|
On May 13 2011 07:15 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 07:08 Nero. wrote:On May 13 2011 07:00 jdseemoreglass wrote:On May 13 2011 06:32 Voltaire wrote:
I don't think the US will ever declare war again on a whim like it did in Iraq. At least I hope not, to quote Bill Maher: "I will never put anything past the stupidity of the American people." Oh look, it's THIS thread again... EDIT: Just a question mods, since I am getting lost on the standards here... Am I allowed to call the German people stupid? How about the Swedish people? Or is it only ok if I am quoting someone else, because I am sure I can dig up some famous bigots if need be. Why start insulting? Are you not able to disscus something properly or do you just not have some real arguments? or maybe i just dont get what you are trying to say I'm just trying to make a point that we shouldn't allow double standards here. People get away with saying some very offensive things towards Americans on TL, but if I were to call the German people stupid in a post, for example, I would be banned in seconds.
I don't think you'd be banned for doing what I did with a German equivalency. Especially given the historical context: the US re-elected Bush after he invaded a country to find weapons of mass destruction that were later found to not exist.
|
On May 13 2011 06:46 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 06:43 Euronyme wrote:
So where are the TL republicans to defend this? Not a Republica, but I don't see the problem. Off the top of my head, Libya, Kosovo and Korea. None of them had Congressional approval. How does it work in Sweden? Honestly curious.
Havn't been in war these past couple of hundred years, so I have honestly no clue, but obviously it's pretty tricky.
The problem is that the US already declares way too many wars that are heavily critizised by the UN, which means that they appear reckless. Especially as the reason to the war in Iraq was to stop Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.
Next thing you know, some drunk at the CIA comes home with intel about nukes in Amsterdam ready to launch at important US cities.
Next week Holland's prime minister's been hanged, but atleast you've brought freedom to the people.
It's kind of ridiculous.
|
And with the Supreme Court being a Joke, having original jurisdiction just only on small circunstances, i can see this bill passing.
There should be a constitution change, giving SCOTUS more constitutional powers
|
On May 13 2011 07:22 Voltaire wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 07:15 jdseemoreglass wrote:On May 13 2011 07:08 Nero. wrote:On May 13 2011 07:00 jdseemoreglass wrote:On May 13 2011 06:32 Voltaire wrote:
I don't think the US will ever declare war again on a whim like it did in Iraq. At least I hope not, to quote Bill Maher: "I will never put anything past the stupidity of the American people." Oh look, it's THIS thread again... EDIT: Just a question mods, since I am getting lost on the standards here... Am I allowed to call the German people stupid? How about the Swedish people? Or is it only ok if I am quoting someone else, because I am sure I can dig up some famous bigots if need be. Why start insulting? Are you not able to disscus something properly or do you just not have some real arguments? or maybe i just dont get what you are trying to say I'm just trying to make a point that we shouldn't allow double standards here. People get away with saying some very offensive things towards Americans on TL, but if I were to call the German people stupid in a post, for example, I would be banned in seconds. I don't think you'd be banned for doing what I did with a German equivalency. Especially given the historical context: the US re-elected Bush after he invaded a country to find weapons of mass destruction that were later found to not exist.
A problem with what you said is that this bill makes it easier for the president to start a war regardless of the support of the public. So it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the intelligence of the american people.
|
On May 13 2011 07:11 travis wrote:
What do you guys think about renewing the ability to hold suspected terrorists indefinitely without trial? I am actually more at odds with that, personally.
Do they have to present any proof to the public that those people have terrorism connections or is it like "luuulz we think this person is terrorist but we dont show you why we think that"
There would be not much of a difference to the regimes of Iraq etc.
I mean its easy to say "he/she has connections to terrorist" without having to present proofs.
With that method you can get rid of anybody thats critizing the government
Also in my opinion Guantanamo Bay is a infringment of the Geneva Conventions and human rights
|
On May 13 2011 07:11 travis wrote:
What do you guys think about renewing the ability to hold suspected terrorists indefinitely without trial? I am actually more at odds with that, personally.
Travis, I see you post at every thread I read. I'm close to falling in love ♥
|
On May 13 2011 06:27 Euronyme wrote:
Wasn't the war in Iraq already illegal in international law?
I don't really see how this matters, as the president already basically declares war on anyone at anytime for no specific reason.
This seems like a bad idea, but it's already in place as far as I understand.
Technically most of international law doesn't exist yet, and what there is can't be applied to the US/UK/China/Russia because they all sit on the security council and are the ones who the rest of the world turn to in their times of need.
|
On May 13 2011 07:29 Nero. wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 07:11 travis wrote:
What do you guys think about renewing the ability to hold suspected terrorists indefinitely without trial? I am actually more at odds with that, personally. Do they have to present any proof to the public that those people have terrorism connections or is it like "luuulz we think this person is terrorist but we dont show you why we think that" There would be not much of a difference to the regimes of Iraq etc. I mean its easy to say "he/she has connections to terrorist" without having to present proofs. With that method you can get rid of anybody thats critizing the government Also in my opinion Guantanamo Bay is a infringment of the Geneva Conventions and human rights
As far as I know, who is being detained is secret information. I don't think a list of detainees at Guantanamo was even publicly available until it was leaked.
|
When i read this Star Wars Instantly came to mind -___-
Long Live the Republic.
|
According to the Bush DoJ the president has always had this power.
http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm
The detention of enemy combatants is a terrifying practice that destroys the rule of law in America. I truly hope that other than the prisoners that cannot be prosecuted legally because of the Bush practices, no one else will be treated as they have. If we are not at war with a state they must be considered prisoners and put through the justice system. Habeas Corpus, Due Process, the things that make up the rule of law in a country must be considered sacrosanct, above any political differences.
The way the Bush administration handled the war on terror makes me want to rant and rave about how they have no respect for the history for our country and all the values we cherish, then I remember Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in direct defiance of the supreme court and Alexander Hamilton said that declarations of war were becoming a thing of the past in the early 1800s... maybe it'll all be ok after all.
Through a constant dialogue an ebb and flow of power occurs between congress and the executive, the executive is very, very strong right now, congress should probably reign in some of the military actions that have been taken but it is up to them to do what they want.
|
On May 13 2011 07:31 emythrel wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 06:27 Euronyme wrote:
Wasn't the war in Iraq already illegal in international law?
I don't really see how this matters, as the president already basically declares war on anyone at anytime for no specific reason.
This seems like a bad idea, but it's already in place as far as I understand. Technically most of international law doesn't exist yet, and what there is can't be applied to the US/UK/China/Russia because they all sit on the security council and are the ones who the rest of the world turn to in their times of need.
Yet the war was not sanctioned by the UN, it was heavily critizised, and in the end the whole thing was based on false information.
|
The detention of enemy combatants is a terrifying practice that destroys the rule of law in America.
lol said this way it's hilarious. America has been detaining enemy combatants since the Revolutionary War.
|
On May 13 2011 07:38 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +The detention of enemy combatants is a terrifying practice that destroys the rule of law in America. lol said this way it's hilarious. America has been detaining enemy combatants since the Revolutionary War.
well he means indefinite detention without trial
|
On May 13 2011 07:38 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +The detention of enemy combatants is a terrifying practice that destroys the rule of law in America. lol said this way it's hilarious. America has been detaining enemy combatants since the Revolutionary War.
Every country at war has done that since the dawn of time...
Taking prisoners isn't really considered a bad thing.
Generally you don't strip them of all their human rights, torture them and put them in a concentration camp on an island indefinitely though.
|
On May 13 2011 07:34 GinDo wrote:
When i read this Star Wars Instantly came to mind -___-
Long Live the Republic.
|
On May 13 2011 07:27 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 06:46 domovoi wrote:On May 13 2011 06:43 Euronyme wrote:
So where are the TL republicans to defend this? Not a Republica, but I don't see the problem. Off the top of my head, Libya, Kosovo and Korea. None of them had Congressional approval. How does it work in Sweden? Honestly curious. Havn't been in war these past couple of hundred years, so I have honestly no clue, but obviously it's pretty tricky.
I'm not talking about declared wars; the US has only been in five declared wars in its entire history, the last one being WW2. What process does Sweden use to deploy troops for whatever reason?
The problem is that the US already declares way too many wars that are heavily critizised by the UN, which means that they appear reckless. Especially as the reason to the war in Iraq was to stop Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.
"Too many" meaning one? With the Republican party getting their asses trounced in 2006 and 2008 because of it? (Too bad Democrats didn't have the spine to repeal the filibuster and actually make use of their control of the government.)
|
On May 13 2011 06:37 stevarius wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 06:24 Myles wrote:On May 13 2011 06:23 guN-viCe wrote:
Doesn't the president already have a massive amount of pull in regards to initiating war? Yes, but checks and balances makes it so that Congress has to approve since they are a more direct representation of the people. This bill shits all over that system. If this passes both houses and Obama signs it, I'll be dumbfounded. Who writes the legislation nowadays? They sure have their priorities completely ass-backwards. I also question the legitimacy of the Republicans caring about the constitution when they pass a bill like this. No checks and balances? Kind of ironic given that Congress seems to be handing over it's power to the President. This is something that could bite them in the ass if they disagree with the President. It's as if they're preparing for a Republican takeover in 2012 and want to give him a blank check the day he gets in office. The President should never have the power to declare war, I don't care about the excuse.
Things the Commander and Chief can do without approval from congress.
The expressed powers of the President of the United States are mostly set down in Article II of the Constitution. The powers are of two sorts: those exercised alone, without legislative approval, and those that require consent of the Senate or House. Powers of the President Alone: commander in chief of the armed forces; commission officers of the armed forces; grant reprieves and pardons for federal offenses (except impeachment); convene Congress into special session; receive ambassadors; take care that the laws be faithfully executed; make use of the "executive power" of the office, such as the veto power; give an annual State of the Union Address to Congress; appoint officials to lesser offices.
Can the President declare war without approval?
Yes, he can declare war anytime he wants. Take for Instance Libya, he did that without congress. Don't let nobody fool you, the president has more power than people say. Most of the people who say he doesn't, are only trying to keep you poorly informed.
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com
|
On May 13 2011 07:40 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 07:38 domovoi wrote:The detention of enemy combatants is a terrifying practice that destroys the rule of law in America. lol said this way it's hilarious. America has been detaining enemy combatants since the Revolutionary War. well he means indefinite detention without trial
Well technically enemy combatants are usually detained indefinitely, unless they're unlawful combatants and need to be executed (see Ex parte Quirin). It's just the problem here is that the goals of the "war" are rather amorphous and "indefinite" could end up being a very long time.
|
On May 13 2011 07:48 Nazarid wrote:Can the President declare war without approval?Yes, he can declare war anytime he wants. Take for Instance Libya, he did that without congress. Don't let nobody fool you, the president has more power than people say. Most of the people who say he doesn't, are only trying to keep you poorly informed. Read more: http://wiki.answers.com
Wrong. He can deploy troops into combat for 30 days. But after that he needs a formal declaration of war from Congress. Thats what happened in Libya.
EDIT: This bill basically makes it so that the president can declare war if terrorism is involved. The question becomes, how does one define terrorism and whether we can trust the government to not lie to us.
|
On May 13 2011 07:54 GinDo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 07:48 Nazarid wrote:Can the President declare war without approval?Yes, he can declare war anytime he wants. Take for Instance Libya, he did that without congress. Don't let nobody fool you, the president has more power than people say. Most of the people who say he doesn't, are only trying to keep you poorly informed. Read more: http://wiki.answers.com Wrong. He can deploy troops into combat for 30 days. But after that he needs a formal declaration of war from Congress. Thats what happened in Libya.
No, Congress hasn't approved of anything in Libya, much less declared war. Congress hasn't formally declared war since World War 2. They usually authorize military force rather than outright declare war, but they don't want to get anywhere near Libya because it's too much of a political risk. And Obama isn't going to ask Congress 'cause he knows they're basically just shit-flinging monkeys who will take it as an opportunity to attack him politically.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
