Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,820 Year: 3,077/9,624 Month: 922/1,588 Week: 105/223 Day: 3/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   EvC against war: Sign here!
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 28 (32555)
02-18-2003 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by jdean33442
02-18-2003 10:40 AM


quote:
Government by popular representation is democracy. Do you understand this? 1,000,000 retarded stinking hippies - 59,778,002 of the population does not equal popular representation.
Allow me to put on my tea drinking, i've only seen a firearm at the movies, yellow teeth PE bowler and live in my coddled pseudoreality where war is not necessary and the minority is represented by Government.
Iraq is not a democracy is it? But of course you know that. Just as you know that 100% of the Iraqi people voted in only 3 hours during that election? Oh yeah, you just want to be an ass.
Cheerio old chap!
I'm afraid I could make little sense of your masturbatory diatribe. Maybe you could keep both hands on the keyboard next time you attempt a response?
PE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by jdean33442, posted 02-18-2003 10:40 AM jdean33442 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by jdean33442, posted 02-20-2003 6:24 PM Primordial Egg has not replied

  
jdean33442
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 28 (32764)
02-20-2003 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Primordial Egg
02-18-2003 10:55 AM


No time for masturbating old boy. I have a crickett game to attend!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Primordial Egg, posted 02-18-2003 10:55 AM Primordial Egg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by mark24, posted 02-20-2003 6:59 PM jdean33442 has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5196 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 18 of 28 (32769)
02-20-2003 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by jdean33442
02-20-2003 6:24 PM


Plenty of time for a good knuckle shuffle, then.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by jdean33442, posted 02-20-2003 6:24 PM jdean33442 has not replied

  
Zephan
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 28 (32774)
02-20-2003 8:44 PM


So the U.S. is a Democracy?
Sorry, it's a Republic. The U.S. is not a country run by mob rule.
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.
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?
Probably not.
But if he cares to expound on the details, it would be helpful to cite the relevant portions of the Constitution and International Law.
Who knows, maybe he's right? We'll see, or maybe not...

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Silent H, posted 02-20-2003 10:32 PM Zephan has not replied
 Message 23 by Arachnid, posted 02-22-2003 11:09 PM Zephan has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 20 of 28 (32787)
02-20-2003 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Zephan
02-20-2003 8:44 PM


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 8
This 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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Zephan, posted 02-20-2003 8:44 PM Zephan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Quetzal, posted 02-24-2003 4:12 AM Silent H has replied

  
Zephan
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 28 (32801)
02-21-2003 7:13 AM


Holmes,
I can't address your questions because I don't believe in the war.
However, the U.S. Constitution says nothing of International Law, therefore the U.S. is not subject to it. This is so because our sovereignty only stretches to our shores. Making a treaty with one or two nations is one thing, but that wouldn't rise to the level of of controlling International Law, especially if the same was inconsistent with the Constitution.
Q: Has Congress declared war on terror?
If so, the President may need no further justification. This is scarey, IMHO, because it gives the President way too much discretion.
The threshold question, however, is whether declaring war is a condition precedent to the President committing our troops abroad to enforce a treaty the U.S. entered into with the UN under the terms of the Resolutions of the Gulf War.
Nevertheless, the gov't doesn't care about the Constitution. It keeps getting in the way of their power. Indeed, the exceptions to the Constitution swallow up the very meaning of the Constitution.
The U.S. Supreme Court tells us what the Constitution means. Btw, are you aware that the power to interpret the Constitution was not specifically granted to the Supreme Court?
I disagree with you on your statement that the populace has a "right" to "override" policy. What law or provision of the Constitution provides for this? And how is this going to be accomplished in a Republic where the rule of law prevails?
The populace doesn't even have a right to vote according to the U.S. Constitution. What the populace does have, in theory however, is power. But the populace is too fragmented to ever realize this fact or do anything with it. That's the real coup.

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Silent H, posted 02-21-2003 12:21 PM Zephan has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 22 of 28 (32819)
02-21-2003 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Zephan
02-21-2003 7:13 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Zephan, posted 02-21-2003 7:13 AM Zephan has not replied

  
Arachnid
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 28 (32900)
02-22-2003 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Zephan
02-20-2003 8:44 PM


quote:
Sorry, it's a Republic. The U.S. is not a country run by mob rule.
I understand what you are getting at, however the U.S. is at the mercy of the sheep who believe what the media tells them. Not quite mob rule, but the mob being led by those with money.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Zephan, posted 02-20-2003 8:44 PM Zephan has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5873 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 24 of 28 (33014)
02-24-2003 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Silent H
02-20-2003 10:32 PM


Hi Holmes,
I have no real interest in entering a debate on the Iraq crisis, but would like to bring up a few salient tidbits concerning the constitutionality of the current crisis. No, I'm not a lawyer - I have been however an avid student of military history for 25+ years, and the tug-of-war between the US Congress and the Executive plays a key role in how the US uses its armed forces. Hence my interest.
You posted:
US CONSTITUTION Article 1 section 8
This 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.
The relevant part of Article I Section 8 (dealing with Congressional powers and responsibilities) states
quote:
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
Nearly every president we've had has offset this article with Article II Section 2 (dealing with Executive powers) which places responsibility for commanding the armed forces and defending the nation in the hands of the president. Article II has been used by every president since before the US Civil War (sometimes justifiably, sometimes less so) - from limited engagements to protect American interests from pirates in the Mediterranean to the Indochina War and Pershing's incursion into Mexico and even the Civil War itself.
The most "recent" iteration of this battle is the so-called War Powers Resolution (P.L. 93-148, 87 Stat. 555, 50 U.S.C. Sec. 1541-1548) which sought to redefine presidential authority to use military power overseas. Basically, it was intended to restrict the Executive's ability to engage in protratacted conflict without Congressional approval. HOWEVER, the president STILL retained the right to commit the full power of the US military for up to 60 days all on his own decision. At the end of that time, Congress can order the withdrawl of all troops from combat (like that's gonna happen - can you imagine the public relations nightmare that would cause?). Even so, there is neither Constitutional nor subsequent case law that prevents the president from initiating hostilities. Here's a fascinating discussion of the legal history of the use of presidential power to commit troops overseas.
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.
[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 02-24-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Silent H, posted 02-20-2003 10:32 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Silent H, posted 02-24-2003 1:09 PM Quetzal has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 25 of 28 (33065)
02-24-2003 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Quetzal
02-24-2003 4:12 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Quetzal, posted 02-24-2003 4:12 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Quetzal, posted 02-25-2003 6:04 AM Silent H has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5873 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 26 of 28 (33133)
02-25-2003 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Silent H
02-24-2003 1:09 PM


Hi Holmes,
It appears we only have one area where we disagree:
quote:
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.
Part of this is my fault - I was a bit vague in the way I worded my "pro" or "con" statement. What I meant was that in reference to both the Constitution and the War Powers Act (or Resolution), neither specifically prohibit the president from initiating hostilities or deploying US forces in a conflict. I wasn't necessarily talking about a particular war - any conflict will do. The pro or con refers to which side of the debate (Executive or Congressional powers) you land on. I'm morally certain that there are lawyers out there that have built life-time employment opportunities around this issue.
quote:
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).
I totally agree with you here - that's sort of what I was trying to bring out.
quote:
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.
In a general sense, this is what the Constitution states. Unfortunately, the history of the US, especially since WWI/II, tends to blur the line about what constitutes "war" or "peace". Which, of course, is the gap into which presidents since have lept with greater or lesser amounts of force: Truman (Korean War), Eisenhower (Cuba, Guatemala) Kennedy/Johnson (Indochina, Dominican Republic), Reagan (Lebanon, Granada, Nicaragua), Bush Sr (Libya, Panama, Liberia, Kuwait - more on this later - Somalia), Clinton (Bosnia, etc), and now Bush Jr. (Afghanistan, Iraq). This of course doesn't even count all the "covert" operations in the interim. Some of these conflicts were "justified" ethically (or have been so justified after they were over), some were less so (or even unethical if you want to subjectively qualify them like that). None - including the Korean War and Indochina - had a pre-existing declaration of war from Congress before the president committed troops. Presidents have basically been using the treaty clauses and "national interest" foreign policy clauses - rightly or wrongly - as justification for what they have done for the last 50 years.
quote:
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).
Actually, Bush Sr. had very little more justification for Desert Shield/Desert Storm than Bush Jr. has for Iraq. Both are basing their entire premise on the treaty clause, in this case, the UN resolutions - which legally don't even have force of law in the US. One of the reasons the debate over Desert Storm was so acrimonious in Congress was over precisely that point: the "con" side argued that UN resolutions didn't involve treaty obligations forcing us to participate (in spite of Article I Section 8!), whereas the "pro" side argued the reverse.
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. For what it's worth, I concur that an invasion of Iraq is a bad idea - but undoubtedly for reasons different than yours...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Silent H, posted 02-24-2003 1:09 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Silent H, posted 02-25-2003 11:06 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 27 of 28 (33145)
02-25-2003 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Quetzal
02-25-2003 6:04 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Quetzal, posted 02-25-2003 6:04 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 28 (33647)
03-04-2003 5:04 PM


The Hallowed One
It seems that Richard Dawkins is also staunchly against the war, he's written a column about it in The Independent (UK "left-leaning" paper).
Excerpt (addressed to American scientists, in particular):
quote:
As a scientist, I would like to be able to say something like the following to my American friends:
"Dear Colleague: You are a member of the leading scientific nation, by far. No wonder there has been a brain drain from my country to yours. The trickle in the other direction has been, alas, negligible. Occasional attempts, by my own university of Oxford among others, to compete on the open market to recruit leading American professors or promising young scientists, have usually foundered on the problem of salary. But is it possible that things are now beginning to change? Could it be that political developments in your country are now starting to make emigration look more attractive, in spite of the salary differential?
"I know, of course, without even asking, that you were a member of the majority who voted for Al Gore. When your majority in the country, reinforcing your clear majority in the Electoral College but for dead-heated Florida, was reversed by the Supreme Court coup d'tat, you must have been saddened, even infuriated. You presumably consoled yourself that it couldn't last more than four years.
"All that has now changed, and you must be close to despair, especially if you happen to be working in a field such as stem cell cloning and find your research blocked by the religious bigotry of this administration, the most anti-intellectual administration in living memory.
"Have things reached the point where you might consider moving? We in Britain may not be able to match your salary, but we can at least offer you a civilised, decent government, very different from the one you are eager to leave behind."
If only...
(Note: irony. He's suggesting he can't say this Britain has a civilised, decent government either.)
PE

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024