State of the Union (WAR?)

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Dreadsox

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Messages
10,885
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,881215,00.html

The article above basically is saying that after the State of the Union, when President Bush will make a forcefull case for war, Prime Minister Blair will visit. It is after this visit that the military action against Iraq will begin.

This lead me to thinking about our Constitution........

Does the President need approval to Declare War?
Does his authority come from the violation of cease fire?
Does his authority come from the powers granted in the War on Terror?

Where are the checks and balances here that our constitution provides us?

I for one have not given my approval to my representatives for this action nor have I seen them vote for War with Iraq. I am still waiting for the case to be made. I am still waiting for the President to make his case and I am waiting to see my representatives do their JOBS.

No President has asked for a Declaration of War vote since 1941. How many American's have given their lives since then? Is our Constitution being violated?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A15012-2003Jan5&notFound=true
 
Last edited:
Maybe last Octobers joint resolution authorizing military action covers this. It is still not a vote for a Declaration of War. That resolution had checks and balances built into it requiring the President to keep our representatives informed of things. This too has not been happening.
 
This is interesting:

US House bill to repeal Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution
by repost ? Wednesday January 22, 2003 at 07:28 PM

US House bill to repeal Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution
Posted by: Admin on Sunday, January 19, 2003 - 11:31 PM GMT



On Jan. 7, 2003, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) introduced HR-2, "Expressing the sense of Congress that the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 should be repealed." However, it's just now being mentioned in the media -- at the very end of a page 16 Washington Post article on Jan. 19, 2003:

NETWORK, [a Catholic social justice lobby] which sent all new members of Congress briefing books on a war with Iraq that included a cost-of-war analysis, human rights concerns and statements from religious leaders, is also working with Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.) on a news conference scheduled for Tuesday that will announce her push for repeal of the October Iraqi resolution. NETWORK has encouraged its 11,000 members -- through e-mail -- to attend.

This bill's existence doesn't seem to have made it to any other major media outlets besides the Washington Post and the San Francisco Chronicle.
 
Dreadsox said:
Where are the checks and balances here that our constitution provides us?


I normally don't poke my head in these threads...

But perhaps you do a lil research on our founding fathers.... and our constitution.

For every law, there is a loop hole.
For every vote, there is a way to defeat it.
etc etc etc...

There are no true checks and balances. The founding fathers of this country were smart enough to not trust the gov't in the hands of the 'people', but stupid enough to think one of their 'own' (someone elected) wouldn't abuse the power.

I even believe (I may be wrong) that the President has the power to dismiss congress, as well as any other branch of gov't.

The ONLY law we seem to have to prevent one leader from becoming a dictator is that of presidential term limits... of course, who knows, perhaps there is a loop hole in that also... something like delaying an election, etc etc etc if we're in a state of emergency. Who knows... the point is...

'everything you know is wrong' ;)
 
When you elect a president, you elect a commander in chief and entrust in him powers to react to the countries defense in a moments notice. There are many situations in which consultation with the American people or Congress would be impossible. One such example would be a nuclear strike on the USA from another country. The President would have little time to respond and certainly no time to consult others and debate about it.

Of course this not the situation were in with Iraq at the moment. The vote you refer to happened in October of last year. There was so much controversy about it because the vote took place before the election and everyone and most did characterize it as a vote to decide to use force if Iraq did not disarm. Both the US House OF Representives and the US Senate voted and approved the Presidents resolution overwhelmingly! The United Nations then approved the Presidents resolution 15-0! It authorized "severe consequenses" if Iraq obstructed or refused to disarm in any way. There was never any plans for an additional vote, the ball was in Saddam's court. Saddam could comply with the resolutions and disarm, or he would face a military action that would do that for him if he refused to.

The President has continued to keep Senators and Congressman informed and just had a classified briefing the other day. The Vote has been made, what Saddam does or does not do will determine if there is military action or not.
 
STING2 said:
Both the US House OF Representives and the US Senate voted and approved the Presidents resolution overwhelmingly! The United Nations then approved the Presidents resolution 15-0! It authorized "severe consequenses" if Iraq obstructed or refused to disarm in any way. There was never any plans for an additional vote, the ball was in Saddam's court. Saddam could comply with the resolutions and disarm, or he would face a military action that would do that for him if he refused to.

Really? Most of the countries voting for the resolution did so because the resolution did not immediately approve war. If Saddam does not comply then there will be another vote about the consequences he faces, one of which is war. But there were always plans for an additional vote. That's the only reason France, Russia and others (China?) voted for that resolution, because there still would be another safeguard.

C ya!

Marty
 
If that was the case the USA would not have voted for the resolution itself and what would "Serious Consequences" mean then if a second resolution was required? "Serious Consequences can in fact mean war. Its sad that France and Russia, the two countries that benefit the most from the current United Nations Oil for food program with Saddam, are unwilling to do what is necessary to disarm Iraq. Amazing, another "safeguard" for Saddam.
 
But it does look like the French, Russians, and anyone else who desires to protect Saddam might in fact get their wish for another resolution. We all know where Saddam stands on this issue.
 
Please keep the UN Debate out of it!

This is about the CONSTITUTION. We have not had a Declaration of War vote in over 60 years.

How many soldiers have died in violation of the constituion. IT IS THEIR JOB to take the vote.

The Iraq situation is not an IMMINENT danger situation in which the president needs to react without consulting Congress.

They need to grow a pair and do their jobs.

As for the President keeping them appraised, you are right and wrong. He was recently criticized for not following the spirit of the resolution. One article I read said Rumsfeld "scrambled" to put a briefing together to appease the Congress. I will find the link if you need me to, just can;t now.

October was months ago. We DESERVE out of respect for the Constitution to have War declared if that is the path he is choosing.
 
Last edited:
Dreadsox said:
Please keep the UN Debate out of it!

This is about the CONSTITUTION. We have not had a Declaration of War vote in over 60 years.

How many soldiers have died in violation of the constituion. IT IS THEIR JOB to take the vote.

The Iraq situation is not an IMMINENT danger situation in which the president needs to react without consulting Congress.

They need to grow a pair and do their jobs.

As for the President keeping them appraised, you are right and wrong. He was recently criticized for not following the spirit of the resolution. One article I read said Rumsfeld "scrambled" to put a briefing together to appease the congres. I will find the link if you need me to, just can;t now.

October was months ago. We DESERVE out of respect for the Constitution to have War declared if that is the path he is choosing.

Here, Here!
 
Congressman voted for that resolution back in October realizing full well that supporting it could mean military action as early as December, January, or February.

I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but I have heard from some at university who say that a declaration of war is not necessary to take the nation to war. I'd have to read up on it again myself but yes, there probably is a loophole or something. You can have a vote much like was done for the first Gulf War and other actions. Congressman can either vote to support it or vote against it.
 
Re: Re: State of the Union (WAR?)

Elvis said:
For every law, there is a loop hole.
For every vote, there is a way to defeat it.
etc etc etc...

This is the problem. We have an executive branch that has effectively abused a loophole that allowed the president to authorize military force without Congressional approval in cases of emergencies and "police actions." And it isn't just Bush who has done this. Like someone mentioned, it has been 60 years since we've had a true war declaration. The only thing that will change this is if we can get the Supreme Court to rule that this abuse is unconstitutional, which I heavily doubt will happen.

Melon
 
Re: Re: Re: State of the Union (WAR?)

melon said:


This is the problem. We have an executive branch that has effectively abused a loophole that allowed the president to authorize military force without Congressional approval in cases of emergencies and "police actions." And it isn't just Bush who has done this. Like someone mentioned, it has been 60 years since we've had a true war declaration. The only thing that will change this is if we can get the Supreme Court to rule that this abuse is unconstitutional, which I heavily doubt will happen.

Melon

Supreme Court... unbiased... LOL

The biggest joke... Presidential Pardons. LOL
 
I can't remember, but this issue has been to the Supreme Court I believe. If it has, they obviously came down on the side of the Executive Branch. I think the technical difficulties involved with sudden modern war, Nuclear War, where there is only minutes to make a decision in addition to the United Nations police actions, have in some ways made the "declaration of war" less of a priority. Regardless, congressional approval which is what a "declaration of war" essentially is, is often still given.
 
Dreadsox said:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,881215,00.html

The article above basically is saying that after the State of the Union, when President Bush will make a forcefull case for war, Prime Minister Blair will visit. It is after this visit that the military action against Iraq will begin.

I'm worried and a little depressed about the fact that we are going to bomb Iraq. I just don't feel good about it, and I don't like the way it's going down.
 
Re: Re: State of the Union (WAR?)

pub crawler said:


I'm worried and a little depressed about the fact that we are going to bomb Iraq. I just don't feel good about it, and I don't like the way it's going down.


They talk about cruise missiles... like it's a water balloon fight.

Pretty disgusting, uncalled for, unprovoked, and actually... a complete lack of respect for human life.
 
Elvis,

Who do you accuse of talking about Cruise Missiles like its a water balloon fight?
 
STING2 said:
But it does look like the French, Russians, and anyone else who desires to protect Saddam might in fact get their wish for another resolution. We all know where Saddam stands on this issue.

STING - it's not a case of "[protecting] Saddam" as much as it's a case of protecting the Iraqi people against an unjustified act of aggression.
 
Dreadsox said:
The Iraq situation is not an IMMINENT danger situation in which the president needs to react without consulting Congress.

...

As for the President keeping them appraised, you are right and wrong. He was recently criticized for not following the spirit of the resolution. One article I read said Rumsfeld "scrambled" to put a briefing together to appease the Congress. I will find the link if you need me to, just can;t now.

That's quite similar to the way I feel about the British Prime Minister and his lack of consultation with our House of Commons. We don't elect a PM to make decisions without any consultation with our representatives in the House of Commons, and yet Tony Blair has said that there won't be a vote in the Commons if *he* decides to go ahead and attack Iraq. I think it's absolutely wrong for a Prime Minister to make a huge decision like this by himself. If recent reports are true then not only does a majority of the Commons disagree with him, but also a majority of his own cabinet! In those circumstances I can't help but think that he's avoiding consultation simply because that consultation would involve people expressing disagreement with him and possibly voting against his preferred course of action.
 
Fizzing,

Saddam signed a Ceace Fire Agreement in 1991 in which he agreed to give up all his weapons of mass destruction or face a resumption of military action that was moving toward Baghdad at that time. Thats a fact, and the facts clearly show that Iraq has not lived up to the agreements which they signed. It is incumbent upon Iraq to meet its obligations that it agreed to. If it does not, a US and coalition military will do it for them.

Iraq has failed to account for thousands of Chemical shells( in addition to other weapons) and until they do, it is a serious violation that justifies military action to enforce the conditions of the Ceacefire Agreement and 16 other UN resolutions. Those resolutions and the Ceacefire Agreement were meant to be complied with immediatly, not possibly 12 years later.

Only Saddam and his regime will benefit if the USA and UN fail to do what the 1991 Ceacefire Agreement calls for given the current situation.
 
STING2 said:

Only Saddam and his regime will benefit if the USA and UN fail to do what the 1991 Ceacefire Agreement calls for given the current situation.

That and an approximate 500,000 Iraqi's. It's all well and fine to return to "voilating this resolution, violating this cease fire agreement" but the cost in lives makes it untenable without further proof or provocation.
 
Scarletwine,

Did you ever consider the cost of not enforcing the 1991 Ceace Fire Agreement or the UN resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules? The cost of not enforcing these resolutions will eventually be far greater than enforcement with military force.

Proof? Iraq is obligated under international law to prove that they do not have WMD Weapons! Where are the 15,000 Chemical shells that Iraq had when the inspectors were forced out in 1998? If they were infact destroyed during the time when inspectors were not on the ground from 1998-2002, where is the evidence of their destruction? It is up to Iraq to hand over these types of weapons which they did have back in 1998 or else prove that they were destroyed. The "Dog ate my homework excuse" will not work. Failure to give up these and other weapons or prove that they were destroyed will lead to military enforcement of the 1991 Ceacefire agreement and 16 other UN resolutions passed under chapter VII rules that Iraq is currently violating. The risk(to both civilians in other countries and Iraq) of not disarming Saddam are far greater especially over the longterm than, if need be, forcing him to disarm with military force now.
 
STING2 said:
Scarletwine,

Did you ever consider the cost of not enforcing the 1991 Ceace Fire Agreement or the UN resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules? The cost of not enforcing these resolutions will eventually be far greater than enforcement with military force.

Proof? Iraq is obligated under international law to prove that they do not have WMD Weapons! Where are the 15,000 Chemical shells that Iraq had when the inspectors were forced out in 1998? If they were infact destroyed during the time when inspectors were not on the ground from 1998-2002, where is the evidence of their destruction? It is up to Iraq to hand over these types of weapons which they did have back in 1998 or else prove that they were destroyed.

Yeah, and if they don't show some good dated photos of shells being melted down, and fast, we're gonna bomb the fuck out of them with every weapon of mass destruction we can get our hands on, nuclear included. We said we would and we will. (recent report about US using nukes on bunkers a real possibility?!?)

Im actually beginning to see the light here: whether or not Iraq actually has WMD is irrelevant. If they do, not only are their WMD destroyed, but Bush gets to get rid of alot of his own the easy way. If they don't, oh well, that'll be a few thousand less of Bush's WMD the world has to worry about.

Sounds win-win to me.
 
Sting2,

Yes I have considered the cost of not enforcing the peace agreement, however I see no need for the type of urgency displayed by the administration.
Middle Eastern peace would be better served by enforcing the withdrawl of Israel from the west bank as called for by UN resloution ?(something). As would our standing among the people of Islam.
There is time to take care of Sadaam. Much better to have the support of the international community.

edited to say
But enough of beating this dead horse.
Unfortunately what will be will be.
 
Last edited:
Scarletwine,

Evidence of the destruction of Iraqi Chemical shells would not be in the form of dated photo's but the massive remains that would exist if 15,000 Chemical shells were destroyed. Their destruction does not mean they disappear into thin air. There would be plenty of physical remains that the UN teams could look at if they did in fact destroy these shells. Either their still intact in which they must hand them over or they were destroyed and the physical remains must be shown to the UN inspectors. Those are the only two possible outcomes if they are trying to comply. The shells intact or the physical remains of their destruction.

The only weapon of mass destruction that the USA has in active use are nuclear weapons. The USA since 1945 has always reserved the right to use nuclear weapons in any situation. The main reason for this is the deterent effect that such weapons have. Other than that, the weapons are extremely difficult to use to accomplish purely military goals given their widespread destruction. There are several new Conventional Weapons that have just been recently developed that would be as effective or in some cases far more effective than nuclear weapons in destroying bunkers and taking out electronic equipment with EMP.
Bottom line, nuclear weapons will not be used because it is to difficult to contain their destructive effects.

The urgency in doing something is that Saddam's WMD potential grows every day and if Saddam were to get a nuclear weapon, that would complicate the situation enormously. The risk of military action against Saddam once he has a nuclear weapon would dramatically increase and its not the US military that would recieve a hit from that nuclear weapon, it will be civilians in Tel Aviv, Kuwait City, or elsewhere in the region.

In addition, sanctions designed to prevent Saddam from becoming a strong conventional military power are breaking down because of smuggling along Iraq's borders. In 1999, the value of smuggling to Iraq was 300 million, today it is 3.5 Billion a year. If something is not done, Saddam will eventually rebuild the military strength he lost in the first Gulf War, and this time he will likely have a nuclear weapon or several nuclear weapons. One way or the other, this cannot be allowed to happen.

A mass destruction attack from Iraq or terrorist supported by Iraq could kill millions.

The USA is working to have a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians but this will take time. The mere fact that Israely troops are stationed in the West Bank threatens No one but terrorist seeking to kill people. The UN resolution passed against Israel ordering them to withdraw from the West Bank was passed under CHAPTER VI rules of the United Nations. Under Chapter VI rules, enforcement can only come about through diplomatic means. All resolutions against Iraq were passed under Chapter VII rules which require the use of force to bring about compliance with the stated resolutions.
 
Back
Top Bottom