See other War, War, War Articles
Title: Violating the Constitution With an Illegal War
Source:
http://www.lewrockwell.com
URL Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul57.html
Published: Oct 3, 2002
Author: Rep. Ron Paul, MD
Post Date: 2007-04-03 20:34:01 by robin
Keywords: None
Views: 5141
Comments: 267
Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, October 3, 2002 The last time Congress declared war was on December 11, 1941, against Germany in response to its formal declaration of war against the United States. This was accomplished with wording that took less than one-third of a page, without any nitpicking arguments over precise language, yet it was a clear declaration of who the enemy was and what had to be done. And in three-and-a-half years, this was accomplished. A similar resolve came from the declaration of war against Japan three days earlier. Likewise, a clear-cut victory was achieved against Japan. Many Americans have been forced into war since that time on numerous occasions, with no congressional declaration of war and with essentially no victories. Today’s world political condition is as chaotic as ever. We’re still in Korea and we’re still fighting the Persian Gulf War that started in 1990. The process by which we’ve entered wars over the past 57 years, and the inconclusive results of each war since that time, are obviously related to Congress’ abdication of its responsibility regarding war, given to it by Article I Section 8 of the Constitution. Congress has either ignored its responsibility entirely over these years, or transferred the war power to the executive branch by a near majority vote of its Members, without consideration of it by the states as an amendment required by the Constitution. Congress is about to circumvent the Constitution and avoid the tough decision of whether war should be declared by transferring this monumental decision-making power regarding war to the President. Once again, the process is being abused. Odds are, since a clear-cut decision and commitment by the people through their representatives are not being made, the results will be as murky as before. We will be required to follow the confusing dictates of the UN, since that is where the ultimate authority to invade Iraq is coming from – rather than from the American people and the U.S. Constitution. Controversial language is being hotly debated in an effort to satisfy political constituencies and for Congress to avoid responsibility of whether to go to war. So far the proposed resolution never mentions war, only empowering the President to use force at his will to bring about peace. Rather strange language indeed! A declaration of war limits the presidential powers, narrows the focus, and implies a precise end point to the conflict. A declaration of war makes Congress assume the responsibilities directed by the Constitution for this very important decision, rather than assume that if the major decision is left to the President and a poor result occurs, it will be his fault, not that of Congress. Hiding behind the transfer of the war power to the executive through the War Powers Resolution of 1973 will hardly suffice. However, the modern way we go to war is even more complex and deceptive. We must also write language that satisfies the UN and all our allies. Congress gladly transfers the legislative prerogatives to declare war to the President, and the legislative and the executive branch both acquiesce in transferring our sovereign rights to the UN, an un-elected international government. No wonder the language of the resolution grows in length and incorporates justification for starting this war by citing UN Resolutions. In order to get more of what we want from the United Nations, we rejoined UNESCO, which Ronald Reagan had bravely gotten us out of, and promised millions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer support to run this international agency started by Sir Julian Huxley. In addition, we read of promises by our administration that once we control Iraqi oil, it will be available for allies like France and Russia, who have been reluctant to join our efforts. What a difference from the days when a declaration of war was clean and precise and accomplished by a responsible Congress and an informed people! A great irony of all this is that the United Nations Charter doesn’t permit declaring war, especially against a nation that has been in a state of peace for 12 years. The UN can only declare peace. Remember, it wasn’t a war in Korea; it was only a police action to bring about peace. But at least in Korea and Vietnam there was fighting going on, so it was a bit easier to stretch the language than it is today regarding Iraq. Since Iraq doesn’t even have an Air Force or a Navy, is incapable of waging a war, and remains defenseless against the overwhelming powers of the United States and the British, it’s difficult to claim that we’re going into Iraq to restore peace. History will eventually show that if we launch this attack the real victims will be the innocent Iraqi civilians who despise Saddam Hussein and are terrified of the coming bombs that will destroy their cities. The greatest beneficiaries of the attack may well be Osama bin Ladin and the al Qaeda. Some in the media have already suggested that the al Qaeda may be encouraging the whole event. Unintended consequences will occur – what will come from this attack is still entirely unknown. It’s a well-known fact that the al Qaeda are not allies of Saddam Hussein and despise the secularization and partial westernization of Iraqi culture. They would welcome the chaos that’s about to come. This will give them a chance to influence post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. The attack, many believe, will confirm to the Arab world that indeed the Christian West has once again attacked the Muslim East, providing radical fundamentalists a tremendous boost for recruitment. An up or down vote on declaring war against Iraq would not pass the Congress, and the President has no intention of asking for it. This is unfortunate, because if the process were carried out in a constitutional fashion, the American people and the U.S. Congress would vote "No" on assuming responsibility for this war. Not only is it sad that we have gone so far astray from our Constitution, but it’s also dangerous for world peace and threatens our liberties here at home. Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas. 
Transferring authority to wage war, calling it permission to use force to fight for peace in order to satisfy the UN Charter, which replaces the Article I, Section 8 war power provision, is about as close to 1984 "newspeak" that we will ever get in the real world.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-23) not displayed.
.
.
.
#24. To: BeAChooser, Dakmar, randge (#21)
Transcript CQ Transcriptions I only want to clarify that, because there are implications. Obviously, when you talk about a war declaration, you're possibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic relations. And so there is a distinction in law and in practice. And we're not talking about a war declaration. This is an authorization only to use military force.
Wow, even Gonzalez understands what a declaration of war entails. BAC would be feeling pretty stupid right now if he were able to comprehend the error of his ways. Never happen, I'm just saying...
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace." -- George W. Bush, June 18, 2002
Interesting. Now did Gonzales state what form a declaration must take and his source for said form? No? By the way, do you know that Gonzales is on the record calling illegal immigrants American CITIZENS? Talk about something affecting treaties and diplomatic relations. ROTFLOL! In case you haven't figured it out, Gonzales is far from qualified for his job.
Then I take it you would agree with his definition of illegal immigrants as American CITIZENS?
Yawn. Everytime someone scores a point you try to change the subject. Get a new tactic.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
Sean D. Murphy. "United States Practice in International Law Volume 2, 2002–2004", Cambridge University Press. Now what's stopping the anti-war movement from going before the Supreme Court to get them to declare the war illegal according to the Constitution? Perhaps what the Constitution does not do? Define the form of a declaration of war? a. You've quoted the judgement of a lower court and the opinion of lawyer. The Supreme Court did not state that the Iraq War was legal - as you suggested in your previous posts - if truth be known, the Supreme Court has not considered the legality of the Iraq War. Isn't that correct? b. It costs a lot of money to attempt to get a case heard by the Supreme Court. Anti-war groups are grass roots organizations - they don't have Israel's foreign aid budget, for example, with $ to burn. Besides this is not a case that needs a Supreme Court judgement. This is a matter of Congress needing and wanting to assert its authority in matters of war declaration. Congress should revoke the temporary power it passed to GWB in October 2002 to use force against Iraq and then it should defund the Iraq War. But because both political parties are beholden to AIPAC, the Israel Lobby group, and not to American voters, Congress refuses to assert its authority. FYI, here's what Americans want in terms of foreign policy based on the latest latest prestigious poll conducted by Public Agenda and Foreign Affairs. What Americans want is totally opposite to what GWB and Congress are doing. It must please you that the Israel lobby is calling the shots with our elected representatives regarding foreign policy in the ME because your beliefs are the same as AIPAC - by golly - quelle coincidence.
that and begging the question. where in the constitution does it define the form of a declaration of war? well then doesn't the iraqi war declaration say blah blah blah? (with no supporting quote). prove that i said that! why didn't you post the link? are you a communist?
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
I never suggested any such thing. I said that the Supreme Court hasn't declared it illegal. And they haven't. You folks claim more than half the country is adamantly against the war and you can't come up with a few million $$$ to take a case before the Supremes? Don't insult our intelligence. ROTFLOL! I agree. But they haven't, have they. Hence, you can't say the war is illegal. Oh that's right. 4umers believe it is *all about Israel and Jews*. ROTFLOL! Then they should put their money where their mouth is and go to the Supremes.
BAC: Oh that's right. 4umers believe it is *all about Israel and Jews*. ROTFLOL! It's what has been concluded by researchers who are far smarter and better qualified in research and scholarship than you or I are. Drs. Mearsheimer and Walt from U of Chicago and Harvard studied the influence of the Israel Lobby on US foreign policy and based on their research there would not have been an Iraq War were it not for the considerable influence brought to bear on Congress and the White House to invade Iraq by the Israel Lobby. You might want to read their study, BAC. Then you wouldn't have to look like such an ill-informed cheap shot artist who makes ignorant remarks like "Oh that's right. 4umers believe it is *all about Israel and Jews*. ROTFLOL!" Furthermore, BAC, so you don't go around presenting yourself as a red neck bigot ( though my advice is probably too late in that regard), you should not lump together Jews with IsraelFirster lobby groups or with Israelis themselves. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? abstract_id=891198 "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" March 2006
The Constitution gives the power to declare war to the Congress. They formally declare something like, "the state of war between the United States and ... is hereby formally declared." It is not a difficult concept once you get the hang of it. For Japan, the precise language was, "the state of war between the United states and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared...." For Germany, the precise language was, "the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany, which has thus been thrust upon the United states, is hereby formally declared...." For Italy, the precise language was, "the state of war between the United States and the Government of Italy which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared...." Below is how the declaration of war against Germany went through each house of congress. http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/77-1-148/77-1-148.html [IN THE SENATE] DECLARATION OF STATE OF WAR WITH GERMANY Mr. Connally, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, reported an original joint resolution (S. J. Res. 119) declaring that a state of war exists between the Government of Germany and the Government and the people of the United States, and making provision to prosecute the same, which was read the first time by its title, and the second time at length, as follows: "Resolved, etc., That the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany, which has thus been thrust upon the United states, is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Government of Germany; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States." I am authorized by the Committee on Foreign Relations to say to the Senate that after consideration of the text of the joint resolution which I have reported and after mature consideration of all aspects of this matter, the membership of the Committee on Foreign Relations unanimously approve and agree to the course suggested. One member of the committee was absent, but I have authority to express his views. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the present consideration of the joint resolution. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there objection? There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the joint resolution (S. J. Res. 119) declaring that a state of war exists between the Government of Germany and the Government and the people of the United States, and making provision to prosecute the same. The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint resolution. The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, and was read the third time. The VICE PRESIDENT. The joint resolution having been read the third time, the question is, Shall it pass? Mr. CONNALLY. On that question I ask for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered, and the Chief Clerk proceeded to call the roll. The result was announced yeas 88, nays 0. * * * * * * So the joint resolution (S. J. Res. 119) was passed. =========================== [IN THE HOUSE] DECLARATION OF WAR AGAINST GERMANY Mr. MCCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass House Joint Resolution 256, which I send to the desk and ask to have read. The Clerk read as follows. "Resolved, etc., That the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Government of Germany; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States." Mr. MCCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. * * * * * * The question was taken; and there were yeas 393, answered "present" 1, not voting 36. So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were suspended, and the resolution was agreed to. ==========================
No. I am STILL not aware of that. LINK please.
BAC said that there was never a declaration of war against Germany. and you've taken the time to prove him wrong. thank-you. BAC is a TREASONOUS QUEER! by his own admission as well I think you should know. a man that is a TREASONOUS QUEER is not someone that can or should be trusted.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
i would trust a treasonous queer before i believed anything fish breath told me. and the whole internet seems to agree.
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
Yet the succubus claims that's exclusive to 4um'ers.
and the whole internet seems to agree. BAC is both a TREASONOUS QUEER and a FISH BREATH. and the whole internet DOES AGREE. following link proves it beyond any shadow of doubt. http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=49419&Disp=37#C37
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
would you want to cop to being a failure all across the interet?
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
tagline test
Your picture is back.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
i moved it to your folder.
Then I take it you would agree with his definition of illegal immigrants as American CITIZENS? Shalom Fish Breath. What does your response above have to do with the price of tea in China? Why didn't you try to address his point instead of trying to change the subject?
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
While that is an interesting dictum, it is not part of the holding which is the only part of a court decision that sets any legal precedent. On the holding, the Court found that no justiciable issue had been presented and affirmed the DISMISSAL of the entire case by the lower court. The Court punted without deciding the issues presented. United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 03-1266 JOHN DOE I, JOHN DOE II, JOHN DOE III, JOHN DOE IV, JANE DOE I, SUSAN E. SCHUMANN, CHARLES RICHARDSON, NANCY LESSIN, JEFFREY MCKENZIE, JOHN CONYERS, DENNIS KUCINICH, JESSE JACKSON, JR., SHEILA JACKSON LEE, JIM MCDERMOTT, JOSÉ E. SERRANO, SALLY WRIGHT, DEBORAH REGAL, ALICE COPELAND BROWN, JERRYE BARRE, JAMES STEPHEN CLEGHORN, LAURA JOHNSON MANIS, SHIRLEY H. YOUNG, JULIAN DELGAUDIO, ROSE DELGAUDIO, DANNY K. DAVIS, MAURICE D. HINCHEY, CAROLYN KILPATRICK, PETE STARK, DIANE WATSON, LYNN C. WOOLSEY, Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. GEORGE W. BUSH, President, DONALD H. RUMSFELD, Secretary of Defense, * * * LYNCH, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs are active-duty members of the military, parents of military personnel, and members of the U.S. House of Representatives. (1) They filed a complaint in district court seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the defendants, President George W. Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, from initiating a war against Iraq. They assert that such an action would violate the Constitution. The district court dismissed the suit, and plaintiffs appeal. We affirm the dismissal. In October 2002, Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (the "October Resolution"), Pub L. No. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1498. Plaintiffs argue that the October Resolution is constitutionally inadequate to authorize the military offensive that defendants are now planning against Iraq. See U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 11 (granting Congress the power "[t]o declare war"). They base this argument on two theories. They argue that Congress and the President are in collision -- that the President is about to act in violation of the October Resolution. They also argue that Congress and the President are in collusion -- that Congress has handed over to the President its exclusive power to declare war. In either case, plaintiffs argue, judicial intervention is necessary to preserve the principle of separation of powers which undergirds our constitutional structure. Only the judiciary, they argue, has the constitutionally assigned role and the institutional competence to police the boundaries of the constitutional mandates given to the other branches: Congress alone has the authority to declare war and the President alone has the authority to make war. The plaintiffs argue that important and increasingly vital interests are served by the requirement that it be Congress which decides whether to declare war. Quoting Thomas Jefferson, they argue that congressional involvement will slow the "dogs of war"; that Congress, the voice of the people, should make this momentous decision, one which will cost lives; and that congressional support is needed to ensure that the country is behind the war, a key element in any victory. They also argue that, absent an attack on this country or our allies, congressional involvement must come prior to war, because once war has started, Congress is in an uncomfortable default position where the use of its appropriations powers to cut short any war is an inadequate remedy. The defendants are equally eloquent about the impropriety of judicial intrusion into the "extraordinarily delicate foreign affairs and military calculus, one that could be fatally upset by judicial interference." Such intervention would be all the worse here, defendants say, because Congress and the President are in accord as to the threat to the nation and the legitimacy of a military response to that threat. The case before us is a somber and weighty one. We have considered these important concerns carefully, and we have concluded that the circumstances call for judicial restraint. The theory of collision between the legislative and executive branches is not suitable for judicial review, because there is not a ripe dispute concerning the President's acts and the requirements of the October Resolution passed by Congress. By contrast, the theory of collusion, by its nature, assumes no conflict between the political branches, but rather a willing abdication of congressional power to an emboldened and enlarged presidency. That theory is not fit for judicial review for a different, but related, reason: Plaintiffs' claim that Congress and the President have transgressed the boundaries of their shared war powers, as demarcated by the Constitution, is presently insufficient to present a justiciable issue. Common to both is our assessment that, before courts adjudicate a case involving the war powers allocated to the two political branches, they must be presented with a case or controversy that clearly raises the specter of undermining the constitutional structure. * * * [Skipping to page 14 of my PDF file, the court's discussion ends with] Nor is there clear evidence of congressional abandonment of the authority to declare war to the President. To the contrary, Congress has been deeply involved in significant debate, activity, and authorization connected to our relations with Iraq for over a decade, under three different presidents of both major political parties, and during periods when each party has controlled Congress. It has enacted several relevant pieces of legislation expressing support for an aggressive posture toward Iraq, including authorization of the prior war against Iraq and of military assistance for groups that would overthrow Saddam Hussein. It has also accepted continued American participation in military activities in and around Iraq, including flight patrols and missile strikes. Finally, the text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an "authorization" of such a war. It is true that "courts possess power to review either legislative or executive action that transgresses identifiable textual limits" on constitutional power. Nixon, 506 U.S. at 238. Questions about the structure of congressional power can be justiciable under the proper circumstances. See, e.g., Clinton, 524 U.S. at 428-36; Chadha, 462 U.S. at 941-44. But courts are rightly hesitant to second-guess the form or means by which the coequal political branches choose to exercise their textually committed constitutional powers. See Orlando, 443 F.2d at 1043. As the circumstances presented here do not warrant judicial intervention, the appropriate recourse for those who oppose war with Iraq lies with the political branches. Dismissal of the complaint is affirmed.
He's such an idiot! President Reiterates Goal on Homeownership I believe owning a home is an essential part of economic security. And I'm concerned about the security of America. That was 2002, now all those adjustable loans mean lots of foreclosures.
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
********** http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n10/letters.html From Philip Zelikow In their essay ‘The Israel Lobby’, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt invoke comments made by me as evidence for a controversial assertion of their own concerning the motives for the US invasion of Iraq (LRB, 23 March): Readers may find it interesting to know what I actually said and how Mearsheimer and Walt appear to have misused my comments. My talk was on 10 September 2002 at a 9/11 anniversary symposium. I argued that possession of nuclear (or biological) weapons by Saddam Hussein would be very dangerous. Reflecting on my White House work during the Gulf War in 1990-91, I did point out that I believed then, and later, that the most likely direct target of an Iraqi WMD attack would be Israel, but that policymakers had no wish to emphasise this. That said, any US or European government, in 1991 or later, would rightly have regarded an Iraqi nuclear attack on Israel – or on any other country – as a horrific prospect they would do much to prevent. Neither of these conclusions – that Saddam’s possession of nuclear weapons would be dangerous, or that Israel might be most directly threatened by such weapons – was especially remarkable. These things were understood in 1991. Iraq tried very hard to pull Israel into that war and its politics, ultimately even bombarding Israel with ballistic missiles. The coalition laboured successfully to thwart Saddam and keep Israel out of that war. None of this, though, bore on the question of what to do about a possible Iraqi WMD programme in 2002. On that issue – whether or when the US ought to go to war with Iraq – I expressed no view in my September 2002 talk, or on any other public occasion during those years. Nor did I try to explain why the Bush administration went to war, either in 2002 or after the invasion in 2003 or 2004. And in those years I had little special knowledge of those motives. My work on the president’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (from which I resigned in February 2003) had not involved Iraq. So how did my views wind up in Mearsheimer and Walt’s essay as evidence that Bush went to war in part for Israel? In 2004, local reports of my September 2002 comments were discovered by the Inter Press Service. To put it mildly, that body has a strong political point of view. It circulated on the web an article headlined ‘War Launched to Protect Israel – Bush Adviser’. Without any evidence other than the old September 2002 quotes, the article’s lead was: ‘Iraq under Saddam Hussein did not pose a threat to the United States but it did to Israel, which is one reason why Washington invaded the Arab country, according to a speech made by a member of a top-level White House intelligence group.’ The claim has bounced around the internet ever since. Mearsheimer and Walt cite this article, which they found in Asia Times Online, as their source for my comments. The original slur did not deserve a response, but the situation is different when it is repeated by two accredited scholars, and endorsed by publication in the LRB. The claim still has three holes. First, like most of the world, I did think that, if Saddam Hussein possessed nuclear weapons, this would endanger the interests of America and the world in several ways, including the direct threat of a possible strike on Israel. Second, I did not state an opinion about whether this should be a cause for war in 2002-03. Third, I did not state an opinion – or even have any special knowledge – about the motives of the Bush administration in going to war in 2003. I hope that readers will contrast these points with what Mearsheimer and Walt wrote in the passage quoted above. Readers will also notice that the passage leads with a reference to the ‘Lobby’, of which I am clearly presumed to be a part. There is no evidence for that either. Philip Zelikow *********** http://slate.msn.com/id/2138741/ Overstating Jewish Power Mearsheimer and Walt give too much credit to the Israeli lobby. By Christopher Hitchens Posted Monday, March 27, 2006, at 1:47 PM ET It's slightly hard to understand the fuss generated by the article on the Israeli lobby produced by the joint labors of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt that was published in the London Review of Books. My guess is that the Harvard logo has something to do with it, but then I don't understand why the doings of that campus get so much media attention, either. The essay itself, mostly a very average "realist" and centrist critique of the influence of Israel, contains much that is true and a little that is original. But what is original is not true and what is true is not original. Everybody knows that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and other Jewish organizations exert a vast influence over Middle East policy, especially on Capitol Hill. The influence is not as total, perhaps, as that exerted by Cuban exiles over Cuba policy, but it is an impressive demonstration of strength by an ethnic minority. Almost everybody also concedes that the Israeli occupation has been a moral and political catastrophe and has implicated the United States in a sordid and costly morass. I would have gone further than Mearsheimer and Walt and pointed up the role of Israel in supporting apartheid in South Africa, in providing arms and training for dictators in Congo and Guatemala, and helping reactionary circles in America do their dirty work—most notably during the Iran-Contra assault on the Constitution and in the emergence of the alliance between Likud and the Christian right. Counterarguments concerning Israel's help in the Cold War and in the region do not really outweigh these points. However, Mearsheimer and Walt present the situation as one where the Jewish tail wags the American dog, and where the United States has gone to war in Iraq to gratify Ariel Sharon, and where the alliance between the two countries has brought down on us the wrath of Osama Bin Laden. This is partly misleading and partly creepy. If the Jewish stranglehold on policy has been so absolute since the days of Harry Truman, then what was Gen. Eisenhower thinking when, on the eve of an election 50 years ago, he peremptorily ordered Ben Gurion out of Sinai and Gaza on pain of canceling the sale of Israeli bonds? On the next occasion when Israel went to war with its neighbors, 11 years later, President Lyndon Johnson was much more lenient, but a strong motive of his policy (undetermined by Israel) was to win Jewish support for the war the "realists" were then waging in Vietnam. (He didn't get the support, except from Rabbi Meir Kahane.) If it is Israel that decides on the deployment of American force, it seems odd that the first President Bush had to order them to stay out of the coalition to free Kuwait, and it is even more odd that the first order of neocon business has not been an attack on Iran, as Israeli hawks have been urging. Mearsheimer and Walt are especially weak on this point: They speak darkly about neocon and Israeli maneuvers in respect to Tehran today, but they entirely fail to explain why the main initiative against the mullahs has come from the European Union and the International Atomic Energy Authority, two organizations where the voice of the Jewish lobby is, to say the least, distinctly muted. Their theory does nothing to explain why it was French President Jacques Chirac who took the lead in isolating the death-squad regime of Assad's Syria (a government that Mearsheimer and Walt regard, for reasons of their own, as a force for stability). As for the idea that Israel is the root cause of the emergence of al-Qaida: Where have these two gentlemen been? Bin Laden's gang emerged from a whole series of tough and reactionary battles in Central and Eastern Asia, from the war for a separate Muslim state in the Philippines to the fighting in Kashmir, the Uighur territories in China, and of course Afghanistan. There are hardly any Palestinians in its ranks, and its communiqués have been notable for how little they say about the Palestinian struggle. Bin Laden does not favor a Palestinian state; he simply regards the whole area of the former British Mandate as a part of the future caliphate. The right of the Palestinians to a state is a just demand in its own right, but anyone who imagines that its emergence would appease—or would have appeased—the forces of jihad is quite simply a fool. Is al-Qaida fomenting civil war in Nigeria or demanding the return of East Timor to Indonesia because its heart bleeds for the West Bank? For purposes of contrast, let us look at two other regional allies of the United States. Both Turkey and Pakistan have been joined to the Pentagon hip since approximately the time of the emergence of the state of Israel, which coincided with the Truman Doctrine. Pakistan was, like Israel, cleaved from a former British territory. Since that time, both states have carried out appalling internal repression and even more appalling external aggression. Pakistan attempted a genocide in Bangladesh, with the support of Nixon and Kissinger, in 1971. It imposed the Taliban as its client in a quasi-occupation of Afghanistan. It continues to arm and train Bin Ladenists to infiltrate Indian-held Kashmir, and its promiscuity with nuclear materials exceeds anything Israel has tried with its stockpile at Dimona. Turkey invaded Cyprus in 1974 and continues in illegal occupation of the northern third of the island, which has been forcibly cleansed of its Greek inhabitants. It continues to lie about its massacre of the Armenians. U.N. resolutions have had no impact on these instances of state terror and illegality in which the United States is also partially implicated. But here's the thing: There is no Turkish or Pakistani ethnic "lobby" in America. And here's the other thing: There is no call for "disinvestment" in Turkey or Pakistan. We are not incessantly told that with these two friends we are partners in crime. Perhaps the Greek Cypriots and Indians are in error in refusing to fly civilian aircraft into skyscrapers. That might get the attention of the "realists." Or perhaps the affairs of two states, one secular Muslim and one created specifically in the name of Islam, do not possess the eternal fascination that attaches to the Jewish question. There has been some disquiet expressed about Mearsheimer and Walt's over-fondness for Jewish name-dropping: their reiteration of the names Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, etc., as the neocon inner circle. Well, it would be stupid not to notice that a group of high-energy Jews has been playing a role in our foreign-policy debate for some time. The first occasion on which it had any significant influence (because, despite its tentacular influence, it lost the argument over removing Saddam Hussein in 1991) was in pressing the Clinton administration to intervene in Bosnia and Kosovo. These are the territories of Europe's oldest and largest Muslim minorities; they are oil-free and they do not in the least involve the state interest of Israel. Indeed, Sharon publicly opposed the intervention. One could not explain any of this from Mearsheimer and Walt's rhetoric about "the lobby." Mearsheimer and Walt belong to that vapid school that essentially wishes that the war with jihadism had never started. Their wish is father to the thought that there must be some way, short of a fight, to get around this confrontation. Wishfulness has led them to seriously mischaracterize the origins of the problem and to produce an article that is redeemed from complete dullness and mediocrity only by being slightly but unmistakably smelly. *************** http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/28/AR2006082801178.html Pronouncing Blame on the Israel Lobby By Dana Milbank Tuesday, August 29, 2006; Page A02 It was quite a boner. University of Chicago political scientist John Mearsheimer was in town yesterday to elaborate on his view that American Jewish groups are responsible for the war in Iraq, the destruction of Lebanon's infrastructure and many other bad things. As evidence, he cited the influence pro-Israel groups have on "John Boner, the House majority leader." Actually, Professor, it's "BAY-ner." But Mearsheimer quickly dispensed with Boehner (R-Ohio) and moved on to Jewish groups' nefarious sway over Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who Mearsheimer called " Von Hollen." Such gaffes would be trivial -- if Mearsheimer weren't claiming to be an authority on Washington and how power is wielded here. But Mearsheimer, with co-author Stephen Walt of Harvard's Kennedy School, set off a furious debate this spring when they argued that "the Israel lobby" is exerting undue influence in Washington; opponents called them anti-Semitic. Yesterday, at the invitation of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), they held a forum at the National Press Club to expand on their allegations about the Israel lobby. Blurring the line between academics and activism, they accepted a button proclaiming "Fight the Israel Lobby" and won cheers from the Muslim group for their denunciation of Israel and its friends in the United States. Whatever motivated the performance, the result wasn't exactly scholarly. Walt singled out two Jews who worked at the Pentagon for their pro-Israel views. "People like Paul Wolfowitz or Doug Feith . . . advocate policies they think are good for Israel and the United States alike," he said. "We don't think there's anything wrong with that, but we also don't think there's anything wrong for others to point out that these individuals do have attachments that shape how they think about the Middle East." "Attachments" sounds much better than "dual loyalties." But why single out Wolfowitz and Feith and not their non-Jewish boss, Donald Rumsfeld? "I could have mentioned non-Jewish people like John Bolton," Walt allowed when the question was put to him. Picking up on the "attachments" lingo, Mearsheimer did mention Bolton but cited two Jews, Elliott Abrams and David Wurmser, as "the two most influential advisers on Middle East affairs in the White House. Both, he said, are " fervent supporters of Israel." Never mind that others in the White House, such as national security adviser Stephen Hadley, Vice President Cheney and President Bush, have been just as fervent despite the lack of "attachments." This line of argument could be considered a precarious one for two blue-eyed men with Germanic surnames. And, indeed, Walt seemed defensive about the charges of anti-Semitism. He cautioned that the Israel lobby "is not a cabal," that it is "not synonymous with American Jews" and that "there is nothing improper or illegitimate about its activities." But Mearsheimer made no such distinctions as he used "Jewish activists," "major Jewish organizations" and the "Israel lobby" interchangeably. Clenching the lectern so tightly his knuckles whitened, Mearsheimer accused Israel of using the kidnapping of its soldiers by Hezbollah as a convenient excuse to attack Lebanon. "Israel had been planning to strike at Hezbollah for months," he asserted. "Key Israelis had briefed the administration about their intentions." A questioner asked if he had any "hard evidence" for this accusation. Mearsheimer cited the "public record" and "Israeli civilian strategists," then repeated the allegation that Israel was seeking "a cover for launching this offensive." As evidence that the American public does not agree with the Israel lobby, the political scientist cited a USA Today-Gallup poll showing that 38 percent of Americans disapproved of Israel's military campaign. He neglected to mention that 50 percent approved, and that Americans blamed Hezbollah, Iran, Syria and Lebanon far more than Israel for the conflict. Walt kicked off the session with a warning that we face a "threat from terrorism because we have been so closely tied to Israel." This produced chuckles in the audience. Walt allowed that this was "not the only reason" for our problems, but he did blame Israel supporters for the hands-off position the Bush administration took during the Lebanon fighting. "The answer is the political influence of the Israel lobby," Walt said. He also hypothesized that if not for the Israel lobby, the Iraq war "would have been much less likely." Up next, Mearsheimer ridiculed U.S. leaders for "falling all over themselves to express support for Israel." And he drew groans from the crowd when he spoke about a lawmaker who, after questioning Israel's policy, "met with various representatives from major Jewish organizations, who explained to him the basic facts of life in American politics." When the two professors finished, they were besieged by autograph- and photo-seekers and Arab television correspondents. Walt could be heard telling one that if an American criticizes Israel, "it might have some economic consequences for your business." Before leaving for an interview with al-Jazeera, Mearsheimer accepted a button proclaiming "Walt & Mearsheimer Rock. Fight the Israel Lobby." "I like it," he said, beaming. *************** http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/013507.php March 23, 2006 Professor Mearsheimer's first sip The English-language weeekly Forward catches up with the execrable "Israel lobby" paper by University of Chicago Professor John Mearsheimer and Kennedy School of Government Dean Stephen Walt: "Scholars' attack on pro-Israel lobby met with silence." Professor Mearsheimer spoke with the Forward, but he was not particularly forthcoming: I'd say Professor Mearsheimer revealed the full potential of saying the wrong thing here in the paper. It's too late to stop now. He continues with the Forward: In a separate Forward story, we gain a little more insight into the mind of Professor Mearsheimer: "Professor says American publisher turned him down." See if you can reconcile his many invitations to elaborate on his thesis in major newspapers, radio and television networks with this: I don't understand how the publisher who commissioned the paper -- could we have his name please? -- found it "virtually impossible" to get the piece published in the United States. Professor Mearsheimer is a notable member of the "realist" school of international relations; he appears to be the kind of realist who can't see the hand in front of his face. The Forward story continues: In yesterday's Best of the Web Today, James Taranto provided another glimpse into the mind of Professor Mearsheimer: ------------------ Blogger Ed Lasky notes a fascinating piece that appeared in the Jan. 10, 2003, issue of the Chicago Maroon, a student newspaper at the University of Chicago: Mearsheimer, of course, is a co-author, with Stephen Walt, of the infamous Harvard paper arguing that there is no moral or strategic basis for America's support of Israel and concluding that such support is explained by "the unmatched power of the Israel Lobby." As we noted Monday, their paper has drawn praise from David Duke. The claim that Israel would expel Palestinians from the disputed territories had a familiar ring to it, and after some digging through our archives, we figured out why. On March 14, 2003, less than a week before coalition troops crossed the Iraqi frontier, we quoted a reader e-mail responding to our mystification at the idea--then being propounded by figures as diverse as Edward Said, Pat Buchanan, David Duke and Rep. Jim Moran (D., Va.)--"that the impending liberation of Iraq is the result of a conspiracy by a Zionist 'cabal,' as Buchanan calls it, that is 'colluding with Israel' to 'ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America's interests.' " Our reader wrote: We are not cruel enough to reveal the identity of this silly missive's author, but we will say that the person is at the University of Chicago and is not Mearsheimer. Apparently this idea was very much in the air among Windy City savants in early 2003. Three years later, Israel not only has not expelled the Palestinian Arabs; it has withdrawn from Gaza. The prediction not only was not "obvious" but was flat wrong. We said so at the time: There is actually one more assumption implicit in the 2003 prediction of imminent "ethnic cleansing" in the disputed territories: that Israel would not observe any moral constraint against such an action. In other words, those who predicted mass expulsion of Palestinians assumed both (a) that Israel is wicked and (b) that carrying out the imagined plan would be practicable. We'd argue that both (a) and (b) are false, but clearly they cannot both be true. It may be that a conviction that Israel is evil blinded advocates of this theory to its practical shortcomings. --------------------- The Jerusalem Post tracked down Alan Dershowitz for additional comments on the paper: "AIPAC study is ignorant propaganda." Professor Dershowitz states: "There is no scholarship here what so ever." In their paper, Professor Mearsheimer and Dean Walt sound a little like alcholics who have taken a sip of a bad brew and can't stop. The 2003 letter to the Maroon suggests that Professor Mearsheimer took that first sip a few years back. Posted by Scott at 06:47 AM **************************
It doesn't require that language ANYWHERE in the Constitution or US law.
I said no such thing. You truly are the typical 4um poster, Red.
How about basic common sense? What does that require? Do you realize how silly you look pushing this very lame and very hypertechnical excuse for the lack of a declaration of war that is now giving you fits?
.
I'm not a big Constitutionalist. I mostly take the Spooner view of it.But I am going to correct your historical ignorance. By its very nature of being a declaration of war it must have certain properties just as a table requires legs or it is called a board or a basin in your bathroom has to spray water to be called a shower. One required property is to make a declaration (hence the name) that a state of war exists between the parties or that one party is declaring war on the other(s). Another property is that it is to be communicated to the other party. It is not just a directive between Congress and the President, but a diplomatic correspondence between Congress (or whomever) and the party that is subject to the declaration. And last, a declaration of war almost always (exception: Mexico's declaration against Italy - leave it to Mexicans to fuck it up)lists grievances leading to or causing the conflict. The US Constitution didn't invent the concept of a declaration of war. It has existed in a particular form in Western diplomatic custom and protocol for centuries. Here is Autria-Hungary's Declaration of War to Serbia: The Royal Serbian Government not having answered in a satisfactory manner the note of July 23, 1914, presented by the Austro-Hungarian Minister at Belgrade, the Imperial and Royal Government are themselves compelled to see to the safeguarding of their rights and interests, and, with this object, to have recourse to force of arms. Austria-Hungary consequently considers herself henceforward in a state of war with Serbia. (signed) Count Berchtold Here is Germany's Declaration of War on France in 1914: M. Le President, The German administrative and military authorities have established a certain number of flagrantly hostile acts committed on German territory by French military aviators. Several of these have openly violated the neutrality of Belgium by flying over the territory of that country; one has attempted to destroy buildings near Wesel; others have been seen in the district of the Eifel; one has thrown bombs on the railway near Carlsruhe and Nuremberg. I am instructed, and I have the honour to inform your Excellency, that in the presence of these acts of aggression the German Empire considers itself in a state of war with France in consequence of the acts of this latter Power. At the same time, I have the honour to bring to the knowledge of your Excellency that the German authorities will retain French mercantile vessels in German ports, but they will release them if, within forty-eight hours, they are assured of complete reciprocity. My diplomatic mission having thus come to an end, it only remains for me to request your Excellency to be good enough to furnish me with my passports, and to take the steps you consider suitable to assure my return to Germany, with the staff of the Embassy, as well as, with the Staff of the Bavarian Legation and of the German Consulate General in Paris. Be good enough, M. le President, to receive the assurances of my deepest respect. (Signed) [Baron Von] SCHOEN. Friday 19th October 1739. His Majesty's Declaration of War against the King of Spain. WHEREAS many unjust Seizures have been made, and Depredations carried on for several Years in the W. Indies by Spanish Guarda Costas, and other Ships acting under the Commission of the King of Spain, or his Governors, contrary to the Treaties subsisting between Us and the Crown of Spain, and to the Law of Nations, to the great Prejudice of the lawful Trade and Commerce of Our Subjects; and great Crueltues and Barbarities have been exercised on the Persons of divers of our Subjects, whose vessels have been seized, and the British Colours have been insulted in the most ignominious Manner; And whereas We have caused frequent Complaints to be made to the King of Spain, of these violent and unjust Proceedings, but no Satisfaction or Redress has been given for the same, notwithstanding the many Promises made and Cedulas issued, signed by the said King, or by his Order, for that Purpose; And whereas the evils abovementioned have been principally occasioned by an unwarrantable Claim and Pretension, set up on the Part of Spain, that the Guarda Costas, and other Ships, authorised by the King of Spain, may stop, detain and search the Ships and Vessels of our Subjects navigating in the American Seas, contrary to the Liberty of Navigation, to which Our Subjects have not only equal Right with those of the King of Spain, by the Law of Nations, but which is moreover expressly acknowledg'd and declared to belong to them by the most solemn Treaties, and particularly in the Year 1670; And wereas the said groundless Claim and Pretention, and that the unjust Practice of stopping, detaining and searching Ships and Vessels navigating in the Seas of America, is not only of the most dangerous and Destructive Consequence to the lawful Commerce of Our Subjects, but also tends to interupt and obstruct the free Intercourse and Correpondence between Our Dominions in Europe, and Our Colonies and Plantations in America, and by means thereof to deprive Us and Our Subjects of the benefit of those Colonies and Plantations; a consideration of the highest Importance to Us and Our Kingdoms; and a Practice which must affect, in its Consequence, all the other Princes and States of Europe, possessed of Settlements in the West Indies, or whose subjects carry on any Trade thither. And whereas besides the notorious Grounds of Complaint abovementioned, many other infractions have been made on the Part of Spain, of the several Treaties and Conventions subsisting between Us and that Crowm, and particularly of that concluded in the year 1657, as well by the exorbitant Duties and Impositions laid upon the Trade and Commerce of Our Subjects, as by the Breach of ancient and established Privileges, stipulated for them by the said Treaties; for the Redress of which Grievences the strongest Instances have been, from time to time, made by Our several Ministers residing within Spain, without any Effect. And whereas a Convention for making Reparation to Our Subjects for the Losses sustained by them, on Account of the unjust Seizures and Depredations committed by the Spaniards in America, and in order to prevent for the future all the Grievences and Causes of Complaint therin taken Notice of, and to remove absolutely and for ever every thing which might give occasion thereto, was concluded between Us, and the King of Spain, on the Fourteenth Day of January last, N.S. by which Convention it was stipulated, that a certain Sum of Money should be paid at London, within a Term therin specified, as a Balance admitted to be due on the Part of Spain, to the Crown and Subjects of Great Britain; which term expired on the Twenty fifth Day of May last, and the Payment of the said Sum was not made according to the Stipulation for that Purpose; by which Means the Convention above mentioned was manifestly violated and broken by the King of Spain, and our Subjects remained without any Saisfaction, or Reparation for the many grievous Losses sustained by them; and thw Methods agreed upon by the said Convention in order to obtaining future Security for the Trade and Navigation of Our Subjects, are, contrary to good Faith, frustrated and defeated, in Consequence of which We found ourselves obliged, for vindicating the Honour of Our Crown, and for procuring Reparation, and Satisfaction for Our injured Subjects, to order, that general Reprisals should be granted against the said King of Spain, his Vassels and Subjects, and their Ships, Goods and Effects. And whereas the Court of Spain has been induced to colour the open Violation of the Convention aforesaid, by Reasons and Pretence which are void of all Foundation; and, at the same Time, has not only published an Order, signed by the said King, for seizing the Ships, Goods and Effects belonging to Us, and Our Subjects, wherever they shall be met with, but has caused Seizures to be actually made of the Goods and Effects of Our Subjects, residing in his Dominions, and has also ordered Our said subjects to depart out of the Spanish Dominions, within a short limited Time, contrary to the express Stipulations of the Treaties between the Two Crowns, even in the case of a War actually declared. We have taken into our Royal and most seriour Consideration these Injuries, which have been offered to Us, and Our Subjects, and the manifest Violation of the in many Particulars eluded, or ecaded by the Unwarrantable Behaviour of the Court of Spain, and their Officers, notwithstanding the repeated Instances We have given of Our Desire to cultivate a good Understanding with the King of Spain, and the essential Proofs of Our Friendship and Regard for him and his Family, which We have demonstrated to all the World; and being fully satisfied that the Honour of our Crown, the Interest of Our Subjects, and the Regard which ought to be had to the most solemn Treaties, call upon Us to make use of this Power which God has given Us, for vindicating Our Undoubted Rights, and securing to Our loving Subjects the Privileges of Navigation and Commerce to which they are justly intitled. We therefore, relying on the Help of Almighty God, who knows the Uprightness of our Intensions, have thought fit to declare, and do hereby declare War against the said King of Spain; and We will, in pursuance of such Declaration, vigorously prosecute the said War, being afforded the ready Concurrence and Assistance of all Our loving Subjects in so just a Cause. Given at Our Court at Kensington the Nineteenth Day of October 1739, in the Thirteenth Year of Our Reign. GOD SAVE THE KING Thursday 29th March 1744. His Majesty's Declaration of War against the French King. THE Troubles which broke out in Germany, on account of the Succession of the late Emperor Charles the Sixth, having been begun and carried on by the Instigation, Assistance, and Support of the French King, with a view to overturn the Balance of Power in Europe, and to extend the dangerous Influence of that Crown, in direct Violation of the solemn Guaranty of the Pragmatic Sanction, given by him in the Year 1738, In Consideration of the Cession of Lorraine; and we having on our part executed our Engagements for maintaining the Pragmatic Sanction, with that good Faith which is inserarable from us; and having opposed the Attempts made against the Dominions of the Queen of Hungary, we are not surprised that our Conduct in this Respect, should have drawn upon us the Resentment of the French King, who has found his ambitious Views, in a great Measure, disappointed by the Assistance we have furnished to our Ally, unjustly attacked by him; or that he should alledge it as a principal Reason for declaring War against us. From the Time that we found ourselves obliged, for the maintenance of the just Rights of our Subjects, to enter into a War with Spain, instead of observing a strict Neutrality, which we might have promised ourselves on the Part of the French King, from whom we were even founded by Treaty to have demanded Assistance; he has given Encouragement and Support to our Enemies, by conniving at his Subjects, Acting as Privateers under Spanish Commissions, both in Europe and America; and by sending in the Year 1740, a strong Squadron into the the American Seas, in order to prevent us from prosecuting the just War which we were carrying on against Spain in those Parts; and we have most authentick Proof that an order was given to the Commander of the French Squadron, not only to act in a hostile manner against our Ships, either jointly with the Spaniards, or separately; but even to concert Measures with our Enemies, for attacking one of our principal Dominions in America; a duplicate of that order dated the 7th October, 1740, having fallen into the Hands of the Commander in Chief of our Squadron in the West Indies. This injurious Proceeding was greatly aggravated by the French Minister at our Court, having declared on Occasion of sending the said Squadron. that the French King was very far from having any Design or Intention of breaking with us. The Same effective conduct was continued on the Part of the French King, towards us, by his Squadron in the Mediterranea, in the Year 1741, joining with and protecting the Ships of our Enemies, in Sight of our Fleet, which was peparing to attack them. These unwarrantable Proceedings; the notorious Breach of Treaties by repairing the Fortifications, and erecting New Works at Dunkirk, the open Hostilities lately against our Fleet in the Mediterranean; the Affront and Indignity offered to us, by the reception of the Son of the Pretender to our Crown, in the French Dominions; the Embarkation actually made at Dunkirk, of a considerable Body of Troops, notoriously designed for an Invasion of this Kingdom, in Favour of the Pretender to our Crown; and the sending of a Squadron of French Ships of War into the Channel, to support the said Embarkation and Invasion, will be lasting Monuments of the little Regard had by the French Court for the most solemn Engagements, when the Observance of them is inconsistent with Interest, Ambition, or Resentment. We cannot omit taking Notice of the unjust Insinuations contained in the French King's Declaration of War against us, with respect to the Convention made at Hanover, in October 1741; that Convention, regarding our Electorate only, had no Relation to our Conduct as King of Great Britain. The Allegations concerning it, are groundless and injurious; our Proceedings in that Respect, having been perfectly consistent with that Good Faith, which we have always made the Rule of our Actions. The Charge of Piracy, Cruelty and Barbarity against our Ships of War is equally unjust and unbecoming; and we have all such proceedings so much in Abborrence, that, if any Practices of that Nature had been made appear to us, we would have taken effectual Care to put a Stop to them, and to have punished the Offenders in the severest Manner. We being therefore indispensably obliged to take up Arms, and entirely relying on the Help of Almighty God, who knows the Uprightness of our Intensions, have thought fit to declare, and do hereby declare War against the French King; and we will, in Pursuance of such Declaration, vigorously prosecute the same by Sea and Land; being assured of the ready Concurrence and Assistance of all our loving Subjects, in so just a Cause. And we do hereby will and require our Generals and Commanders of our Forces, our Commissioners for executing the Office of High Admiral of Great Britain, our Lieutenants of our several Counties, Governors of our Forts and Garrisons, and all other Officers under them, by Sea and Land, to do and execute all Acts of Hostility in the Prosecution of this War against the said French King, his Vassals, and Subjects and to oppose their Attempts, willing and requiring all our subjects to take Notice of the same, whom we henceforth strictly forbid not to hold any Correspondence or Communication with the Subjects of the French; and advertise all other Persons of what Nation soever, not to transport or carry any Soldiers, Arms, Powder, Ammunition, or other contraband Goods, to any of the Territories, Lands, Plantations, or Countries of the said French King; declaring that whatsoever Sip or Vessel shall be met withal, transporting or carrying any Soldiers, Ams, Powder, Ammunition, or other contraband Goods, to any of the Territories, Lands, Plantations, or Countries of the said French King, the same being taken, shall be condemned as good and lawful Prize. And where there are in remaining in our Kingdom divers of the Subjects of the French King, we do hereby declare our Royal Intention to be, that all the French Subjects, who shall demean themselves dutifully towards us, shall be safe in their Persons and Estates. Given at our Court at St. James's, the Twenty ninth Day of March 1744. In the Seventeenth Year of our Reign. GOD SAVE THE KING. Got the picture yet? Good.
Look we've been down this road before, BAC. a. For every smear on Mearsheimer and Walt by known IsraelFirsters, the 2 esteemed professors have rebuttals in the London Review of Books, which you pointedly omit. For example - take their response to Philip Zelikow: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n10/le tters.html From John Mearsheimer & Stephen Walt Philip Zelikow claims he did not say in September 2002 that the present war in Iraq was motivated in good part by concerns about Israel’s security. He suggests that our reference to his remarks came from an unreliable source and says we ‘misused’ his comments. He implies that he was talking mainly about the 1990-91 Gulf War, not the US decision to invade Iraq in March 2003. Furthermore, he maintains that he ‘expressed no view’ on ‘whether or when the US ought to go to war with Iraq’. None of these assertions is correct. Emad Mekay, who wrote the Asia Times Online article we referenced, is a well- regarded journalist who worked for Reuters and the New York Times before moving to Inter Press Service, a legitimate news agency. He did not rely on ‘local reports’ in writing his story, but had access to a complete and unimpeachable record of Zelikow’s talk. He repeatedly tried to contact Zelikow while writing his story, but his inquiries were not returned. Below are excerpts from Zelikow’s remarks about Iraq on 10 September 2002 (we have the full text). It shows that 1. he was focusing on the possibility of war with Iraq in 2002-03, not the 1990-91 Gulf War; 2. he supported a new war with Iraq; and 3. he believed Iraq was an imminent threat to Israel, but not to the United States. Finally. . . I wanted to offer some comments on Iraq. . . . I beg your patience, but I think there are some points that are worth making that aren’t being made by either side in the current debate. The Iraq situation this administration inherited is and has been unsustainable. Ever since 1996 the Iraqi situation has basically unravelled. . . . So then the real question is, OK, what are you going to do about it? How are you going to end up fixing it? And if you don’t like the administration’s approach, what’s the recommended alternative? Another thing Americans absorb, and this administration especially, is the lesson of Afghanistan. Because remember we knew that international terrorist groups were plotting to kill Americans in a sanctuary called Afghanistan. . . [I]n retrospect, it is perfectly clear that only . . . an [American] invasion could reliably have pre-empted the 9/11 attacks, which relied on people who were being trained in that sanctuary . . . So what lesson does one take from that with respect to Iraq? Well you can see the lesson this administration has taken from that example. And so contemplate what lesson you take. Third. The unstated threat. And here I criticise the [Bush] administration a little, because the argument that they make over and over again is that this is about a threat to the United States. And then everybody says: ‘Show me an imminent threat from Iraq to America. Show me, why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us?’ So I’ll tell you what I think the real threat is, and actually has been since 1990. It’s the threat against Israel. And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don’t care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it’s not a popular sell. Now . . . if the danger is a biological weapon handed to Hamas, then what’s the American alternative then? Especially if those weapons have developed to the point where they now can deter us from attacking them, because they really can retaliate against us, by then. Play out those scenarios . . . Don’t look at the ties between Iraq and al-Qaida, but then ask yourself the question: ‘Gee, is Iraq tied to Hamas, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the people who are carrying out suicide bombings in Israel?’ Easy question to answer, and the evidence is abundant. Yes, there are a lot of other problems in the world . . . My view, by the way, is the more you examine these other problems and try to put together a comprehensive strategy for America and the Middle East, the more I’m driven to the conclusion that it’s better for us to deal with Iraq sooner rather than later. Because those other problems don’t get easier . . . And the Iraq problem is a peculiar combination at the moment, of being exceptionally dangerous at a time when Iraq is exceptionally weak militarily. Now that’s an appealing combination for immediate action . . . But . . . if we wait two years, and then there’s another major terrorist attack against the United States, does it then become easier to act against Iraq, even though the terrorist attack didn’t come from Iraq? No. . . . [A]t this moment, because of the time we bought in the war against terror, it actually makes it easier to go about Iraq now, than waiting a year or two until the war against terror gets harder again. In sum, it is Zelikow, not us, who is attempting to rewrite history. He was admirably candid in 2002, but not in 2006. John Mearsheimer & Stephen Walt b. As for the likes of Alan Dershowitz - HAHAHA - don't insult our intelligence at 4um by using quotes from that alleged plagiarist. Perhaps you should read what Dr. Finkelstein has shown to be the MO of Dershowitz - please, Dershowitz doesn't deserve to be spoken of in the same breath or to be listed in the same thread as esteemed scholars, Drs. Mearsheimer and Walt: http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=4&ar=1 c. Drs. Mearsheimer and Walt were listed in the top 25 ranking of American political science research and scholarship. They didn't get there by lying or by bigotry. d. Drs. Mearsheimer and Walt have recently signed a book contract with the prestigious publishing house, Farrar and Strauss,to expand on their thesis of the Israel Lobby and its influence on US foreign policy. Farrar and Straus do not publish trash. e. If you were such a true pro-American patriot as you claim to be, you would be incensed at the evidence produced by Drs. Mearsheimer and Walt regarding the duplicity and anti- American negative influence of the Israel Lobby on our foreign policy. That this lobby group has been identified as the main cause of our invasion of Iraq and that this same lobby group is now trying to propel us into a war with Iran, causing our US military to fight and die for the benefit of another nation is shameful, if not treasonous. Instead you defend this foreign agent lobby group which makes me surmise that you are at one with the Israel Lobby's goals. You are as anti-America, IsraelFirst as that lobby group is.
Did you know http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War "in May of 1801, the Pasha declared war on the United States, not through any formal written documents, but by cutting down the flagstaff in front of the U.S. Consulate. Morocco, Algiers, and Tunis soon followed their ally in Tripoli. In response, Jefferson sent a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress. Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify." Guess the Framers of the Constitution never read your definition.
You wrote that yourself didn't you. Recall that a few weeks ago you told us that wiki wasn't an acceptable source because this was possible.
.
Oh my goodness, pirates didn't issue a recognized formal declaration of war. You mean they acted as...pirates? I'm shocked. Did you know that "Aaaar matey" is the official structure of a pirate's diplomatic correspondance? Bet you didn't. If you can't tell the difference between protecting shipping interests on the High Seas from Mohammedan pirates and a land war between what the Founders would consider legitimate Sovereigns, then there's no point going on. FYI: the founders were a bit Eurocentric. This was a little before the PC era. I think you know the difference and are being purposely obtuse. Does the term "grasping at straws" mean anything to you? It should.
The Constitution gives to the CONGRESS the power to declare war. They may do with any wording of their choosing as long as the chosen wording declares war. ---------- U.S. Supreme Court "The whole powers of war being, by the constitution of the United States, vested in congress, the acts of that body can alone be resorted to as our guides in this inquiry. It is not denied, nor in the course of the argument has it been denied, that congress may authorize general hostilities, in which case the general laws of war apply to our situation; or partial hostilities, in which case the laws of war, so far as they actually apply to our situation, must be noticed." ---------- U.S. Supreme Court DOUGLAS J., joined by BLACK J, concurring: "But the war power stems from a declaration of war. The Constitution by Art. I, 8, gives Congress, not the President, power '[t]o declare War.' Nowhere are presidential wars authorized. We need not decide therefore what leveling effect the war power of Congress might have." ---------- Federalist #69 - Hamilton "The President will have only the occasional command of such part of the militia of the nation as by legislative provision may be called into the actual service of the Union." "The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies -- all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature." ---------- Federalist #41 - Madison "That we may form a correct judgment on this subject, it will be proper to review the several powers conferred on the government of the Union; and that this may be the more conveniently done they may be reduced into different classes as they relate to the following different objects: 1. Security against foreign danger; 2. Regulation of the intercourse with foreign nations; 3. Maintenance of harmony and proper intercourse among the States; 4. Certain miscellaneous objects of general utility; 5. Restraint of the States from certain injurious acts; 6. Provisions for giving due efficacy to all these powers. "The powers falling within the first class are those of declaring war and granting letters of marque; of providing armies and fleets; of regulating and calling forth the militia; of levying and borrowing money. "Security against foreign danger is one of the primitive objects of civil society. It is an avowed and essential object of the American Union. The powers requisite for attaining it must be effectually confided to the federal councils. "Is the power of declaring war necessary? No man will answer this question in the negative. It would be superfluous, therefore, to enter into a proof of the affirmative. The existing Confederation establishes this power in the most ample form." ---------- Cornell Law School In the early draft of the Constitution presented to the Convention by its Committee of Detail, Congress was empowered "to make war." [1412] Although there were solitary suggestions that the power should better be vested in the President alone, [1413] in the Senate[p.308]alone, [1414] or in the President and the Senate, [1415] the sentiment of the Convention, as best we can determine from the limited notes of the proceedings, was that the potentially momentous consequences of initiating armed hostilities should be called up only by the concurrence of the President and both Houses of Congress. [1416] In contrast to the English system, the Framers did not want the wealth and blood of the Nation committed by the decision of a single individual; [1417] in contrast to the Articles of Confederation, they did not wish to forego entirely the advantages of executive efficiency nor to entrust the matter solely to a branch so close to popular passions. [1418] The result of these conflicting considerations was that the Convention amended the clause so as to give Congress the power to "declare war." [1419] Although this change could be read to give Congress the mere formal function of recognizing a state of hostilities, in the context of the Convention proceedings it appears more likely the change was intended to insure that the President was empowered to repel sudden attacks [1420] without awaiting congressional action and to make clear that the conduct of war was vested exclusively in the President. [1421] An early controversy revolved about the issue of the President’s powers and the necessity of congressional action when hostilities are initiated against us rather than the Nation instituting armed conflict. The Bey of Tripoli, in the course of attempting to extort payment for not molesting United States shipping, declared war upon the United States, and a debate began whether Congress had to enact a formal declaration of war to create a legal status of war. President Jefferson sent a squadron of frigates to the Mediterranean to protect our ships but limited its mission to defense in the narrowest sense of the term. Attacked by a Tripolitan cruiser, one of the frigates subdued it, disarmed it, and, pursuant to instructions, released it. Jefferson in a message to Congress announced his actions as in compliance with constitutional limitations on his authority in the absence of a declaration of war. [1422] Hamilton espoused a different interpretation, contending that the Constitution vested in Congress the power to initiate war but that when another nation made war upon the United States we were already in a state of war and no declaration by Congress was needed. [1423] Congress thereafter enacted a statute authorizing the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Bey of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify..." [1424] But no formal declaration of war was passed, Congress apparently accepting Hamilton’s view. [1425] Footnotes 1412 2 M. Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 (New Haven: rev. ed. 1937), 313.
It would appear that the Framers adopted the view of Hamilton which was opposed to the view of Jefferson. Cornell Law School * * * An early controversy revolved about the issue of the President’s powers and the necessity of congressional action when hostilities are initiated against us rather than the Nation instituting armed conflict. The Bey of Tripoli, in the course of attempting to extort payment for not molesting United States shipping, declared war upon the United States, and a debate began whether Congress had to enact a formal declaration of war to create a legal status of war. President Jefferson sent a squadron of frigates to the Mediterranean to protect our ships but limited its mission to defense in the narrowest sense of the term. Attacked by a Tripolitan cruiser, one of the frigates subdued it, disarmed it, and, pursuant to instructions, released it. Jefferson in a message to Congress announced his actions as in compliance with constitutional limitations on his authority in the absence of a declaration of war. [1422] Hamilton espoused a different interpretation, contending that the Constitution vested in Congress the power to initiate war but that when another nation made war upon the United States we were already in a state of war and no declaration by Congress was needed. [1423] Congress thereafter enacted a statute authorizing the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Bey of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify..." [1424] But no formal declaration of war was passed, Congress apparently accepting Hamilton’s view. [1425] 1422 Messages and Papers of the Presidents, J. Richardson ed. (Washington: 1896), 326, 327.
i've come to see this as an expression of praise. yes, the typical 4um poster is one who is wise to your lying and your wickedness.
It doesn't require that language ANYWHERE in the Constitution or US law. You realize of course that this is an absolutely asinine statement on your part. I am sure you realize it, but as you appear to have neither pride nor integrity you are willing to risk ridicule in order to push your cheap and silly propaganda. Congress as a body of lawmakers are required to adhere to the same standards as the rest of the legal profession in the documents they draft. This means that the meaning should be clear from the language within the four corners of the document - as the other poster just indicated. You are trying to distract from this simple point as the language of the Iraqi war resolution doesn't support the propaganda you wish to push. You want to introduce parole evidence to change the meaning of the document - and that isn't allowed in this case, and you know that. If your position is correct, why do you need to resort to these dishonest and absolutely scummy tactics to fool people into accepting it? The fact that you must resort to this style of very transparent propaganda should tell you something about the merit of your position.
.
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-8537(1972)13%3A2%3C261%3ATATWWT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-D "But on 14 May 1801, the flagstaff in front of the American Consulate was cut down on the order of the Pasha, who thereby announced his breach of diplomatic relations with America and declared war against her. http://www.scribd.com/doc/3325/Chapter11 "in 1801, the pasha of Tripoli indirectly declared war when he cut down the flagstaff of the American consulate." http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/grizzard/johnson/johnson03.html "It was Yusuf, the Pasha with this bloody record, who declared war on the United States, May 10, 1801, by cutting down the flagstaff of the American consulate." I said you needed to VERIFY what wikipedia claimed. I did. You didn't.
Oh my goodness, I guess you missed the part about the US government signing a TREATY with those "pirates". In fact, it was one you 4um folks who pointed that out.
Oh my goodness, looks like you also missed the fact that US "marines" marched across LAND and deposed the leader of a legitimate sovereign nation as part of that NON-DECLARED WAR.
NOWHERE does it say the wording must say "declare war". And it looks like Congress and the Supreme Court agree. By the way, did you know that the law passed by Congress authorizing the use of military force in Iraq even mentioned the word WAR?
I have no problem with Hamilton's view. In Iraq, a state of war existed with the US in 1991 and the fact that Iraq violated the cease-fire agreement stopping the 91 conflict means a state of war still existed between the US and Iraq in 2003. Furthermore, tapes captured during the invasion show that Saddam's regime still considered themselves to be at war with the US.
Comments (65 - 267) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestThen I guess my answer would be YES, Congress declared war on Iraq when it passed a law authorizing Bush to use military force against Iraq for a host of WHEREAS reasons.
U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Holds a Hearing on Wartime Executive Power and the National Security Agency's Surveillance Authority
Part III of IV
Monday, February 6, 2006; 3:48 PM GONZALES: There was not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It was an authorization to use military force.
#25. To: nolu_chan, BeAChooser (#24)
I only want to clarify that, because there are implications. Obviously, when you talk about a war declaration, you're possibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic relations. And so there is a distinction in law and in practice. And we're not talking about a war declaration. This is an authorization only to use military force.
#26. To: robin (#0)
Transferring authority to wage war, calling it permission to use force to fight for peace in order to satisfy the UN Charter, which replaces the Article I, Section 8 war power provision, is about as close to 1984 "newspeak" that we will ever get in the real world.
#27. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#24)
GONZALES: There was not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It was an authorization to use military force.
#28. To: Dakmar, ALL (#25)
Wow, even Gonzalez understands what a declaration of war entails.
#29. To: BeAChooser (#28)
Then I take it you would agree with his definition of illegal immigrants as American CITIZENS?
#30. To: BeAChooser (#17)
first Circuit Court of Appeals
#31. To: Minerva (#29)
(Edited)
Yawn. Everytime someone scores a point you try to change the subject. Get a new tactic.
#32. To: scrapper2, ALL (#30)
The Supreme Court did not state that the Iraq War was legal - as you suggested in your previous posts
b. It costs a lot of money to attempt to get a case heard by the Supreme Court. Anti-war groups are grass roots organizations - they don't have Israel's foreign aid budget, for example, with $ to burn.
This is a matter of Congress needing and wanting to assert its authority in matters of war declaration. Congress should revoke the temporary power it passed to GWB in October 2002 to use force against Iraq and then it should defund the Iraq War.
But because both political parties are beholden to AIPAC, the Israel Lobby group, and not to American voters, Congress refuses to assert its authority.
FYI, here's what Americans want in terms of foreign policy based on the latest latest prestigious poll conducted by Public Agenda and Foreign Affairs. What Americans want is totally opposite to what GWB and Congress are doing.
#33. To: BeAChooser, All (#32)
(Edited)
scrapper2: But because both political parties are beholden to AIPAC, the Israel Lobby group, and not to American voters, Congress refuses to assert its authority.
#34. To: BeAChooser, robin (#1)
Can anyone point out to me the form that the Constitution says a declaration of war must have?
"Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it
Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. President, I shall presently ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the joint resolution just read to the Senate. Before the request is submitted, however, I desire to say that, being advised of the declaration of war upon the United States by the Governments of Germany and Italy, and anticipating a message by the President of the United States in relation thereto, and after a conference with the Secretary of State, as chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, I called a meeting of the committee this morning and submitted to the committee the course I expected to pursue as chairman and the request which I expected to make. "Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it
The SPEAKER. The question is, Will the House suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution?
#35. To: BeAChooser (#27)
By the way, do you know that Gonzales is on the record calling illegal immigrants American CITIZENS?
#36. To: nolu_chan, BeAChooser (#34)
#37. To: Red Jones (#36)
BAC is a TREASONOUS QUEER! by his own admission as well I think you should know. a man that is a TREASONOUS QUEER is not someone that can or should be trusted.
#38. To: Morgana le Fay (#37)
and the whole internet seems to agree.
#39. To: Morgana le Fay (#37)
i would trust a treasonous queer before i believed anything fish breath told me.
#40. To: Nostalgia (#38)
Yet the succubus claims that's exclusive to 4um'ers.
#41. To: BeAChooser (#32)
#42. To: Morgana le Fay (#41)
#43. To: Minerva (#42)
#44. To: BeAChooser (#28)
Wow, even Gonzalez understands what a declaration of war entails.
#45. To: BeAChooser, scrapper2, ALL (#17)
The first Circuit Court of Appeals stated that "...the text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an 'authorization' of such a war."
#46. To: nolu_chan (#26)
#47. To: scrapper2, ALL (#33)
Drs. Mearsheimer and Walt from U of Chicago and Harvard studied the influence of the Israel Lobby on US foreign policy and based on their research there would not have been an Iraq War were it not for the considerable influence brought to bear on Congress and the White House to invade Iraq by the Israel Lobby.
Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was critical . . . The war was motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure. According to Philip Zelikow, a former member of the president’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, and now a counsellor to Condoleezza Rice, the ‘real threat’ from Iraq was not a threat to the United States. The ‘unstated threat’ was the ‘threat against Israel’, Zelikow told an audience at the University of Virginia in September 2002. ‘The American government,’ he added, ‘doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell.’
Washington DC "I don't have an agenda in the sense of viewing myself as proselytizing or trying to sell this," Mearsheimer told the Forward. "I am a scholar, not an activist, and I am reticent to take questions from the media because I do believe that this is a subject that has to be approached very carefully. You don't want to say the wrong thing. The potential for saying the wrong thing is very great here."
Mearsheimer was hosted on National Public Radio Tuesday for a full hour, to talk about Iraq, but did not make any mention of the controversial paper he co-authored. "To have a throwaway line or two on public radio to promote yourself is a bad idea," he told the Forward, following his NPR appearance. "I prefer to take the high road, although that is not always easy." Since publication, Mearsheimer added, he and Walt also turned down offers from major newspapers, radio and television networks to lay out their thesis.
John Mearsheimer says that the pro-Israel lobby is so powerful that he and co-author Stephen Walt would never have been able to place their report in an American-based scientific publication.
"I do not believe that we could have gotten it published in the United States," Mearsheimer told the Forward. He said that the paper was originally commissioned in the fall of 2002 by one of America's leading magazines, "but the publishers told us that it was virtually impossible to get the piece published in the United States."
Most scholars, policymakers and journalists know that "the whole subject of the Israel lobby and American foreign policy is a third-rail issue," he said. "Publishers understand that if they publish a piece like ours it would cause them all sorts of problems."
In their paper, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," the two professors accuse "the lobby" of "policing academia," intimidating scholars and stifling dissent on campuses, mainly through accusing critics of being antisemitic.
Mearsheimer said that he and Walt expected to be accused of being anti-Israel and antisemitic, so they made a point of stating in the study that the establishment of Israel was morally justified and that America's support of Israel, in principle, is justified as well. He said the paper takes issue with the extent of American support for Israel and the role that the pro-Israel lobby plays in pushing for such assistance.
Asked if the study may have been initially rejected by the American publisher because of poor research, Mearsheimer said that the "evidence in the piece is just the tip of the iceberg," and that the study's observations are supported by a large body of evidence. He did concede, however, that none of the evidence represents original documentation or is derived from independent interviews. All the additional supporting material — just like the references footnoted in the paper — is of a secondary nature: citations of books and newspaper articles, Mearsheimer said.
An open letter demanding vigilance in ensuring that Israel does not forcibly expel Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza has drawn the endorsement of nearly a thousand American academics, including eight at the University of Chicago.
The letter, adopted from one circulated by Israeli academics, cites Israeli politicians who publicly support removing Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza and relocating them into neighboring Arab countries. The "fog of war [with Iraq] could be exploited by the Israeli government to commit further crimes against the Palestinian people, up to full-fledged ethnic cleansing," the letter reads....
"The precedent is there [to forcibly expel Palestinians], and it behooves us to make sure it does not happen again," said John Mearsheimer, co-director of the Program on International Security Policy at the University and one of the letter's signatories.
What is obvious is that they [the Israelis] will use the resulting chaos as a pretext to get rid of the Palestinians, driving them out of the country into Jordan or Egypt. Who will say or do anything to stop them when the region is totally destabilized and a mess?
Let us spell out the assumptions underlying this theory:
*That the disastrous outcome of war in Iraq--"chaos," with the region "totally destabilized and a mess"--is foreordained.
*That Israel and its co-conspirators, some of whom hold subcabinet-level positions in the Bush administration, know this, but the rest of the administration and the majority of Congress have no clue and thus have been duped by the Zionist plotters into thinking the war has a significant chance of success.
*That although the whole region will be engulfed in "chaos," "totally destabilized and a mess," Israel will have no problem managing the forcible relocation of more than three million people, many of them heavily armed with guns and explosives, all the while defending its borders against the hostile states and terrorist groups that surround it.
#48. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#34)
They formally declare something like, "the state of war between the United States and ... is hereby formally declared."
#49. To: Red Jones, ALL (#36)
BAC said that there was never a declaration of war against Germany.
#50. To: BeAChooser (#48)
It doesn't require that language ANYWHERE in the Constitution or US law.
#51. To: BeAChooser (#48)
(Edited)
It doesn't require that language ANYWHERE in the Constitution or US law.
#52. To: BeAChooser, All (#47)
#53. To: SmokinOPs, ALL (#51)
By its very nature of being a declaration of war it must have certain properties just as a table requires legs or it is called a board or a basin in your bathroom has to spray water to be called a shower. One required property is to make a declaration (hence the name) that a state of war exists between the parties or that one party is declaring war on the other(s).
#54. To: BeAChooser (#53)
#55. To: BeAChooser (#53)
#56. To: BeAChooser (#48)
It doesn't require that language ANYWHERE in the Constitution or US law.
TALBOT v. SEEMAN, 5 U.S. 1 (1801)
NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. UNITED STATES, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)
Legal Information Institute
Congressional Research Service Annotated Constitution Declaration of War
----------
1413 Mr. Butler favored "vesting the power in the President, who will have all the requisite qualities, and will not make war but when the Nation will support it." Id., 318.
1414 Mr. Pinkney thought the House was too numerous for such deliberations but that the Senate would be more capable of a proper resolution and more acquainted with foreign affairs. Additionally, with the States equally represented in the Senate, the interests of all would be safeguarded. Ibid. 1415 Hamilton’s plan provided that the President was "to make war or peace, with the advice of the senate..." 1 id., 300.
1416 2 id., 318–319. In The Federalist, No. 69 (J. Cooke ed. 1961), 465, Hamilton notes: "[T]he President is to be commander–in– chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies,—all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature." (Emphasis in original). And see id., No. 26, 164–171. Cf. C. Berdahl, War Powers of the Executive in the United States (Urbana, Ill.: 1921), ch. V.
1417 The Federalist, No. 69 (J. Cooke ed. 1961), 464–465, 470. During the Convention, Gerry remarked that he "never expected to hear in a republic a motion to empower the Executive alone to declare war." 2 M. Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 (New Haven: rev. ed. 1937), 318.
1418 The Articles of Confederation vested powers with regard to foreign relations in the Congress.
1419 2 M. Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 (New Haven: rev. ed. 1937), 318–319.
1420 Jointly introducing the amendment to substitute "declare" for "make," Madison and Gerry noted the change would "leav[e] to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks." Id., 318.
1421 Connecticut originally voted against the amendment to substitute "declare" for "make" but "on the remark by Mr. King that ‘make’ war might be understood to ‘conduct’ it which was an Executive function, Mr. Ellsworth gave up his opposition, and the vote of Connecticut was changed...." Id., 319. The contemporary and subsequent judicial interpretation was to the understanding set out in the text. Cf. Talbot v. Seeman, 1 Cr. (5 U.S.), 1, 28 (1801) (Chief Justice Marshall: "The whole powers of war being, by the Constitution of the United States, vested in congress, the acts of that body alone can be resorted to as our guides in this inquiry."); Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. (71 U.S.) 2, 139 (1866).
1422 Messages and Papers of the Presidents, J. Richardson ed. (Washington: 1896), 326, 327.
1423 7 Works of Alexander Hamilton, J. Hamilton ed. (New York: 1851), 746–747.
1424 2 Stat. 129, 130 (1802) (emphasis supplied).
1425 Of course, Congress need not declare war in the all–out sense; it may provide for a limited war which, it may be, the 1802 statute recognized. Cf. Bas v. Tingy, 4 Dall. (4 U.S.) 37 (1800).
#57. To: BeAChooser, SmokinOPs, ALL (#53)
Guess the Framers of the Constitution never read your definition.
Legal Information Institute
Congressional Research Service Annotated Constitution Declaration of War
1423 7 Works of Alexander Hamilton, J. Hamilton ed. (New York: 1851), 746–747.
1424 2 Stat. 129, 130 (1802) (emphasis supplied).
1425 Of course, Congress need not declare war in the all–out sense; it may provide for a limited war which, it may be, the 1802 statute recognized. Cf. Bas v. Tingy, 4 Dall. (4 U.S.) 37 (1800).
#58. To: BeAChooser (#49)
You truly are the typical 4um poster, Red.
#59. To: BeAChooser (#48)
They formally declare something like, "the state of war between the United States and ... is hereby formally declared."
#60. To: ..., ALL (#54)
You wrote that yourself didn't you.
Recall that a few weeks ago you told us that wiki wasn't an acceptable source because this was possible.
#61. To: SmokinOPs, ALL (#55)
Oh my goodness, pirates didn't issue a recognized formal declaration of war.
#62. To: SmokinOPs, ALL (#55)
If you can't tell the difference between protecting shipping interests on the High Seas from Mohammedan pirates and a land war between what the Founders would consider legitimate Sovereigns, then there's no point going on.
#63. To: nolu_chan (#56)
The Constitution gives to the CONGRESS the power to declare war. They may do with any wording of their choosing as long as the chosen wording declares war.
#64. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#57)
[1422] Hamilton espoused a different interpretation, contending that the Constitution vested in Congress the power to initiate war but that when another nation made war upon the United States we were already in a state of war and no declaration by Congress was needed.
.
.
.