The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: Revolution on June 23, 2010, 01:16:09 PM
-
Coyote_Bandit (1000+ posts) Wed Jun-23-10 02:06 PM
Original message
We are not at war
War requires a formal legal declaration by Congress. That hasn't happened in Iraq or Afghanistan. What we have there is a military occupation. We ought not pretend otherwise.
Carry on.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8620383
Could somebody please...PLEASE renew my faith in humanity?? I need to be rejuvenated. The idiocy, ignorance, of flatout willingness to keep their eyes shut is totally beyond me. Honestly, it makes me sad to know there are people out there this utterly STUPID!
-
Well, I guess that means all the guys who died at Pearl Harbor were peacetime casualties of a massive naval accident of some sort, since war hadn't been declared by Congress at that point.
Damn, they are some stupid sumbitches.
-
Well, I guess that means all the guys who died at Pearl Harbor were peacetime casualties of a massive naval accident of some sort, since war hadn't been declared by Congress at that point.
Damn, they are some stupid sumbitches.
Guess that would be a plane-caused disaster.
Cindie
-
Guess that would be a plane-caused disaster.
Cindie
So that makes 9/11 a plane caused act of accident?
-
So that makes 9/11 a plane caused act of accident?
I think the primitives would prefer referring to 9/11 as 'social justice'
-
When the pasha of Tripoli cut down the flagpole at the US embassy Congress considered that singular act to be a sufficient declaration of war and dispensed with issuing its own declaration.
The president then prosecuted that war with every resource he could muster.
Shall we impeach Thomas Jefferson?
-
Well, I guess that means all the guys who died at Pearl Harbor were peacetime casualties of a massive naval accident of some sort, since war hadn't been declared by Congress at that point.
Damn, they are some stupid sumbitches.
What about Korea? As you know, we are actually in a cease fire from this non existing war.
-
I seem to remember reading that years after the armistice, Congress did get around to officially designating it a 'War' rather than a 'Police action,' but of course still never actually declared war since we were (very technically speaking) there under the UN flag rather than for our own national ends.
-
Most of our armed excursions have been undeclaired. Most also , where they lasted long enough, wound up with Congressional approval of ungoing funds to support the fighting. That's close enough for the CONSTITUTION i THINK.
-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8620383
Could somebody please...PLEASE renew my faith in humanity?? I need to be rejuvenated. The idiocy, ignorance, of flatout willingness to keep their eyes shut is totally beyond me. Honestly, it makes me sad to know there are people out there this utterly STUPID!
It has almost made me quit this site. However, the other side of the coin of the posters here wins a tight toss up.
-
What about Korea? As you know, we are actually in a cease fire from this non existing war.
I thought an official end of the war was signed during the Klintoon years, but I can't find anything about it....
My dad was a Korean War vet, 3rd Army Artillery. :salutearmy:
-
I thought an official end of the war was signed during the Klintoon years, but I can't find anything about it....
My dad was a Korean War vet, 3rd Army Artillery. :salutearmy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War
Date 25 June 1950—present
Ceasefire signed 27 July 1953
-
Cease fire agreement that the NO K Army and Navy violate as one of the Kin's or the other wanted something. Not going to change as long as the Kim legacy survives.
-
Yes Congress DID declare war, for the love of Pete! The Constitution doesn't say anything about how authorization by Congress for the President to make war must be worded. The important part is that Congress gives the President permission. That Congress has its SAY. Jesus Jumping H Christ are these people f'ing brain damaged?! Do they really think a Congressional authorization for the President to make war has to have the words "Declaration of War" on it to be a declaration of war!?
Afghanistan and anywhere else, for that matter:
Public Law 107 - 40 - Authorization for Use of Military Force
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/content-detail.html
"Joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States"
Iraq:
Public Law 107 - 243 - Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/content-detail.html
"Joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq."
DUH DUH DUH!
:banghead:
Somebody please shoot me. Just put me out of my misery. It's not possible. These people can't be this stupid, can they?
-
Coyote_Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Wed Jun-23-10 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. I didn't say
Edited on Wed Jun-23-10 02:38 PM by Coyote_Bandit
that Congress didn't authorize military action.
I said that we are not at war.
Legally there is a difference. Also, the use of appropriate and accurate terminology creates different perceptions. Folks would think less of this military action if it were identified as the occupation it is. And that's the real reason no public official will call this what it is.
NO YOU SHITHEAD THERE IS NO LEGAL DIFFERENCE. NONE WHATSOEVER, EXCEPT IN YOUR TEENY PEA-SIZED BRAIN. AUTHORIZATION OF THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE BY CONGRESS IS PRECISELY THE SAME AS A DECLARATION OF WAR.
-
To believe that Congress authorizing the President to use military force against a country or any entity is not the same as Congress declaring war, you would have to believe that the writers of the Constitution wanted to place a special onus on the United States compared to any other country in the world. That they were, in some way, trying to make it more difficult for the United States as a country to wage war against other countries.
"Checks and balances" apply only to our own divisions of government; they have nothing to do with our relationships with foreign powers. The check here is Congress having the say-so over whether or not the branch that actually holds the instrumentalities of war--the Executive--gets to use them.
The power to authorize or direct the use of military force in the United States is a plenary power of Congress--it belongs to Congress without a single check or balance from one of the other branches. The Constitution gives that power to Congress; it does not at all describe or circumscribe how Congress must discharge that power. To the framers (and anyone who has an ounce of sense), use of military force to kill or combat was exactly the same as war. They'd have laughed at any hairsplitting distinction between the two.
These idiots at the DU make up their crap as they go along; they create distinctions between the word and its definition to support their warped agendas. And they annoy the hell out of me.
-
The succincter version:
No matter the wording they use in their Acts, when Congress causes the US military, by acting through the Executive, to act to damage a foreign or rebellious power of any kind, they are declaring war by definition. The men who wrote the Constitution wouid have expected no less of a reaction than war from any foreign power they attacked or defended against.
-----------------------------
And you can't claim that authorization isn't an order. Any President who didn't use force after being authorized to use force by Congress is playing dangerous, trans-Constitutional games. Authorizing force is a political act and can't be construed as neutral and and non-binding by the Executive--no sensible person would interpret Congress sending you a law authorizing use of force as anything other than commanding use of force. A power of command the Framers intended Congress and no other to possess. And to state however they wanted.
-
To believe that Congress authorizing the President to use military force against a country or any entity is not the same as Congress declaring war, you would have to believe that the writers of the Constitution wanted to place a special onus on the United States compared to any other country in the world. That they were, in some way, trying to make it more difficult for the United States as a country to wage war against other countries.
"Checks and balances" apply only to our own divisions of government; they have nothing to do with our relationships with foreign powers. The check here is Congress having the say-so over whether or not the branch that actually holds the instrumentalities of war--the Executive--gets to use them.
The power to authorize or direct the use of military force in the United States is a plenary power of Congress--it belongs to Congress without a single check or balance from one of the other branches. The Constitution gives that power to Congress; it does not at all describe or circumscribe how Congress must discharge that power. To the framers (and anyone who has an ounce of sense), use of military force to kill or combat was exactly the same as war. They'd have laughed at any hairsplitting distinction between the two.
These idiots at the DU make up their crap as they go along; they create distinctions between the word and its definition to support their warped agendas. And they annoy the hell out of me.
Oh fer hellsakes!!
Let's keep it simple, 'K'?
We kill our unborn children, we coddle our enemies!
/DUmmy
-
Most of our armed excursions have been undeclaired. Most also , where they lasted long enough, wound up with Congressional approval of ungoing funds to support the fighting. That's close enough for the CONSTITUTION i THINK.
Before Bush had the first shot fired he not only had congressional approval but, UN approval. Therefor he followed the constitution by going to congress who said yes go for it.
-
Before Bush had the first shot fired he not only had congressional approval but, UN approval. Therefor he followed the constitution by going to congress who said yes go for it.
Yes, they were for it before they were against it........I'm really happy that that bunch has our back.....aren't you?
-
Yes, they were for it before they were against it........I'm really happy that that bunch has our back.....aren't you?
I'd rather have Cin, Beg, Bali or Deb watchin' my back than some cowardly politician! At least I wouldn't be worried about bein' shot in the back!