EvC against war: Sign here!

[QUOTE] by mark24+++++++++++++++++++++
making an unpopular decision is not necessarily undemocratic
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++While this is true, decisions which are criminal or wreckless demand action by the populace beyond waiting till next election.For example Bush could decide to nuke the Palestinians next week. As you suggest, that decision would not be undemocratic, but it would be criminal and wreckless to the point that the governed must take back control.The fact is that Bush is violating US law if he launches this war (it is against the constitution). He has plenty of precedent with other presidents doing the same thing, but even his daddy asked for power first with such a major operation (against Iraq nonetheless).He is also violating international law by attacking a country (violating its sovereignty) without cause.Bush started by calling a war with Iraq a "pre-emptive strike." This gave his position some legitimacy along the lines of having to defend ourselves from a coming, inevitable attack by striking first.Unfortunately the evidence, while not necessarily discounting the presence of WMD's, clearly shows Iraq is not in a position or posture to attack the US. This removes any idea that this is a "pre-emptive strike".At most it is a pre-pre-emptive strike.This is not supported by international law, and finds no moral justification I can think of.Furthermore it is wreckless. To start with, it wrecks US standing in the world, injures our economy, and will possibly kill US military personnel (and let's not discount the fact that many reservists have been pulled out of families and careers for this).Furthermore, a military victory will not address the main issues of proliferation of WMD technology at all, proliferation of WMD items completely, and opens the door for worse activity in the uncertain government which would follow (many posit that it will be radically islamic which Hussein has been keeping at bay).If it needs any more weight, we have already called the UN into question in an "our way or the highway" mentality, Bush is willing to fracture NATO and the EU in order to get his way.And for anyone with foresight, it would set precedent for China to attack Taiwan and Tibet, India to attack Pakistan (or vice versa), and Isreal to overrun Palestine.Alone, the numbers of people demonstrating should have had an effect on the leaders(Blair and Bush)fronting this fiasco. There have been larger turnouts than at demonstrations during Vietnam and this is BEFORE a war has started. The fact that it has not made a dent in the resolve of these two men is telling.If they engage in such criminal and wreckless behavior it may come down to people having to pull them out of power. There are mechanisms for this in the US. The fact that we used them for a guy lying about a blowjob, should give us some courage.holmes

quote:

---

So the U.S. is a Democracy? Sorry, it's a Republic. The U.S. is not a country run by mob rule.

---

You are right... and wrong. We are certainly a republic and not a democracy, but it is a democratic republic where the populace has the right to challenge and override policy when it becomes intolerable. Criminal and wreckless activity by government officials tends towards intolerable activity.You might note I was suggesting people work through their courts and representatives... Clinton was not impeached by the people (even if he was tried in the media).

quote:

---

Meanwhile, Holmes thinks Bush's actions are violative of the U.S. Constitution? Although provocative,some would like to see the legal reasoning behind such an asinine conclusion.

---

US CONSTITUTION Article 1 section 8This document is not that long and you can find it online. As I said there has been precedent since WW2 for Presidents not following this section. However, major actions have needed Congressional support and Bush sr did get Congress to give up its rights (in essence declaring war) when he went after Iraq.This time around Bush Jr secured Congressional support for military action in general for one reason and if he cashes it in to attack Iraq it is more than likely an overreach and so a violation of Article 1 section 8.But why do you pick on me? My asinine conclusion? Haven't you been watching the news? Several law makers and soldiers and their families have prepared a lawsuit against Bush and Rumsfeld for this reason. Similar lawsuits failed in the past but this one has more teeth due to Bush's actions, and the nature of who is bringing the lawsuit.Here's a reference, but you can find it by searching on CNN's website as well...http://www.channel4000.com/...ws-197596320030213-110211.html

quote:

---

Holmes also brags about being an expert in International Law. Wonder if the dude can give us his legal reasoning behind the conclusion that Bush is also in violation of International Law?

---

I did not brag to being an expert. Chill man, and check out this reference...We looked high and low. | Mount Holyoke College
*I suggest you note the line within it that reads: "More immediately, it would run counter to modern international law, which sanctions the use of force in self-defense only against actual and not potential threats."

quote:

---

Probably not.

---

Done.

quote:

---

But if he cares to expound on the details, it would be helpful to cite the relevant portions of the Constitution and International Law.

---

Done. I guess I'm not citing specific International Law texts, but I'm not going to crawl through them to find exact source references, letting the undisputed IL experts tell you instead.I would think its obvious that such a thing is against international law, and if it wasn't I'm surprised anyone thinks international law shouldn't proscribe it. You were against Saddam invading Kuwait and Milosevic invading Bosnia, right?

quote:

---

Who knows, maybe he's right? We'll see, or maybe not...

---

Not sure why you didn't just look it up yourself.Now that I provided this, please address my questions regarding how war would solve the problems Bush gave for war in the first place.holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 02-20-2003]

I never said Bush's violating Constitution Law had anything to do with his violating International Law. These were two separate issues.Your first post seemed to recognize my distinction between the two by asking for evidence for each case separately, and certainly my response indicated there was a difference between the two.However, if my wording, or those in the references I cited, caused some confusion for anyone I apologize. They are two separate issues.The congress authorized use of the military against terrorism (specifically due to 9-11), but did not sanction invasion and regime change of a country which does not pose an imminent threat (which has been admitted by Powell and Bush, just a potential down the road threat) and has little to no connection to those involved with 9-11.If you can't figure out where people get the right to override government policy, then you simply haven't looked at the constitution and its amendments.And on a smaller scale trial by jury has been considered the last point of power held by the people. Up until recently, juries had the right to "judge the law" with their verdicts (strengthening or weakening it), just as much as the accused. This has been slowly eroded, which is too bad.I agree most people don't realize the power they have, or don't do anything with it. Currently we are allowing it to be sacrificed at the alter of the false god Security by Bush and Ashcroft.holmes

quote:

---

I think in this case the "legality" of the use of force by the Executive depends entirely on whether you are "pro-" or "con-". IOW, you can't say that Bush's plan to invade Iraq is unconstitutional, because it really isn't. It may be a very stupid idea, but it isn't illegal - or at least Congress hasn't bothered to try and hold any president to those restrictions.

---

First of all, let me say I do not disagree with any of the factual statements you made and references you listed.In fact, those facts are what I was trying to sum up with my "there has been precedent" statement because I didn't want to have to post anything longer than I already did.I limited it to "post-WW2", because I am talking about starting wars with other countries, and not troop movements and small engagements (even if some provoked a larger war). The bigger stuff has been post-WW2 and that may very well have to do with the "shrinking world" mentioned in the article you cited.Maybe I shouldn't have used extreme shorthand... I certainly didn't mean to discount any of the facts or events you mentioned.That said, I still disagree with your assessment that it is constitutional, and that any such assessment is based on whether one is pro or con on the war itself.I think the case that you and the reference made more clear, is that it is a problem with interpretation of the Constitution, compounded by actual practice of Presidents and Congresses in the past. There has been much debate and inconsitency of application, and no definition (even after the War Powers Act).Whether I am pro or con on a specific war, I am a firm believer in a strong interpretation of Congress' role in declaring war on other nations. Article 2 simply says the president conducts foreign policy in peace, and "leads" troops in war, but article 1 makes Congress is his master; defining what is war and what is peace.That's why when daddy Bush attacked Iraq, I did not feel it was unconstitutional, though I was not for the war (Just to make it clear I was for desert shield, just not desert storm).That's why if Bush jr goes to congress for a much firmer resolution handing over power to him (or declaring war), I will not consider it unconstitutional, although I will still remain opposed to it for other(less philosophical) reasons.holmes

I get it now, I did confuse what you were referring to with pro and con. Totally agree with your assessment then, and pretty much everything else in you post.

quote:

---

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is: regardless of how you personally view the coming Iraqi conflict, there doesn't appear to be any justification for labelling it "unconstitutional" - any more than the same could be said for every conflict we've been involved in since WWII.

---

I also agreed with your summation, especially that last part of the sentence (well maybe not "every" conflict, but the majority since WW2). This is to say I think it is justified to call such actions unconstitutional, and that means I consider most conflicts to have been that way.Just because Congress and the American people have been letting things slide since WW2, doesn't mean it should continue doing so. Maybe this should be the trigger for bringing the Presidency (as military commander) back under control, and have an end to unconstitutional abuses of this part of their office. Or get a clearer definition of what division we want to settle on.After all, the McCarthy-era witch hunts could have been allowed by the public and continued up till today. If that had happened, they would still have been unconstitutional, just no one would have fought for their rights under that document. Thankfully people fought for their rights back then, maybe its time to do so now with this aspect of government.

quote:

---

For what it's worth, I concur that an invasion of Iraq is a bad idea - but undoubtedly for reasons different than yours...

---

Don't let my philosophical issues fool you, Bush could get congress' approval and I'd still be against the war for practical reasons. The philosophical issues are merely part of the problem.We seem to be close to the same mind on things so we probably have very similar practical reasons to oppose the war.holmes