From: Lloyd Parker on 16 Jan 2007 05:35 In article <eoinhq$8qk_006(a)s961.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <eogiqt$9v7$9(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>In article <eodhg2$8qk_002(a)s849.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>In article <eobnu0$oor$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>In article <8af1c$45a7b0e1$4fe7610$13591(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>>unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>>[...] >>>>>How do you declare war on Hesbalah or al qaeda? >>>> >>>>You don't any more than you declare war on the Mafia. >>>> >>>>> If you >>>>>win, who signs the surrender documents? >>>> >>>>When the jail door goes "clang" on them, no signing is needed. >>>> >>>>[....] >>>>>> I agree, the conflict is far from simple. It is not a war either, >>>therefore >>>>>> invoking "war powers" is dishonest. >>>>> >>>>>For the US it is the only tool currently available. I believe >>>>>UK has a strong history of dealing with Irish terrorism in >>>>>precisely the same way. >>>>> >>>>>I'm open to hearing about some other model. There's no one to >>>>>negotiate with, so what's left? >>>> >>>>Treat them like the IRA and or the Mafia. To help take down organized >>>>crime, the RICO law was created. If tools are needed, they can be made. >>> >>>So you are expecting a UN jurisdiction to handle these people and >>>the messes they make. Are you also willing to subject the >>>Constitution to the UN charter? >>> >> >>Actually, since we ratified the UN charter as a treaty, it already is US law. > >uh...No. > >/BAH Uh, yes. Read what the constitution says about treaties.
From: Lloyd Parker on 16 Jan 2007 05:22 In article <23onq25chhnknmfuva80otkuh6v6fj86lo(a)4ax.com>, Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:57:03 -0000, "T Wake" ><usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >>"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message >>news:o57hq2hgacs104ki37lf6fd2d8lgjjulru(a)4ax.com... >>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 22:37:27 -0000, "T Wake" >>> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>>>"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message >>>>news:l6hfq2hq3pl65gn8pceon4g8l0fbhvc9r3(a)4ax.com... >>>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:17:34 -0000, "T Wake" >>>>> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>"MassiveProng" <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in >>>>>>message news:qe6eq25v7vr2l8gqjagd38781phaa5v4kq(a)4ax.com... >>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 00:15:18 +0000, Eeyore >>>>>>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>The simple answer is that the terrorists are criminals and what's >>>>>>>>required >>>>>>>>is >>>>>>>>international *police* action to stop it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There is. It's called the Worldwide Struggle Against Terrorism, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> AND IT IS A WAR. >>>>>> >>>>>>No it isn't. >>>>>> >>>>>>You do not declare war on things like terrorism any more than you >>>>>>declare >>>>>>war on poverty or childhood obesity. It sounds good, it makes a nice >>>>>>rallying call and fits soundbites. But it is not a declaration of war. >>>>>> >>>>>>Unless of course I missed the bit where the declaration was made >>>>>>official >>>>>>by >>>>>>a duly recognised authority. >>>>> >>>>> It's rhetoric from the administration with no other purpose at all >>>>> than to give it an excuse it can use to justify anything and >>>>> everything it does without having to make a rational argument to >>>>> anyone about it. The really sad thing is that the rhetoric actually >>>>> seems to gell with far too many here in the US. >>>> >>>>Aren't there certain conditions which have to be met before a "war" can be >>>>declared by the US? >>> >>> You know? I had thought so in my earlier years. Honestly believed in >>> the idea I was taught, that Congress declares wars. Of course, >>> reality has a way of making one more circumspect about this issue. >>> >>> I already wrote some material about the debate about war powers for >>> the president, so folks can refer to that other post for more details >>> about those powers as planned for by the federal convention. However, >>> they also never expected to see (and did what they could to prevent >>> it) the idea of a standing army in the US. They were downright >>> frightened of the idea and pretty much did everything they could to >>> prevent any possibility of it. Several Federalist Papers are mostly >>> dedicated to this problem and it was debated in various legislatures >>> convened to approve or reject the Constitution. >>> >>> I think they honestly believed they had taken all necessary steps to >>> prevent the possibility of a standing federal army and didn't believe >>> it would happen. With that assumption in mind, the question of a >>> president as commander-in-chief was reduced to only one of being the >>> executive officer over an army formed for specific purposes by the >>> Congress. And for that, most agreed that the president should be in >>> command. But this was a case where the Congress had to first act in >>> order to create an army (which takes money to do.) When the army >>> exists all the time and is funded all the time, the question >>> re-arises. And if they had had to face it, I'm sure they would NOT >>> have permitted him such power. >>> >>> They simply didn't believe there was any real risk of a President >>> running amok with a military presence in the US or elsewhere without >>> Congressional approval and funding, since that would be needed in >>> order to create the military that the President would then command. >>> Since there was no standing army to worry about, a President couldn't >>> go around fielding a military presence elsewhere without the time and >>> Congressional funding approvals required. >>> >>> They felt sufficiently comfortable with a President being commander in >>> chief during times of war __enabled__ by Congress. They felt that >>> they had eliminated any risks of a President as commander in chief at >>> other times, by removing the possibility of a standing, well-trained >>> army which, to create, would require Congress to act. But on this >>> last point, it turns out they were dead wrong. They hadn't removed >>> the possibility of a standing army and they didn't face the question >>> of a Presidency in control over a perpetual military force. >> >>Thank you for the interesting post. >> >>I am still unsure though, in the US can anyone declare "war?" > >Anyone can use the word. There are no 'language police' like France >may have. > >>Does there have to be a formal declaration of war? > >The Presidential office was given the right to command the army and >the navy, when they are created for a time by Congress. His title is >'commander-in-chief' and, so far as I'm aware of the history (and by >no means am I an expert on it) this means the ability to direct the >day to day operations -- like a General in command. The power was not >constrained. He can literally command them into the streets of a city >here and direct them to hold a town square, if he wanted to. Whether >or not the military, so ordered, would obey the command is another >question because there is a requirement that they only obey orders >that are Constitutional. But which of them would set themselves up as >a Constitutional scholar and disobey? So I think the effect of all >this is that the President has absolute control over the military, >consistent with the military commanders' own understanding of what is >Constitutional. The check against this is largely "the purse," which >is controlled by the House of Representatives. They can pull the >official funding. > >However, even that seems to be specious. Under Carter, a presidential >executive order forbade any US citizen or official or business from >being involved in supplying arms into Central America. This order was >recinded under Reagan, an administration that wanted to supply arms to >the Contras (and others.) The Congress reacted to this by passing a >series of Amendments to bills, which came to be known as the Boland >Amendments, that put Carter's executive order into law. In effect, >the President's budget for this kind of thing was limited to 24 >million dollars a year -- which his administration (most expecially, >George Bush the VP and some of his cohorts) felt was completely >useless for their intents. This led them to find other ways. (1) >They added a piece to a 1982 banking bill that for the first time >extended federal guarantees to each account, rather than to each >citizen. This allowed them to go to the banks, convince them they >would be insured by the feds when the accounts went sour, and ordered >them to make offshore loans as they indicated which would be used to >buy arms and pay necessary graft. (2) They started a process of >bringing in cocaine into the US, having agents contact known importers >of marijuana and giving them a non-choice (forcing) of either being >killed or else having their operation otherwise shut down or else >helping them break up the cocaine and sell it for money they needed. >This led to the change here in the US from where marijuana imports >were a serious problem to where cocaine rapidly became the 'new drug' >here. (3) They over-priced arms sales to Iran (and probably others), >transfered the the book-price to the US and kept the rest of the >profits for use in buying arms to ship into Central America. > >So even when the House acts to remove (or almost remove) funding, that >doesn't mean that a motivated executive won't find some other means. >Some of the people who were personally involved in that debacle, are >back in important appointed positions in this administration, by the >way. > >>Is it a presidential prerogative or one retained by congress? > >The House (1/2 of the Congress) sets funding levels. The executive >branch uses that funding. Even if the House set a low funding level >in order to just fund certain operations explicitly in the law, the >executive branch could ignore the restrictions and use the money for >purposes specifically barred in the legislation. He remains the day >to day operational manager of the funds he is given. > >>Can war be declared on things like obesity, heart disease, poverty etc? > >It can. But that wuold be an abuse of the word. > >We have a war on the middle class going on here, too. But again that >is an abuse of the word, I think. > >Jon My understanding is that the original intent was Congress had to first declare war, and then the president can command the military. Obviously the president could use the military without this to repel an invasion or put down a rebellion, of course. But not to fight another country overseas.
From: Lloyd Parker on 16 Jan 2007 05:37 In article <2860f$45ace72e$49ecf70$27178(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: > >> In article <e3860$45acd0b4$4fe713a$26561(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >>>Ken Smith wrote: >>> >>> >>>>In article <1ad2f$45aa7fb7$4fe76e9$22623(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>>unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Ken Smith wrote: >>>> >>>>[....] >>>> >>>> >>>>>>So what do you expect from this 20K more troops? It isn't enough extra to >>>>>>make a difference so it must be symbolic or political. Please explain how >>>>>>they make anything better. >>>>> >>>>>I've said before, disarm the population, seal the border, and we >>>>>can leave. >>>> >>>> >>>>Good plan, but with 20K more troops, there is no chance of doing so. With >>>>a few 100K perhaps it could be done. >>> >>>20K can easily seal the borders in fairly short order. Then it >>>becomes a combination of clearing the worse areas of weapons >>>and attrition of weapons because no new ones are getting in. >> >> >> I very seriously doubt that it could be done with 20K troops. > >A contractor with 20K employees sealing a border could get it >done pretty quickly. Giving a relative 50% efficiency factor >for military troops doing the same work still provides us with >a 10,000 employee contractor sealing the border. That, my friend, >is a HUGE contractor by anyone's standards, and can get a lot >of work done post haste. First, the troops have to sleep and rest, so only about 1/3 will be on duty at any one time. Secondly, we've had this many troops over there before, and it didn't do anything. Only a fool doesn't learn from past mistakes. > >Besides, it isn't all about fences, it is more about land mines. > >> In any >> case, your idea isn't going to be tried. Bush is telling them to paint on >> bullseyes and stand on street corners. > >Mores the pity.
From: T Wake on 16 Jan 2007 11:11 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eoilbd$8qk_003(a)s961.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <C6OdnargkYJ9FTbYnZ2dnUVZ8smonZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:eodgi5$8qk_005(a)s849.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... <snip> >>> I'm starting to think whether the Constitution has assumed that >>> the only kinds of war can be the European-style in which the >>> conflict is clearly nation against nation. I'm wondering if >>> any Constitutional scholars have thought about a war that can't >>> be nation against nation. >> >>Do you mean like the war of American Independence? The American Civil War >>etc? > > No. Yet they were both wars which were not "nation against nation" in the sense you rail against. Your dismissal of the US Constitution on the above grounds is baseless. >>When you eventually throw off your misguided "European" issues, you may be >>able to learn some new things. For example, the articles of war which make >>up the 1948 Geneva Accords (which the US signed, remember) also cover >>civil >>wars (which are not nation against nation). > > And the enemy of Western Civilization hasn't signed any of those > agreements. Perhaps you should consider that and spend at least > three days considering that. It really does not matter. Criminals do not swear to abide by the law, yet law enforcement officials must abide by the law while hunting them down. You need to spend a lot of time reading the Geneva Convention and the various acts and treaties which make up the rules of war. You may be surprised at the ones which were initiated by the US and by how recently they were ratified. Being a signatory to the (for example) GC means the nations must abide by its rules even if its opponent does not. This is an important aspect of it, perhaps you should consider why the laws of armed conflict were agreed to, why they have been ratified by "Western Civilisation" and why they have not been repealed. Try spending at least three days considering it. >>It may surprise you but even in Europe there have been civil wars. > > I would not be surprised. I was surprised when I read that > Masschusetts had a civil war. > > But laying civil war across the TTY screens is a red herring. > I'm not talking about an internal struggle of power within > an established Western political country. It is not a red herring. You have _repeatedly_ stated that Europeans are locked into thinking that a war must be nation vs nation. I have simply demonstrated you are wrong. Here we see an example of your "broken" thought processes. Instead of taking this evidence and reviewing your previous (false) assumptions, you simply dismiss it as a red herring and argue about something else. Shame on you. > I guess another thing I need to think about is why people > cannot consider the notion that there is a civilization conflict. It can be considered. Why can you not consider the notion that there is not a civilization conflict?
From: T Wake on 16 Jan 2007 11:12
"Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message news:eoiouh$keo$8(a)blue.rahul.net... > In article <45ACE2D8.110218AA(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> I guess another thing I need to think about is why people >>> cannot consider the notion that there is a civilization conflict. >> >>Try culture rather than civilisation. > > It could be argued that there is more than one of them. I think it would be a strong argument as well. There are certainly a multitude of Islamic cultures, just as there are more than one Christian culture. Western Civilisation is an equally nebulous term - but I suspect that is why /BAH uses it obsessively. |