Thousands of Marines face involuntary recalls because of Iraqi Civil War

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Uh, try reading the next paragraph...which states they are designed for military strikes against saddam

Not a peacekeeping force to intervene in a civil war

So not only are you wrong, but you cited CBS news as constitutional scholars

Ok, next paragraph since you suck at paraphrasing:

The resolution - which authorizes President Bush to launch a military attack against Iraq if he decides it is necessary - was approved by the House Thursday evening and the Senate followed suit shortly after 1 a.m. Friday.

It says all that about a civil war?

Bush has full permission of Congress to use the military in Iraq. And they have continued to pass Resolutions and bills for the repair and setting up the government.

Once again please, find me exactly how this war is illegal.

[Thorgrim]

It is NOT illegal!

It's unconstitutional

Don't make ridiculous demands like "show me where" you know the basic war powers, you know how Congress has held things in the past, you know how even GOP senators feel...I still can't find the part of the constitution that says its UC to yell fire in a crowded theater yet C to publish pornography

It does not say "The president shall use the military in Iraq as long as he desires" It says for UN resolutions (done) and stop the ongoing iraqi threat (ie Saddam's government) (done)

The military act is over...which is why the GOP senators are talking about a re-auth

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

It is NOT illegal!

It's unconstitutional

Don't make ridiculous demands like "show me where" you know the basic war powers, you know how Congress has held things in the past, you know how even GOP senators feel...I still can't find the part of the constitution that says its UC to yell fire in a crowded theater yet C to publish pornography

It does not say "The president shall use the military in Iraq as long as he desires" It says for UN resolutions (done) and stop the ongoing iraqi threat (ie Saddam's government) (done)

The military act is over...which is why the GOP senators are talking about a re-auth

Congress has continued to allow the military to remain in Iraq as well as fund everything that has taken place there. To say it's unconstitutional just doesn't make any sense.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Congress has continued to allow the military to remain in Iraq as well as fund everything that has taken place there. To say it's unconstitutional just doesn't make any sense.

Congress voted funds for the military when they were violating Supreme Court rulings during the Jacksonian era

The lack of change by Congress does not make something constitutional

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Congress voted funds for the military when they were violating Supreme Court rulings during the Jacksonian era

The lack of change by Congress does not make something constitutional

Completely unrelated. The Supreme Court nor any national authority has deemed Iraq unconstitutional or illegal.

We're going around in circles here.

Ok, the Iraq war is illegal. So far we're been through "Declaration of War" and gotten past that. Then we got passed "Congress didn't authorize it", now it's illegal because you feel Iraq is in a civil war and congress hasn't met to say "Hey guys, newsflash.. some people think Iraq is in a civil war now, so now we need to pass another bill acknowledging it to make it legal."

I'm really tired of dealing with this kind of logic today.

[Thorgrim]

I never said the iraq war was illegal, I'll restart this discussion when you stop the ad nauseam attacks

[Ardentfrost]

See, I see unconstitutional and illegal as the same thing

Congress hasn't the power to allow the president to declare war. THEY must declare war, or it's unconstitutional.

Them passing funding bills doesn't mean shit. A bunch of them saying "we support the president" doesn't mean shit. What means ANYTHING is that THEY DID NOT DECLARE WAR. It is not a power they can pass on, it is not something the president can just do, it is there, black and, uh, tanish in the constitution as one of Congress' powers: "To declare war."

The ONLY loophole on this matter is the president's ability to sign treaties. This is what started the grey area, because the president would sign a treaty that would say somoething like "If North Vietnam tries to spread communism into South Vietnam, the US will back South Vietnam militarily." Then 6 months later we're balls deep in the jungle of Southeast Asia, with no congressional declaration of war.

[Thorgrim]

Arden: if someone is doing something that there are no laws AGAINST, its legal, if the SC declares it unconstitutional, THEN its illegal

However, before Brown, those who argued segregation was UC were not crazy, they had a belief that it was UC

Same here, the SC has been sorely lacking in war cases because of usually strong legislative oversight (which is lacking here because the government is run by hawks)

However, I believe if a Maliki government does not survive the current civil war, a case will come before the court where an officer says he does not wish to serve in an unconstitional military action

Suppose Bush invaded Canada and had 40 senators filibuster any attempt to directly condemn the invasion, but Congress was against it and would never approve it...with no authority, and no declaration of war...it is clear the officers have a right to refuse their orders and say it is unconstitutional

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Arden: if someone is doing something that there are no laws AGAINST, its legal, if the SC declares it unconstitutional, THEN its illegal

However, before Brown, those who argued segregation was UC were not crazy, they had a belief that it was UC

Same here, the SC has been sorely lacking in war cases because of usually strong legislative oversight (which is lacking here because the government is run by hawks)

However, I believe if a Maliki government does not survive the current civil war, a case will come before the court where an officer says he does not wish to serve in an unconstitional military action

Suppose Bush invaded Canada and had 40 senators filibuster any attempt to directly condemn the invasion, but Congress was against it and would never approve it...with no authority, and no declaration of war...it is clear the officers have a right to refuse their orders and say it is unconstitutional

Yeah, but you're talking from the get-go. At this point in the Iraq War, with the SC not calling out the prez directly, I wouldn't expect to see anyone refusing to go back (at least not on the claims of the war being UC).

The time for people to step up was 4 years ago. Of course, at that time there was a lot of lying going on, and the next year or so saw a lot of backpedaling.

I dunno what would have fixed it at that time, but I just can't believe no one is calling Bush out (moreso than flinging poo from across the room) now.

[Thorgrim]

But you see, the initial Iraq War did have at least tacit congressional approval, that is why it is not illegal

They reviewed the evidence, and gave him the power to strike, Congress DID review the issue and DID grant specific power, that COULD be stretched as satisfying the constitutional requirement

It IS a stretch and I do believe everything from 1950s-today has been on shaky ground, I am not versed enough to declare they were unconstitutional, but it wasn't blatant

However, once a situation changes, it can become blatant, which is why the GOP is even moving to reconsider

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

But you see, the initial Iraq War did have at least tacit congressional approval, that is why it is not illegal

They reviewed the evidence, and gave him the power to strike, Congress DID review the issue and DID grant specific power, that COULD be stretched as satisfying the constitutional requirement

It IS a stretch and I do believe everything from 1950s-today has been on shaky ground, I am not versed enough to declare they were unconstitutional, but it wasn't blatant

However, once a situation changes, it can become blatant, which is why the GOP is even moving to reconsider

See, I believe that if it's unconstitutional now, it was unconstitutional then. I don't buy that just because congress voted to let the president do what he wanted that it was magically ok. That alone is something they should never have done. If they can do that, can they also say "feel free to write whatever bill you want and just sign it into law?" They have their powers that are enumerated in the constitution, and the president has his.

My stance may seem that it is making the situation too simplified, but there is no shakey wording about this in the constitution. Every congressman, president, judge, military man, police officer, etc... is sworn to uphold the constitution first and foremost.

What would be cool is a few badass judges to put their foot down on unconstitutional laws and actions.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

It is NOT illegal!

It's unconstitutional

Except the Consitution never says Congress must declare war first. The President has the right to use the military, Congress is currently approving all uses of the military in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.....

Constitution says about war/military

The Congress shall have Power:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

Seems the Constitution is fine with Congress approving money to the military as long as the term is less then 2 years.

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

I think the bottom line, is that we are getting to a point in our country, where our leaders are taking us in a direction that the rest of us don't want to go in.

WWII, FDR basically pushed us into the war years before Japan attacked.

Although you might say that they aren't in a position to be able to make that decision or conclusion, I believe that if they are going to be sent to kill people, they should at least know why. We've always known WHY we were being sent to war. We knew WHY in WWI, WWII, Vietnam, and we knew WHY we were being sent to Korea.

WWI [quote] And now, with this conflict, the WHY keeps changing. The cause keeps changing. It leads many to believe, that there was no pure WHY in the first place that would warrant this action. The WHY is being kept from us. We are being lied to left and right. And now, women I know, whose Husband's valiently served their countries, and gave their time, are now in fear of having to leave, once again, without a cause to even fight for.

[IminWonderland]

Basically pushed us into the war?

Well, look at the American Psyche at the time. With over 20 Million dead Allied solidiers in WW1 the country was not really feelin jumping into the Europe conflict. Then Japan attacks us, and of course, we want to get them, and it's justified. But, in the end, FDR sold the public on the war. That is what politicians and leaders do. Bush, is REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLLLLLY bad at selling wars. Afganistan was an easy sale to the public. Iraq...Iraq is not the Europe of the WWII war. At least FDR didn't flat out LIE about why we needed to be there. He wanted to go for a reason, and the reason remained the same.

[thomez]

anything worth reading in these 6 pages?

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by thomez

anything worth reading in these 6 pages?

no, besides the OP

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

Basically pushed us into the war?

Well, look at the American Psyche at the time. With over 20 Million dead Allied solidiers in WW1 the country was not really feelin jumping into the Europe conflict. Then Japan attacks us, and of course, we want to get them, and it's justified. But, in the end, FDR sold the public on the war. That is what politicians and leaders do. Bush, is REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLLLLLY bad at selling wars. Afganistan was an easy sale to the public. Iraq...Iraq is not the Europe of the WWII war. At least FDR didn't flat out LIE about why we needed to be there. He wanted to go for a reason, and the reason remained the same.

BEFORE Pearl Harbor. FDR Flat out lied when he stated there was no plan for American boys to go and fight in Europe. 1940. BUT at that exact time, he was starting the draft and planning the war in Europe. The fight in the Pacific was a surprise to him.


Love it. Japan attacks and what do we do ? We go fight in Europe. NYTimes headline if they acted the same in 1941.

[IminWonderland]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

BEFORE Pearl Harbor. FDR Flat out lied when he stated there was no plan for American boys to go and fight in Europe. 1940. BUT at that exact time, he was starting the draft and planning the war in Europe. The fight in the Pacific was a surprise to him.


Love it. Japan attacks and what do we do ? We go fight in Europe. NYTimes headline if they acted the same in 1941.

That may be true. But the point is, is that if you are going to take a country to war, you have to sell it. Bush had it sold, and now we are returning his broken product.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

That may be true. But the point is, is that if you are going to take a country to war, you have to sell it. Bush had it sold, and now we are returning his broken product.

because the American people have the attention span of a gnat