|
So, a long time ago I subscribed to the ACLU's newsletter. I rarely actually read the emails. But today I clicked on one that looked interesting. This is the contents:
+ Show Spoiler +
Dear Travis,
The time is now to restore respect for the Constitution. Tell Congress that a blank check on war isn't just unnecessary — it's truly dangerous.
They have to be kidding. Congress is about to vote on worldwide war authority. This was long on the Bush administration's wish list. Now, a few top congressional insiders see an opportunity to sneak it in to a "must pass" piece of legislation: the Defense Authorization bill.
This expanded war authority would give the president — any president — the power to use military force, whenever and however he or she sees fit. It would essentially declare a worldwide war without end.
It is shocking that Congress is entertaining such legislation at a time when many are looking to see an end to escalating conflict and abuses of power in the name of fighting terrorism.
Tell your representative to oppose any new and expanded war authority that would give the president unfettered powers to involve the United States in more military conflicts without any checks or balances.
This new legislation could commit the United States to a worldwide war without clear enemies, without any geographical boundaries, and without any boundary relating to time or specific objective to be achieved.
Unlike the legislation that authorized the Afghanistan War and the pursuit of Osama bin Laden, the proposed new and expanded authorization to go to war does not require a specific threat of harm to the United States.
With the bill moving through the House this week and a potential vote later this month, we must make our opposition known today. Tell Congress that a blank check on war isn't just unnecessary — it's truly dangerous.
This greater war authority first surfaced when George Bush was president. With your help, we opposed it then. And we're opposing the more expansive version of it circulating in Congress right now — because no president should have the power to single-handedly commit America to war without any checks or balances.
The time is now to restore respect for the Constitution. We must put an end to the notion that we can't be safe without sacrificing our freedom.
Don't let Congress give the executive branch a virtual blank check when it comes to committing our country to armed conflict. Oppose the new worldwide war authority.
Thank you for standing with us.
Sincerely,
Laura W. Murphy
Director, ACLU Washington Legislative Office
So, this doesn't really talk much about what the bill actually is, but it certainly sounds bad. So I did some research, which was annoying to do, lol
The bill is called the "defense authorization bill", and the main problem is how it's been updated.
There are arguments on both sides... some saying it's a necessary addition.. such as
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/updating-war-authorization---the-left-objects-of-course/2011/03/29/AF7havyG_blog.html
And then there are many more sources saying it basically shits all over the constitution and that it gives the president arbitrary powers to make war.
http://www.benzinga.com/11/05/1079933/constitution-thrashed-us-president-can-now-declare-wars-without-asking-congress
Personally I think this sounds ridiculous. Why does the president need to be able to declare war without approval from congress? And this isn't just for the current president, this would be for all future presidents. It also renews the provision that says that those suspected of being involved in terrorism can be detained indefinitely without trial.
Opinions? I still don't know too much about this, but it really sounds pretty straightforward and terrible to me.
|
They want to pass this bill so that when they have a president that agrees with their rampant war mongering they won't have to go through illegal channels
|
lol could a mod edit my title the missing "l" in bill is really bugging me
|
Yea. Makes their lives easier and ours more miserable when we are suddenly committed to wars the public does not support.
|
Doesn't the president already have a massive amount of pull in regards to initiating war?
|
United States5162 Posts
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.
|
Isn't that just basically a Tonkin Gulf Resolution 2.0?
|
Not necessarily related, but funny: the Google ad currently displaying based on the content in this thread is an ad for firearms training.
|
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.
|
Doesn't the president already have a massive amount of pull in regards to initiating war?
The 2003 Iraq resolution was basically a massive middle finger to congress and the international community and proved that yes the president can esentially do whatever he wants. This is making it official though. He would'nt even have to break the rules, the rules would support him.
|
Why shouldn't the president have the power make war? Then they wouldn't have to break the law/constitution to do however they pleased.
Its amazing how malleable those documents tend to be...especially in regards to what government cannot do.
|
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."
|
a) Congress hates begin given responsibility for wars, especially after Iraq. Look at how silent they are with Libya.
b) I can't say it would make a difference. As someone mentioned, the President always gets the wars he wants. The political process is there to temper that.
c) What do other countries do? Did France's parliament need to approve of its involvement in Libya? If they haven't yet collapsed into a military dictatorship, hard to take seriously fears that the U.S. will.
|
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."
Watching this space ...
|
Doesnt really give the president himself more influence but all those adviser (Generals etc.)who have the real impact on military decisions. and thats really not something you should wish for
I mean this would really only make sense if you would have to declare war really fast, f.e. when mexico and canada unite to invade the states.
and it doesnt seem like that at all at the moment...... or does it Oo *dramatic music*
|
On May 13 2011 06:30 wonderwall wrote:Show nested quote +Doesn't the president already have a massive amount of pull in regards to initiating war? The 2003 Iraq resolution was basically a massive middle finger to congress and the international community and proved that yes the president can esentially do whatever he wants. This is making it official though. He would'nt even have to break the rules, the rules would support him.
Uh, what? The Iraq resolution was passed by a wide, bipartisan majority.
|
"Hague Invasion Act" (American Service Members Protection Act in its official name) was kind of prototype to this.
|
On May 13 2011 06:24 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
The warmaking power has long since been transferred to the executive through unofficial means, although the War Powers Act enables Congress to put an end to whatever conflict arises.
I have no objections to this bill, as it is nothing new nor surprising and seems to be an extension of the vaguely defined "war on terror" in principle.
Congress can shut down the President in warmaking whenever it wants.
|
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.
Republicans haven't cared about the constitution in decades. The Patriot Act and countless other pieces of legislation and typical Republican standpoints are completely contradictory to it.
|
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.
Jesus it's like you were born yesterday. The President's war making authority has expanded since the Civil War, for God's sake.
Anyway, if Congress doesn't want the President making war, they control the purse strings. And that's never something they'll give up.
|
On May 13 2011 06:34 Nero. wrote:
Doesnt really give the president himself more influence but all those adviser (Generals etc.)who have the real impact on military decisions. and thats really not something you should wish for
I mean this would really only make sense if you would have to declare war really fast, f.e. when mexico and canada unite to invade the states.
and it doesnt seem like that at all at the moment...... or does it Oo *dramatic music*
Didn't the patriot act already establish emergency powers for the executive office? So quick action response is already taken care of. So is this bill redundant?
I mean a president will do as he pleases... congress is no real check on the power to levy war. Maybe this bill is actually a good little white lie.
I mean no more tiptoeing around the issue now. Why are we at war with Kazakabackistan? Cause i said so.lololol AMERICA!
|
The ACLU is a joke. A group of liberal extremists, the ACLU will only defend the constitution and scream for the rights of the people when the issue falls in line with their agenda, even blatantly stating that they disagree with the supreme court when the court upheld the right to actually own and bear arms. These fools claim to defend our rights? Disgusting. Check out their amusing view on the Second Amendment, taken from their own blog:
"Updated: 7/8/2008
The Second Amendment provides: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
ACLU POSITION
Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view.
The Supreme Court has now ruled otherwise. In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia.
The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment."
Honest to god, I'm not sure how you could even make this argument in public with a straight face. It's completely at odds with the document they claim to defend and completely contradictory to their goal of preserving the rights of the people as outlined by the Constitution and it's Amendments.
In short the ACLU is nothing but a bunch of fear mongering leftists; a domestic terrorist group promoting their delusional and aberrant agenda. Do I agree with the ability for the president to declare war by himself? Absolutely not. However citing the ACLU as a legitimate source is similar to using Wikipedia in a masters thesis. Might as well cite Ronald McDonald or Daffy Duck.
|
So where are the TL republicans to defend this?
|
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.
|
Well, tried to find some detail of the clause. but it seems that it authorizes war (or armed conflict, etc.) against
Taliban
Al Queda
"associated" groups/nations/individuals
The last clause is the biggest problem, "associated" is Far too vague.
However, there is also the other problem that it is like the US declaring war on the Nazi Party or the Mafia instead of the Third Reich or Italy.
It allows the President to undertake military action in countries we are not at war with,... which includes the US itself.
Technically its authorization of war is Constitutional though. Congress can hand out its authority (it just always has the opportunity to take it back). I do think they should be FAR more circumspect than this though.
|
On May 13 2011 06:43 Rebel_lion wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 06:34 Nero. wrote:
Doesnt really give the president himself more influence but all those adviser (Generals etc.)who have the real impact on military decisions. and thats really not something you should wish for
I mean this would really only make sense if you would have to declare war really fast, f.e. when mexico and canada unite to invade the states.
and it doesnt seem like that at all at the moment...... or does it Oo *dramatic music* Didn't the patriot act already establish emergency powers for the executive office? So quick action response is already taken care of. So is this bill redundant? I mean a president will do as he pleases... congress is no real check on the power to levy war. Maybe this bill is actually a good little white lie. I mean no more tiptoeing around the issue now. Why are we at war with Kazakabackistan? Cause i said so.lololol AMERICA!
War Powers Act.
Congress, if it wants, can completely stop any military efforts abroad, even with this bill passed as they would merely revoke the use of authorization.
|
On May 13 2011 06:43 Mr. Nefarious wrote:
blah blah blah blah blah
maybe wanna get on topic there bro? lol
I never cited ACLU as a "source"(what does that even mean?). chill out
|
On May 13 2011 06:50 Elegy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 06:43 Rebel_lion wrote:On May 13 2011 06:34 Nero. wrote:
Doesnt really give the president himself more influence but all those adviser (Generals etc.)who have the real impact on military decisions. and thats really not something you should wish for
I mean this would really only make sense if you would have to declare war really fast, f.e. when mexico and canada unite to invade the states.
and it doesnt seem like that at all at the moment...... or does it Oo *dramatic music* Didn't the patriot act already establish emergency powers for the executive office? So quick action response is already taken care of. So is this bill redundant? I mean a president will do as he pleases... congress is no real check on the power to levy war. Maybe this bill is actually a good little white lie. I mean no more tiptoeing around the issue now. Why are we at war with Kazakabackistan? Cause i said so.lololol AMERICA! War Powers Act. Congress, if it wants, can completely stop any military efforts abroad, even with this bill passed as they would merely revoke the use of authorization.
There's still 60 days or so the president can deploy troops in case of an "emergency." I think that's how Obama was able to order our participation in the beginning of the NATO involvement in Libya.
|
United States5162 Posts
On May 13 2011 06:50 Elegy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 06:43 Rebel_lion wrote:On May 13 2011 06:34 Nero. wrote:
Doesnt really give the president himself more influence but all those adviser (Generals etc.)who have the real impact on military decisions. and thats really not something you should wish for
I mean this would really only make sense if you would have to declare war really fast, f.e. when mexico and canada unite to invade the states.
and it doesnt seem like that at all at the moment...... or does it Oo *dramatic music* Didn't the patriot act already establish emergency powers for the executive office? So quick action response is already taken care of. So is this bill redundant? I mean a president will do as he pleases... congress is no real check on the power to levy war. Maybe this bill is actually a good little white lie. I mean no more tiptoeing around the issue now. Why are we at war with Kazakabackistan? Cause i said so.lololol AMERICA! War Powers Act. Congress, if it wants, can completely stop any military efforts abroad, even with this bill passed as they would merely revoke the use of authorization.
Yea, Congress can just elect to defund anything they don't like. I'm sure a day will come where they try to change that, too.
|
On May 13 2011 06:43 Mr. Nefarious wrote:
The ACLU is a joke. A group of liberal extremists, the ACLU will only defend the constitution and scream for the rights of the people when the issue falls in line with their agenda, even blatantly stating that they disagree with the supreme court when the court upheld the right to actually own and bear arms. These fools claim to defend our rights? Disgusting. Check out their amusing view on the Second Amendment, taken from their own blog:
"Updated: 7/8/2008
The Second Amendment provides: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
ACLU POSITION
Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view.
The Supreme Court has now ruled otherwise. In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia.
The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment."
Honest to god, I'm not sure how you could even make this argument in public with a straight face. It's completely at odds with the document they claim to defend and completely contradictory to their goal of preserving the rights of the people as outlined by the Constitution and it's Amendments.
In short the ACLU is nothing but a bunch of fear mongering leftists; a domestic terrorist group promoting their delusional and aberrant agenda. Do I agree with the ability for the president to declare war by himself? Absolutely not. However citing the ACLU as a legitimate source is similar to using Wikipedia in a masters thesis. Might as well cite Ronald McDonald or Daffy Duck.
What the fuck?
It's not at odds with the constitution. It's at odds with a Supreme Court case that is 3 years old.
Learn to read.
|
On May 13 2011 06:43 Mr. Nefarious wrote:
The ACLU is a joke. A group of liberal extremists, the ACLU will only defend the constitution and scream for the rights of the people when the issue falls in line with their agenda, even blatantly stating that they disagree with the supreme court when the court upheld the right to actually own and bear arms. These fools claim to defend our rights? Disgusting. Check out their amusing view on the Second Amendment, taken from their own blog:
"Updated: 7/8/2008
The Second Amendment provides: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
ACLU POSITION
Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view.
The Supreme Court has now ruled otherwise. In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia.
The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment."
Honest to god, I'm not sure how you could even make this argument in public with a straight face. It's completely at odds with the document they claim to defend and completely contradictory to their goal of preserving the rights of the people as outlined by the Constitution and it's Amendments.
In short the ACLU is nothing but a bunch of fear mongering leftists; a domestic terrorist group promoting their delusional and aberrant agenda. Do I agree with the ability for the president to declare war by himself? Absolutely not. However citing the ACLU as a legitimate source is similar to using Wikipedia in a masters thesis. Might as well cite Ronald McDonald or Daffy Duck.
ACLU a group of liberal extremists? Lol, you cite one court case of theirs and make a conclusion. They have supported UNPOPULAR POSITIONS because they believe them to be what is constitutional and what the intent behind the constitution most likely was when it was crafted. To call them liberal extremists is a delusional opinion and you're wrong for doing so. They don't always share the opinion of whatever they may be defending, but they do so because it is their mission to protect constitutional rights.
Our modern view of the second amendment allows us to own firearms, but it is not necessarily so that it was intended for this purpose in the way we think of today. To say that it was necessarily intended for the second amendment to let us personally own firearms is to not appreciate the opinions of what firearm ownership meant for the safety of the people from their own government when the Constitution was drafted. You must also appreciate that 4/9 of the justices dissented with Heller on his point.
I, myself, love owning firearms and am a firearm enthusiast, but you can't come on TL and spout an idiotic viewpoint that the ACLU is a domestic terrorist group trying to push their agenda on anyone when they have supported viewpoints in the past that they DISAGREED with, but did so because of their core beliefs.
I'd like to see you take that position. Also, quit watching Fox News.
Let me also cite: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Now move on to something that doesn't derail the thread because of your radical beliefs.
|
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.
|
I don't get why you would oppose this? I mean really? If congress wants to stop whatever is launched, they'll still be able to - this will just legalize what is already common practice.
Also, the presidency is subject to public scrutiny and ultimately the consequences of (re)election. Not like wars will be started at random because of this... Just the ACLU doing its thing - selling fear, just like Fox, only a different scare.
|
This is much ado about nothing from the ACLU. The president, as commander in chief, has ALWAYS had war powers without authorization from congress. The first instance of this was when Thomas Jefferson authorized military action against pirates off the coast of Libya.
This isn't a constitutional issue. The constitution only constrains the ability to declare war (and creating any treaty for that matter) to congress, and that clause has NEVER been interpreted to limit the president's power to use military force in foreign nations.
I'm not sure what the purpose of this bill is though since presidential war powers are so broad anyways. It's probably just to modify the old War Powers Resolution so that the president doesn’t have to keep getting 30 day renewal periods from congress. This is good because the War Powers Resolution is not an effective law.
|
On May 13 2011 07:00 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +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
|
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.
|
On May 13 2011 07:00 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Bush, Berlusconi, Sarkozy... All complete retards who've been reelected. We all have our skeletons, U.S. ones just have a more visible impact on the world.
|
On May 13 2011 07:08 Nero. wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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.
Only the parliament can declare war and authorize military actions outside Swedish borders however the goverment and the leader of the state can authorize the military to take action within Swedish borders and authorize military actions outside of the border if there is an immediate threat and no time to assemble the parliament.
|
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.
|
On May 13 2011 07:56 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 07:54 GinDo wrote: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.
I didn't say they declared war -_-. Read please. I said that the reason they could get in without congress approval was because the president can engage in combat for 30 days. Thats what happened in Libya
After that as you said he needs congress if he wants to continue for what ever reason.
EDIT: and Congress did pass something for Libya. Operation Odyssey Dawn
|
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.
The problem with that tho, is that after 30 days there is no real way of going back anymore. The de-facto power to declare war lies with the president already, and pretty much has since the start of the imperial presidency. Especially in american politics, where the first response to any military action pretty much guarantees the 'rally around the flag'-syndrome.
|
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.
Close enough but you are correct
|
On May 13 2011 08:00 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 07:54 GinDo wrote: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. The problem with that tho, is that after 30 days there is no real way of going back anymore. The de-facto power to declare war lies with the president already, and pretty much has since the start of the imperial presidency. Especially in american politics, where the first response to any military action pretty much guarantees the 'rally around the flag'-syndrome.
What are you talking about? The president has no power to declare war before this.
President- 30 days do what you want
After 30 days Congress. And what do you mean imperial presidency?
"Especially in american politics, where the first response to any military action pretty much guarantees the 'rally around the flag'-syndrome"
Not really. Everyone in the States pretty much opposes all these wars. The only people in Pro are all those people with family fighting.
|
On May 13 2011 08:00 GinDo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 07:56 domovoi wrote:On May 13 2011 07:54 GinDo wrote: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. I didn't say they declared war -_-. Read please. I said that the reason they could get in without congress approval was because the president can engage in combat for 30 days. Thats what happened in Libya After that as you said he needs congress if he wants to continue for what ever reason. EDIT: and Congress did pass something for Libya. Operation Odyssey Dawn
Sorry, your statement was ambiguous. It sounded like you were saying Congress formally declared war on Libya (and Congress has yet to approve anything for Libya; Operation Odyssey Dawn is the name of the military operation, not a bill). And FYI, Congress rarely formally declares war, the last time being WW2. I don't mind if you say Congress or the President declares war all the time (which is a perfectly fine alternative to the technical "authorizing military force"), but be careful with how you use the word "formally."
|
On May 13 2011 08:03 Nazarid wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 07:54 GinDo wrote: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. Close enough but you are correct
Look up Operation Odessey Dawn. Congress did pass a formal thingy for military engagement w/e you call it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States
Heck were even funding the whole thing.
|
On May 13 2011 07:54 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 07:40 travis wrote: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.
Technically, most "enemy combatants" are historically PoWs, which exist in a different realm. Dating back to the 1600s PoWs were regularly returned at the end of hostility (between two states) without ransom. From then the treatment of PoWs has steadily gotten better for the most part. As we are not at war with another state Ex parte Quirin doesn't apply as precedent. Terrorists should go through the criminal justice system.
"Enemy combatant" in the vernacular (in the US) means those who have been detained indefinitely outside the rule of law as part of the war on terror I was not thinking of PoWs in my response, they are detained under completely different circumstances.
|
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.
That's definitely messed up. Someone said it in another thread: for a country that Prides itself on liberty and justice, holding somebody indefinitely against their will sounds a lot more like hostage/kidnapping than anything else. I mean c'mon, WTF happened to the right to a fair trail and innocent until Proven guilty and all that jazz? I have not read the entire patriot act, however some of the parts I did pretty much state that everyone is potentially a terrorist and is treated as such. Illegal search and seizure without warrants is one of many disturbing things the patriot act has in it. I really don't see things getting any better, only worse in America. People are giving up rights for some "safety", never works out.
|
On May 13 2011 07:48 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 07:27 Euronyme wrote: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?
I think it has to go through parliament. Neither the prime minister, nor the government has the authority to deploy troops, unless we're being invaded.
|
On May 13 2011 08:07 TheFrankOne wrote:
Technically, most "enemy combatants" are historically PoWs, which exist in a different realm. Dating back to the 1600s PoWs were regularly returned at the end of hostility (between two states) without ransom.
I.e. detained indefinitely.
From then the treatment of PoWs has steadily gotten better for the most part. As we are not at war with another state Ex parte Quirin doesn't apply as precedent. Terrorists should go through the criminal justice system.
I'm not sure why the presence of a state should make a difference.
"Enemy combatant" in the vernacular (in the US) means those who have been detained indefinitely outside the rule of law as part of the war on terror I was not thinking of PoWs in my response, they are detained under completely different circumstances.
Terrorists are unlawful combatants. They are not outside the rule of law; there's a whole body of law that regulates their detention.
|
On May 13 2011 08:10 Billyssjssfj 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. That's definitely messed up. Someone said it in another thread: for a country that Prides itself on liberty and justice, holding somebody indefinitely against their will sounds a lot more like hostage/kidnapping than anything else. I mean c'mon, WTF happened to the right to a fair trail and innocent until Proven guilty and all that jazz? I have not read the entire patriot act, however some of the parts I did pretty much state that everyone is potentially a terrorist and is treated as such. Illegal search and seizure without warrants is one of many disturbing things the patriot act has in it. I really don't see things getting any better, only worse in America. People are giving up rights for some "safety", never works out.
This isnt what the OP is talking about make a new thread if you want to talk about the rights of terrorists and other such things. This is about "War Authorization in the Defense Authorization Bill"
|
Congress hasn't passed anything authorizing the operation. But, yes, they do continue to pass budgets that fund the military, which could be seen as implicit approval.
|
On May 13 2011 08:13 Nazarid wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 08:10 Billyssjssfj wrote: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. That's definitely messed up. Someone said it in another thread: for a country that Prides itself on liberty and justice, holding somebody indefinitely against their will sounds a lot more like hostage/kidnapping than anything else. I mean c'mon, WTF happened to the right to a fair trail and innocent until Proven guilty and all that jazz? I have not read the entire patriot act, however some of the parts I did pretty much state that everyone is potentially a terrorist and is treated as such. Illegal search and seizure without warrants is one of many disturbing things the patriot act has in it. I really don't see things getting any better, only worse in America. People are giving up rights for some "safety", never works out. This isnt what the OP is talking about make a new thread if you want to talk about the rights of terrorists and other such things. This is about "War Authorization in the Defense Authorization Bill"
He asked a question and I answered it.
|
I don't like anything that goes against the checks and balances system that we have. Our entire government (on paper) is based on one individual or group having too much power.
And that's a shit ton of power.
|
On May 13 2011 08:15 TALegion wrote:
I don't like anything that goes against the checks and balances system that we have. Our entire government (on paper) is based on one individual or group having too much power.
And that's a shit ton of power.
That's just not a realistic viewpoint to have with the Constitution. The US has been altering the checks and balances of the Constitution since Madison v. Marbury and Gibbons v. Ogden.
|
On May 13 2011 08:13 Nazarid wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 08:10 Billyssjssfj wrote: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. That's definitely messed up. Someone said it in another thread: for a country that Prides itself on liberty and justice, holding somebody indefinitely against their will sounds a lot more like hostage/kidnapping than anything else. I mean c'mon, WTF happened to the right to a fair trail and innocent until Proven guilty and all that jazz? I have not read the entire patriot act, however some of the parts I did pretty much state that everyone is potentially a terrorist and is treated as such. Illegal search and seizure without warrants is one of many disturbing things the patriot act has in it. I really don't see things getting any better, only worse in America. People are giving up rights for some "safety", never works out. This isnt what the OP is talking about make a new thread if you want to talk about the rights of terrorists and other such things. This is about "War Authorization in the Defense Authorization Bill"
The Defense Authorization Bill has the provisions that allow for the indefinite detention of enemy combatants in the war on terror.
|
On May 13 2011 08:05 GinDo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 08:00 Derez wrote:On May 13 2011 07:54 GinDo wrote: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. The problem with that tho, is that after 30 days there is no real way of going back anymore. The de-facto power to declare war lies with the president already, and pretty much has since the start of the imperial presidency. Especially in american politics, where the first response to any military action pretty much guarantees the 'rally around the flag'-syndrome. What are you talking about? The president has no power to declare war before this. President- 30 days do what you want After 30 days Congress. And what do you mean imperial presidency? "Especially in american politics, where the first response to any military action pretty much guarantees the 'rally around the flag'-syndrome"Not really. Everyone in the States pretty much opposes all these wars. The only people in Pro are all those people with family fighting.
What I ment was, that if the president commits to a deployment, congress pretty much has to rubber stamp it. Presidents (both republican and democrats: Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama) also tend to see the War Powers Resolution as unconstitutional, due to article 2, section 2 and congress has never actually enforced the War Powers Act. Congress only starts to oppose actual deployments after they have rubber stamped them. Two former secretaries of state have written a fairly decent assesment of this tendency called the Baker-Christopher report, and it's a very interesting read if this subject interest you.
'Rally around the flag'-syndrome is that it is very hard for US politicians to oppose military action in general, especially at the start of a large scale conflict (think Iraq, not Libya). Right after the start of a major military campaign, presidents in the US pretty much always surge in the polls. This happened with Iraq, with Afghanistan, and they only became unpopular after the initial phase.
For example: After 9/11, bush jumped from 50% approval to 90%, and Iraq was a 55% to 70% jump. This sudden boost in popularity makes it very hard for congressmen to vote 'against' the president.
I too know that legally speaking, congress has the power to declare war, all I'm saying is, that in the actual political process, presidents can do whatever they want and congress is a doormat.
And it's a 60 day period, with another 30 for withdrawal. Not 30.
|
Blatantly unconstitutional. It sucks having two war parties.
|
In America, "blatantly unconstitutional" really just means "I have no idea what the constitution says or how it's been interpreted over the past 220+ years, but I don't like the policy!!1"
I wonder what's the equivalent term for a country with no codified constitution.
|
On May 13 2011 08:33 domovoi wrote:
In America, "blatantly unconstitutional" really just means "I have no idea what the constitution says or how it's been interpreted over the past 220+ years, but I don't like the policy!!1"
I wonder what's the equivalent term for a country with no codified constitution.
It doesn't give the president the authority to go to war on a whim. It explicitly states that that authority lies with congress. Why would you just assume something about someone you don't know, and then attack them personally for it?
|
On May 13 2011 08:11 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 08:07 TheFrankOne wrote:
Technically, most "enemy combatants" are historically PoWs, which exist in a different realm. Dating back to the 1600s PoWs were regularly returned at the end of hostility (between two states) without ransom. I.e. detained indefinitely. Show nested quote +From then the treatment of PoWs has steadily gotten better for the most part. As we are not at war with another state Ex parte Quirin doesn't apply as precedent. Terrorists should go through the criminal justice system. I'm not sure why the presence of a state should make a difference. Show nested quote +"Enemy combatant" in the vernacular (in the US) means those who have been detained indefinitely outside the rule of law as part of the war on terror I was not thinking of PoWs in my response, they are detained under completely different circumstances. Terrorists are unlawful combatants. They are not outside the rule of law; there's a whole body of law that regulates their detention.
Detained indefinitely until a cessation of hostilities between two states is entirely different than the holding of prisoners until the cessation of... terror? You can use the term "indefinite" to describe both but one "indefinite" has a clear and defined end, even if the date is uncertain, while the other has no clear end point or condition for release whatsoever.
All those who have been detained do not belong to one specific group, not all of them should reasonably be considered civilians. There is not even one clear group that we have been engaged in combat with since the invasion of Iraq/Afghanistan and so a blanket term to describe all of these terrorists that requires them to be civilians is unreasonable.
They should be prosecuted for whatever criminal acts they have engaged in, as criminals.
A state is relevant because it is then clear who is lawful and who is unlawful, (solders or civilians) without an opposing state things become much less clear. Also in the decision itself:
"the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants."
Peaceful populations of belligerent nations is a clear reference to states engaged in hostilities.
|
On May 13 2011 08:46 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 08:33 domovoi wrote:
In America, "blatantly unconstitutional" really just means "I have no idea what the constitution says or how it's been interpreted over the past 220+ years, but I don't like the policy!!1"
I wonder what's the equivalent term for a country with no codified constitution. It doesn't give the president the authority to go to war on a whim. It explicitly states that that authority lies with congress. Why would you just assume something about someone you don't know, and then attack them personally for it?
You've proven my point, thanks. The power to declare war is not the same as the power to deploy military force under constitutional jurisprudence. Otherwise every single war the US has been in since World War 2 is unconstitutional. You're taking a simple clause and trying to interpret it in plain english when it's had hundreds of years of judicial gloss added onto it.
So, like I said, you have no idea what that clause means.
|
On May 13 2011 08:47 TheFrankOne wrote:
Detained indefinitely until a cessation of hostilities between two states is entirely different than the holding of prisoners until the cessation of... terror? You can use the term "indefinite" to describe both but one "indefinite" has a clear and defined end, even if the date is uncertain, while the other has no clear end point or condition for release whatsoever.
I agree, I made that point earlier.
A state is relevant because it is then clear who is lawful and who is unlawful, (solders or civilians) without an opposing state things become much less clear. Also in the decision itself:
Just so it's clear, unlawful combatant generally means a combatant dressed up as a civilian, a lawful combatant is one in a uniform. My question is why should terrorists, who have no allegiance to any state, be treated differently than other unlawful combatants, like spies?
|
On May 13 2011 08:58 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 08:46 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On May 13 2011 08:33 domovoi wrote:
In America, "blatantly unconstitutional" really just means "I have no idea what the constitution says or how it's been interpreted over the past 220+ years, but I don't like the policy!!1"
I wonder what's the equivalent term for a country with no codified constitution. It doesn't give the president the authority to go to war on a whim. It explicitly states that that authority lies with congress. Why would you just assume something about someone you don't know, and then attack them personally for it? You've proven my point, thanks. The power to declare war is not the same as the power to deploy military force under constitutional jurisprudence. Otherwise every single war the US has been in since World War 2 is unconstitutional. You're taking a simple clause and trying to interpret it in plain english when it's had hundreds of years of judicial gloss added onto it. So, like I said, you have no idea what that clause means.
Yes, every war since world war 2 has been unconstitutional. Furthermore, judicial decree doesn't determine what the constitution means. They are actually capable of interpreting it incorrectly. Shocking I know. Btw, deploying military force against another nation is an ACT OF WAR, meaning congress needs to declare war for it to occur.
|
On May 13 2011 09:15 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
Furthermore, judicial decree doesn't determine what the constitution means
Yes, how could I have been so foolish. What the Constitution means is obviously what smokeyhoodoo decrees.
But, wait, what happened to that whole checks and balances thing.
|
On May 13 2011 09:03 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 08:47 TheFrankOne wrote:
Detained indefinitely until a cessation of hostilities between two states is entirely different than the holding of prisoners until the cessation of... terror? You can use the term "indefinite" to describe both but one "indefinite" has a clear and defined end, even if the date is uncertain, while the other has no clear end point or condition for release whatsoever. I agree, I made that point earlier. Show nested quote +A state is relevant because it is then clear who is lawful and who is unlawful, (solders or civilians) without an opposing state things become much less clear. Also in the decision itself: Just so it's clear, unlawful combatant generally means a combatant dressed up as a civilian, a lawful combatant is one in a uniform. My question is why should terrorists, who have no allegiance to any state, be treated differently than other unlawful combatants, like spies?
Why should ANY criminal be treated differently from an unlawful combatant?
If a member of the Crips is killing American citizens, how does that make them different from a member of Al Qaeda that kills American citizens?
Could the Congress validly declare actual War on specific street gangs, what about internet pirates.. they are performing illegal acts reslting in losses to the US? Could the US declare war on Anonymous ..and any associated groups as a cyber terrorist group?
The problem with unlawful combatants v. lawful combatants comes because a Lawful combatant Declares that they are a combatant (through their uniform), so there is no problem with the authority to detain them. Unlawful combatants provides a different situation, because any unlawful combatant is an Alleged unlawful combatant. And the executive branch of government that is detaining them is the one judging whether they are unlawful combatants or not.
Personally I would like to see ALL "unlawful combatants"/"foreign or domestic criminals" given some type of a trial. If they are an unlawful combatant then they should NOT be treated as POWs but as criminals, ie a trial then either released (as a noncombatant/not guilty person) OR sentenced as any other criminal that was attempting/conspiring/aiding in the murder of federal workers/sabotage of federal property.
Then there is the international issue. The US is initiating military action against citizens of another country, who are living in another country without either the permission of those countries or declaring war on them.
TLDR
On a national level, "unlawful combatants" Should be treated as criminals (to prevent the executive branch from having too much power)
On an international level, congressional authorization specific to the country should be required for any military operations in a country without its permission. (or in any way that would violate a treaty)
|
On May 13 2011 09:19 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 09:15 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
Furthermore, judicial decree doesn't determine what the constitution means Yes, how could I have been so foolish. What the Constitution means is obviously what smokeyhoodoo decrees. But, wait, what happened to that whole checks and balances thing.
I never said that. I obviously can interpret it incorrectly too. I wasn't the one claiming its not open to debate though. Damn, you really shot yourself in the foot there.
|
On May 13 2011 09:03 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 08:47 TheFrankOne wrote:
Detained indefinitely until a cessation of hostilities between two states is entirely different than the holding of prisoners until the cessation of... terror? You can use the term "indefinite" to describe both but one "indefinite" has a clear and defined end, even if the date is uncertain, while the other has no clear end point or condition for release whatsoever. I agree, I made that point earlier. Show nested quote +A state is relevant because it is then clear who is lawful and who is unlawful, (solders or civilians) without an opposing state things become much less clear. Also in the decision itself: Just so it's clear, unlawful combatant generally means a combatant dressed up as a civilian, a lawful combatant is one in a uniform. My question is why should terrorists, who have no allegiance to any state, be treated differently than other unlawful combatants, like spies?
I don't think you were making the same point about the idea of "indefinite detention". I was trying to say there is no condition of release and that is different from the historical context of conditional release at the end of conflict. So different that it is not an acceptable standard for release.
As a side note, they are not actually treated like unlawful combatants, they are denied legal counsel.
Unlawful combatant is actually a highly ambiguous term. According to the Red Cross an enemy combatant is: "generally understood as encompassing all persons taking a direct part in hostilities without being entitled to do so and who upon falling into the power of the enemy are not entitled to prisoners of war status."
It is because they have no allegiance to a state that the typical standard release at the end of hostilities is not applicable. The laws and precedents created to govern war between states are not designed to adjudicate these situations, our criminal justice system has a long history of prosecution of terrorists, do you think Timothy McVeigh should have been sentenced by a military tribunal? He did commit the second deadliest terrorist attack in American history.
Also, are you a history major or in law school?
|
I think it would be highly impractical to treat all illegal combatants as criminals (and note that no country on earth does this as far as I know). First, the civil courts are not equipped to handle that increase in caseload, even in a time of relative peace. Think how disastrous it would be if we actually had a real war going on.
Second, the evolution of criminal procedure has never factored in the circumstances of unlawful combatants. In other words, how criminals and unlawful combatants are detained are sometimes very different, as is the practical amount of evidence that can used, especially if detained in a warzone.
Third, in relation to the second, our criminal laws would gradually be shaped to accommodate the exigencies of war, and that would likely be detrimental to our criminal laws. E.g., say goodbye to Miranda. Say hello to relaxed procedures for searches and seizures, because it's simply impractical to wait for a warrant before detaining a combatant.
Basically, war is very unlike the commission of a crime, and it would be foolish to try to shoehorn the former into the body of law that governs the latter.
|
On May 13 2011 09:32 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
I wasn't the one claiming its not open to debate though.
lol, you must not know the meaning of "blatantly."
|
On May 13 2011 09:32 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 09:19 domovoi wrote:On May 13 2011 09:15 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
Furthermore, judicial decree doesn't determine what the constitution means Yes, how could I have been so foolish. What the Constitution means is obviously what smokeyhoodoo decrees. But, wait, what happened to that whole checks and balances thing. I never said that. I obviously can interpret it incorrectly too. I wasn't the one claiming its not open to debate though. Damn, you really shot yourself in the foot there.
He did not put it in the nicest way but he is right, at any given moment the constitution's meaning is determined by judicial review. Unless of course you're one of those people who think the supreme court doesn't actually have that power. That's a different argument.
|
On May 13 2011 09:38 TheFrankOne wrote:
It is because they have no allegiance to a state that the typical standard release at the end of hostilities is not applicable.
Well, if the "war on terror" ever did end, they could technically be released to their country of origin. Though I understand this would create a whole host of other problems.
The laws and precedents created to govern war between states are not designed to adjudicate these situations, our criminal justice system has a long history of prosecution of terrorists, do you think Timothy McVeigh should have been sentenced by a military tribunal? He did commit the second deadliest terrorist attack in American history.
Our criminal justice system could accommodate some terrorists, perhaps ones found on American soil through traditional investigative means, like McVeigh or that Christmas bomber. But it's not designed to accommodate, for example, unlawful combatants detained in a war zone.
Also, are you a history major or in law school?
I'm gainfully employed.
|
On May 13 2011 09:45 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 09:32 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
I wasn't the one claiming its not open to debate though. lol, you must not know the meaning of "blatantly."
Wow, just wow. This is retarded, go pick your next cyber fight.
|
Because this totally led to awesome stuff when we passed it before Vietnam...
|
On May 13 2011 09:53 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 09:45 domovoi wrote:On May 13 2011 09:32 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
I wasn't the one claiming its not open to debate though. lol, you must not know the meaning of "blatantly." Wow, just wow. This is retarded, go pick your next cyber fight.
Ok, so when you say something is "blatantly unconstitutional" you're actually saying "I think it's unconstitutional, but I could be wrong, after all, I'm no constitutional scholar and I generally don't pay attention to what the Supreme Court says having determined they are an illegitimate institution."
Makes sense.
|
Vatican City State733 Posts
The President has been more or less granted the power to make war whenever he feels like it. Congress acts as little more than a rubber stamp when it comes to approving troop deployment. This is really nothing new and will not make these actions any more constitutional.
To be honest Congress has been disturbingly content to hand over its power to the President over the past decades. The post has far exceeded the power it was given in the Constitution.
Interesting fact: Under Rousseaun philosophy, the United States would be considered a monarchy
|
On May 13 2011 09:44 domovoi wrote:
I think it would be highly impractical to treat all illegal combatants as criminals (and note that no country on earth does this as far as I know). First, the civil courts are not equipped to handle that increase in caseload, even in a time of relative peace. Think how disastrous it would be if we actually had a real war going on.
Second, the evolution of criminal procedure has never factored in the circumstances of unlawful combatants. In other words, how criminals and unlawful combatants are detained are sometimes very different, as is the practical amount of evidence that can used, especially if detained in a warzone.
Third, in relation to the second, our criminal laws would gradually be shaped to accommodate the exigencies of war, and that would likely be detrimental to our criminal laws. E.g., say goodbye to Miranda. Say hello to relaxed procedures for searches and seizures, because it's simply impractical to wait for a warrant before detaining a combatant.
Basically, war is very unlike the commission of a crime, and it would be foolish to try to shoehorn the former into the body of law that governs the latter.
Not necessarily, you have modifications for "a warzone" which means picked up in Afghanistan=yes, picked up in America=no.
A speedy and fair trial... well fair>speedy already in the US, people picked up in a warzone would have to wait somewhat longer for their trial.
Search and seizure is already relaxed if there is imminent danger, in a warzone, there is definitely more danger.
Those have to do with how evidence is gathered and when the trial happens,ie actions before arrest.
The problem is with a war on alqaeda/the Taliban v. war on a state, the entire world is considered a "war zone" anyone suspected of the crime of unlawful combatant could be treated the same. This should Not be the case, in places where there is a reasonably effective+cooperative government in control (like the US), it should Not be under "war zone" rules.
|
it's not like the president can't already start a war without congressional approval, I guess bush was a hipster
|
At times I feel like the U.S. is following in Romes footsteps, founded as a republic, evolved into an empire. Ironically if you look at Washington D.C. the government buildings are all Roman styles. (Domes, pillars, ornate statues, cascading steps, ect.) Is history going to repeat itself?
It's also ironic that the constitution clearly states congress must declare war, I believe the last time congress did so was WWII, (maybe the first gulf war, but I'm not sure if it was considered a formal declaration) Every other war ( seem to have at least 2 per decade, or "Conflicts") the U.S. has entered since was unconstitutional and illegal under some interpretations of the constitution.
President Eisenhower warned against the military industrial complex getting out of control, and he was a WW2 General before he was president. Several other U.S. presidents both pre and post WW2 have warned of such things, always in a negative light. I am profoundly worried about what is rearing it's ugly head within the political structure of the U.S. The ONLY real reason I can see this kind of change being pushed through is so that the increasing pace of wars and conflicts can continue into the foreseeable future. To think they gave Obama the Nobel Peace Prize makes my head spin.
The constitution was written for reasons. To limit the powers of government was the main one. Holding people without trials or legal council, killing foreign leaders, torture, no warrant surveillance of U.S. citizens, are all illegal and the people running the U.S. who have broken these laws should be prosecuted. This is only the tip of the ice burg, I'm sure the more the U.S. government was properly investigated the more violations of the law would be found. All of these people swore an oath to uphold the constitution, I am only suggesting they be held responsible to that oath under the law.
|
On May 13 2011 07:27 Euronyme wrote:
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.
The United States wages war very frequently, but it almost never declares war. Declarations have only been made for five wars in the United States' entire history.
|
The War on Terror has no endpoint, no goals, no reason for it not to go on as long as the War on Drugs, which has the same general conditions. Terror is after all an emotion; it cannot surrender, sign a peace treaty, or in any way give up. We can leave Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Pakistan, and Yemen but that isn't an end. We can/could at some point call it over, but that is not part of the public discourse. Much the same as when industry uses the technique of "linguistic detoxification," the Democratic party is the "velvet glove over the iron fist;" they phase words out of use while continuing not only policy, but the natural trajectory of such policy, following it to its full global extent. It is a global revenge mission we will never declare lost and that can never be won.
I never said anything about our prison system and warzones, you try them for treason or something less harsh if called for in Afghanistan or Iraq, the actual warzones. Other than that we pick up people through investigation and we can handle them in our prison system. I think you are underestimating what our prison system can handle it already handles quite a bit it wasn't designed to. You could also try them in military tribunals as combatants for any crimes they have committed, this is not ideal and is in general unusual, but by no means unheard of.
The problem is that they are currently detained indefinitely, without trial, without legal counsel, (which even illegal combatants are supposed to have) in a legal gray area you can coat with pretty terms, but that is completely unacceptable by reasonable ethical standards and is a very gray area. I feel like I have laid out my opinion, and I am about done with this discussion.
Note: Sadly good ethical standards are not those that sate blood-lust and notions of vengeance for wrongs done.
|
Only 5 declared wars in our entire history? We forget that we are like, a good looking youngish middle aged country when compared against our contemporaries.
Still, there is silver lining. We get to return to the time honed practice of constructing human pyramids. I am hoping for a truly stupendous effort this time round. 9th wonder style.
Honestly, I think this a sneaky attempt to return to abusive practices now that the public eye is out of the limelight of the Abu Ghraib incidents. Remember even supported by atrocities it was hard to get people to see others as humans.
|
I honestly don't see it changing anything, it has the potential to authorize acts of war but I believe Libya if not Afghanistan clearly demonstrate that Congress already has little to do with war authorization. The reason being is that nobody wants to be the scapegoat when everybody starts pointing the finger at Congress for pulling the purse strings on the latest conflict. Congressional war authorization is a formality which never even occurs unless Congress either feels forced into it due to the realities on the ground (Tonkin) or the war is basically defensive and universally popular (WW2, Iraq in the immediate aftermath of 9/11).
The fundamental framework for both these situations lies outside Congressional control, especially given U.S. precedent of deference in both the legislative and judicial branches to the executive in matters of armed conflict, so in hindsight it is easy to see why Congressional inclusion in the Constitution in the first place could be argued as a flaw. You don't want to restrict the arm of your only defense in times of need, so there can be almost no realistically effective prior restraint of the executive.
Normally I'm a raging liberal but in this case it seems more like they are changing the song to fit the tune. The fury of the public NEEDS to land on the president if we are to stop this sort of flagrant armed aggression, because that fury is too easily dispersed in Congress. So that being said, I'm really torn on this one, but I can see the good sides to this bill that the liberal propaganda is clearly ignoring.
|
I don't get the whole constitution here constitution there. If something is messed up, change it, and if the constitution doesn't allow for the change then change the constitution. And having one man, in effect, being able to bring a country into war is messed up. That this bill only legalizes what is already common practice is NO EXCUSE. If common practice is messed up you protest that common practice and make it change. You don't let people do bat shit crazy stuff and then say "hey they're already doing it, let's not make it awkward shall we?".
|
On May 13 2011 09:15 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
Yes, every war since world war 2 has been unconstitutional. Furthermore, judicial decree doesn't determine what the constitution means. They are actually capable of interpreting it incorrectly. Shocking I know. Btw, deploying military force against another nation is an ACT OF WAR, meaning congress needs to declare war for it to occur.
Actually, it does determine what the constitution means. And while the judges on the Supreme Court of the US are capable of interpreting the Constitution incorrectly, who the hell are you to make that determination?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
