two types of people in the world... village people and hill people. Those are just figurative labels, not literal ones. You can call them whatever you want.... city people and country people, blue state and red state. Basically, what it boils down to is that some people are more attuned to soft living and some people are more attuned to hard living. Some people grow up in a place where there are abundant resources, highly developed commerce, educational, and cultural opportunities at hand. The other kind of people - the hill people - don't.... and they're just fine with that - they're not into city living and going to opening night at the symphony and all of that. Two different types of mentality and outlook. But each side tends to look down on the other for their own reasons. To the valley people, the hill people are a bunch of illiterate, uncultured hicks. To the hill people, valley people are a bunch of entitled, effete elitists.

The kind of world you're envisioning is a valley person's world... so how far would you be willing to bend to appeal to the hill people?

 

[Glitch]

What made the Libyan situation different was the passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1973 - as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, I feel President Obama was empowered to act under the terms of Article VI of the Constitution (Treaties - including the UN Treaty - are the supreme law of the land). In that way, he was in much the same position as President Truman when he intervened in Korea. Obviously he would have been in a much better position if he were able to obtain Congressional approval for his actions, but I don't think it was necessary for him to do so. My only fault with President Obama on Libya is that he didn't seem to do enough to adhere to the War Powers Resolution and keep Congress informed... but that's more an issue of style than substance.

With Iran, I very much doubt that President Trump would be able to obtain passage of a similar Chapter VII UN Security Council Resolution nor Congressional approval... so in that instance, I think PL 107-40 is going to be too weak a reed for him to lean on.

That is a serious stretch. The UN has absolutely no say in who the US goes to war. Article VI of the US Constitution does not give the President carte blanche authority to do whatever he pleases. Before any agreement or treaty can be ratified it must first receive the "advice and consent" of the Senate. Without Senate approval there is no agreement or treaty. What both Truman and Obama did was to deliberately violate the US Constitution, and Congress allowed it.

No matter how you try to twist and distort the US Constitution, there is no way you can justify any President using military force without prior congressional approval.

 

[Cordelier]

That is a serious stretch. The UN has absolutely no say in who the US goes to war. Article VI of the US Constitution does not give the President carte blanche authority to do whatever he pleases. Before any agreement or treaty can be ratified it must first receive the "advice and consent" of the Senate. Without Senate approval there is no agreement or treaty. What both Truman and Obama did was to deliberately violate the US Constitution, and Congress allowed it.

No matter how you try to twist and distort the US Constitution, there is no way you can justify any President using military force without prior congressional approval.

Hate to break it to you, Glitch... but we have treaty commitments that commit and legitimize US use of force. If NATO invokes Article 5 or the UN passes a Chapter VII Security Council Resolution, then the President can legitimately use force without seeking Congressional approval, consistent with the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the Constitution and the President's Article II powers as Commander-in-Chief. The Senate was well-aware of these provisions when it passed the UN and NATO Treaties in the 1940's.

 

[Glitch]

Hate to break it to you, Glitch... but we have treaty commitments that commit and legitimize US use of force. If NATO invokes Article 5 or the UN passes a Chapter VII Security Council Resolution, then the President can legitimately use force without seeking Congressional approval, consistent with the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the Constitution and the President's Article II powers as Commander-in-Chief. The Senate was well-aware of these provisions when it passed the UN and NATO Treaties in the 1940's.

You are mistaken. Treaties are of equal legal weight of the US Constitution, but they cannot supersede the US Constitution. Which means that under Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the US Constitution only Congress has the authority to declare wars. Not NATO, not the UN, and most certainly not the President.

 

[Cordelier]

You are mistaken. Treaties are of equal legal weight of the US Constitution, but they cannot supersede the US Constitution. Which means that under Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the US Constitution only Congress has the authority to declare wars. Not NATO, not the UN, and most certainly not the President.

Here's the text of the Supremacy Clause:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Treaty commitments are on an equal footing with the Constitution itself as the supreme law of the land.

 

[Glitch]

Here's the text of the Supremacy Clause:



Treaty commitments are on an equal footing with the Constitution itself as the supreme law of the land.

Now show me where the Supremacy Clause says treaties supersede the US Constitution.

You can't, because it doesn't. Treaties cannot be ratified in the first place if they violated any part of the US Constitution. Which means that every part of the US Constitution is still valid, including the fact that only Congress has the authority to declare wars.

 

[Cordelier]

Now show me where the Supremacy Clause says treaties supersede the US Constitution.

You can't, because it doesn't. Treaties cannot be ratified in the first place if they violated any part of the US Constitution. Which means that every part of the US Constitution is still valid, including the fact that only Congress has the authority to declare wars.

I'm not talking about declaring wars.... I'm talking about invoking treaties as a response to breaches of international peace and security. It's a completely different kettle of fish.

 

[Glitch]

I'm not talking about declaring wars.... I'm talking about invoking treaties as a response to breaches of international peace and security. It's a completely different kettle of fish.

No, it is not a different kettle of fish. Any time the President uses military force - anywhere, for any reason - it requires the prior approval of Congress. No treaty supersedes that constitutional requirement. The only exception to that is the National Guard, which may be deployed anywhere within the US without prior congressional approval. However, if it involves the use of military force outside of the US, then prior congressional approval is required.

I have absolutely no doubt that if a fellow NATO member were to be attacked, Congress would immediately give the President the authority he requires to uphold our NATO obligations. However, it is Congress that must decide whether or not to honor that obligation, not the President.

What Truman did in Korea, Clinton in Kosovo, and Obama in Libya, Syria, and Yemen violated the US Constitution, while Congress looked the other way.

 

[PersianCavalry]

...take Vietnam. The right's narrative is, "we lost because we weren't allowed to kill enough', some say 'use nukes'. the left's is, 'what a tragic mistake costing 58,000 American lives'. But you almost never hear regret or guilt for 'we wrongly killed millions of Vietnamese people'. How do we get people to care about the people harmed like the Vietnamese, killed in the name of our 'anti-communist' hysteria and our domestic politics?

So true. But at the same time, I think people do care (now, although it's arguably too late). For example, let's just ask them

Guys/girls in this thread, do you care that 206,107 Iraqi civilians were killed due to the US invasion and occupation of Iraq since 2003?

 

[Craig234]

The Zimmerman telegram was entirely fictional, a complete fabrication by the Wilson administration.

Wrong. For someone who demands evidence, you sure don't supply it. Let's see your 'evidence' for your wrong claim. Even the German behind the telegram admitted its authenticity. As I said, the lie was the British deceiving us how they got it, to hide that they were reading our diplomatic cables.

Right, and this is the exact same source that claims Reagan sabotaged Carter's chance to free the Iranian hostages in 1980. The New York Times is not even remotely credible, on any subject. Besides, Nixon wasn't running against LBJ in 1968, because LBJ didn't run for reelection.

First, the NYT is very credible. Second, they have nothing to do with this. Go google a little. There's plenty of evidence what happened, as was always suspected until finally the Iranian president himself admitted it.

Where is your source on Ford's "secret agreement?"

Ford's lying was in the public record on his statement, only this century were the documents declassified showing he lied. Again, you complain about the NYT - do a little research on your own.

There were no lies with regard to Iran-Contra. IC Walsh completely exonerated President Reagan of any wrong-doing. Everything he did was perfectly legal.

The right loves to make false claims their side was 'exonerated' in everything, far from the truth. Go read Lawrence Walsh's book in which he clearly said - as well as saying it when his report was released:

"Mr. Walsh said his inquiry had found that Mr. Reagan; George P. Shultz, who was Secretary of State; Caspar W. Weinberger, the Defense Secretary; William J. Casey, the director of Central Intelligence, and their aides "committed themselves, however reluctantly, to two programs contrary to Congressional policy and contrary to national policy."

"They skirted the law," he said, "some of them broke the law and almost all of them tried to cover up the President's willful activities.""

"Mr. Walsh... spun a web of documentary evidence and testimony from witnesses to support his view that the public was left with a mistaken impression after Congressional hearings in 1987 that the affair had been a "runaway conspiracy of subordinate officers."

At a news conference today, Mr. Walsh said a cover-up had kept significant information out of the hands of the Congressional investigators in 1987. He suggested that if Congress had gained access to the evidence he subsequently uncovered, Mr. Reagan's impeachment "certainly should have been considered."...

In the report he said he was slowed by the destruction and withholding of records, a heavy lid of secrecy that kept much information from being used in court and Congressional grants of immunity that fatally undercut his ability to prosecute Oliver L. North and John M. Poindexter.

In December 1992, the debate over Mr. Walsh was cut short when Mr. Bush, in a post-election grant of clemency that effectively ended the investigation, granted pardons to former Defense Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger and five other former officials implicated in the affair.

Over the years, Mr. Walsh charged 14 people with criminal offenses, primarily efforts to conceal or withhold information from Congress. Eleven people pleaded guilty or were convicted"

1/2

 

[Craig234]

"As I recall, they did find WMDs in Iraq, but that was not the reason for the invasion. Perhaps you should have actually read Public Law No. 107-243, which authorized the use of military force against Iraq in 2002. Congress declared war against Iraq for their past and on-going sponsorship of international terrorism. They also cite violations of the 1991 ceasefire agreements, no-fly zones, and an assassination attempt, but the largest number of reasons Congress cites involved Iraq's ties with international terrorism. Not a single word in Congress' resolution even mentions "WMDs" or "Weapons of Mass Destruction."

You are attempting to rewrite history entirely dishonestly.

No WMD were found that in any way matched the claims the administration used to justify the war. They acknowledged they were wrong in those claims, when their own investigation reached that conclusion. WMD were the key justification for the war the administration lied about for a year leading to the war.

Remarkably, they *admitted* what they did, when one of the key participants, Paul Wolfowitz, wrote an article on the process, that the administration met to decide on what to say the reason for the war was, and said:

"For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on"

WMD just a convenient excuse for war, admits Wolfowitz | The Independent

The authorization for force tried to include everything they could think of, but it DID include WMD, contrary to your statement.

"Iraq "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability" and "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability" posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region.""

"Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people"."

In Bush's speech announcing the war was starting, he cited WMD:

"Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly, yet our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."

It's outrageous lying to try to deny the central role WMD had in the justification for the war - revisionist history Republicans tried to write when the WMD were proven not to exist. The war started when it did because the UN weapon inspections team was close to finding no WMD, which would have removed the justification for the war, so they moved the schedule up and began the war before the inspectors could finish.

The rest of the falsehoods in your post just get obnoxious so I am not bothering to respond.

2/2

 

[Craig234]

You are mistaken. Treaties are of equal legal weight of the US Constitution, but they cannot supersede the US Constitution. Which means that under Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the US Constitution only Congress has the authority to declare wars. Not NATO, not the UN, and most certainly not the President.

They're not, actually. Treaties are of equal legal weight with statues (laws), not the constitution - and only if they are 'self-executing' treaties.