|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
Member |
RE: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,168564,00.html
Good stuff. Hegemons? Weren't they allied with the Oligarchs in the 2nd Lord Of the Rings?  |
||
|
Highly Experienced Member |
He did save the best for last. One of the things that that has not been covered in the course of the campaign, and urgently needs to be, is specificstatements from the Democratic candidate about how they will roll back the usurpations of power by the Executive Branch carried out by the present administration ... any failure to do so will disqualify them.  |
|||
|
|
suspended pending review,Nemesis |
A remarkable and insightful analysis, and yes that last line is a pearl. Whenever I'm about to blow my top at the lastest Bushism, I remember that it's Congress that sits there and does nothing. Some comfort when the opposition was in the minority - None at all when they took off their clothes and are standing there without an ideal of any kind wrapped around them. Could it be, that they welcome the idea of stepping into the new and improved, "Unitary Executive," blessed by being held by a Democrat? Dave |
|||
|
|
Member |
bwf27: Suggest you read archived op-ed by Kathy Roth-Douquet, dtd Sep 18, 2007, titled WHAT IS THE MILITARY'S ROLE? Interesting reference to HEGEMONS in that article. |
|||
|
|
Super Member |
Jabberwocky...
Respectfully, SUNLINER81 |
|||
|
|
New Member |
Thanks for a piece that recognizes how the USA is perceived by 95% of the world's population - the part that's not US citizens.
If Obama is elected, it will be interesting to see if he take the historic step of returning warmaking powers to Congress. I see virtually no chance of that from either McCain or Clinton. |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Before wwe go too far into the power of making war:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/ This gentleman needs to find honest work. Either that or his scribble is mislabeled and should be mark fiction. American, First and foremost is one of the most giving countries the world has ever seen, has been on the front of many disasters happening as tsunami, typhoons, or earthquakes. If that is the hegemony he's posing then we're guilty. Ninety five percent of the nations with negative outlooks of America is so much horse hockey. One group of people in America, having vacated patriotism and embrace politic's gives us a worse reputation that any President, past or present, could ever build. Stories that European's are attempting to let their choice known on the upcoming election without duly influencing a foreign country, has sent a message they are afraid of the isolationims being broadcasted by certain candidates. Another story in the Australian press this morning. A commander in the field having served in both Afghanistan and Iraq is telling his government that his troops feel they are not fulfilling what they've trained for. Sitting behind allowing others lead and their government holding them in the background and not in the war front. I doubt you'll see these stories in our press, but there are other nations that know why we're in the middle east. Being closer to the front making reality have some sway. And the disasters that currently occuring cannot be laid at our front door. In Zimbabee, Sudan, Somalia, Burma and a hundred other places having difficulties of putting enough bread on the shevles for their people to eat. America is good as any and a damn site better than most. The hegemony that began over a century ago has fed people, gained freedom and set nations in motion to become democratic. I'm sorry you and this author has lost sight what we're about. George Bush may be guilty of many things but taking power from Congress is the last. They've given power over the years to the executive. They're too busy running for office and going on vacation. |
|||
|
|
suspended pending review,Nemesis |
Err, ah Ray, Congress has no power to authorise the President to make the decision to go to war. This is true of Clinton and it's true of Bush. Only Congress can authorise war, it's not a delegatable power. Dave |
|||
|
|
Member |
It is true that the US Constitution provides that it is the Congress that must authorize war:
"Article 1 "Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; "To borrow money on the credit of the United States; "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; "To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States; "To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures; "To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States; "To establish post offices and post roads; "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; "To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court; "To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations; "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; "To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; "To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; ..." However, in several instances the Congress (in its ultimate wisdom) has given the president authorization to go to war and report back to Congress in 60 days. They did so when Lyndon B. Johnson was president with the Tonkin Bay Resolution. After the Vietnam War, I never thought that the Congress would ever again grant such authority to one man. I was wrong (not for the first time) and they granted George W. Bush the same right as to Iraq. While the Congress shares some of the blame for the Iraq War, it was Bush's order that sent our forces into Iraq. If there is a lesson to be learned here, it is that our country should never give one man the authority to take us to war. If our chief executive, our president, believes that our country is threatened, he should be required to convince our representatives in the Congress of the need to commit our forces. Absent making the case for war to the Congress, no one, be he or she president, should take us to war. |
|||
|
|
suspended pending review,Nemesis |
 Good Post! That was the purpose of the War Powers Act. Exactely that - Shouldn't have been necessary... Dave |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Might someone explain how Kosovo and Bosnia fit into the last couple posts? It does get a tad old having history begin in 2001.
Now ... not that I am particularly fond of Huber's rather loose opinion pieces but his last sentence does raise an interesting point. Recalling the absolute power (House, Senate, Oval Office) of 92-94, the relatively benign period of 94-2001, and the absolute power of 2001-2006, does anyone know of a particularly good reason why we should want absolute power from 2009-2013? And ... do you trust either party with it? |
|||
|
|
suspended pending review,Nemesis |
If you believe Mr. Bush violated the Constitution, with Congress's abdication of responsibility, then the same holds true for Mr. Clinton. I agree to my own analysis above.  Dave |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Well now ... I agree with you in part but the list is a bit longer than that. The Grenada Conflict, the Panamanian Conflict, the Somalia Conflict, the Gulf War, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq all had Congressional approval that satisfied the War Powers Act ... but fell short of a Congressional declaration of war, at least in the sense that you are using it. The Constitutionality of the War Powers Act has never been tested in the courts. The campaign against Serbia during the Kosovo War did not even have the cover of a military engagement authorized by Congress so those operations were not only, by your definition, unconstitutional but were also outside the law, specifically the War Powers Act. Now ... the Constitution says nothing about a "Declaration of War" ... it simply says "The Congress shall have the power to declare war." It does not specify what form exercise of that power should take. Some argue that Congress should specifically issue a "Declaration of War" while others argue that authorizing military force is the equivalent of declaring war and meets the Constitutional test. Only the Supreme Court knows for sure ... and they haven't been asked to rule on the issue. |
|||
|
|
suspended pending review,Nemesis |
While there are nuances in this question - It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to sort it all out. Grenada - An Emergency arose, and the President IS empowered to act in an emergency and then go to Congress. Panama, is borderline. The first President Bush authorised the intervention in Somalia as a strictly humanitarian action - This is a clear case where Congess never authorised this action to become a war (It was Mr. Clinton who turned this operation into a war). - But it should also be added, that they DID vote to cut off funds as the situation got out of hand. Now as to the question of "declaration." The meaning of the term, is that Congress authorises the President to fight a war, with a declared enemy. So whether they make a formal declaration or defacto declare war - The result would be the same. In fact Congress almost me this for Afghanistan, and folded completely when it came to Iraq. To sum up: The War Powers Act was not meant to deprive the President of his rightful Constitutional Power to fight in an emergency. It requires however that the President MUST go to Congress either before an act of war, or if this is impossible, to come to Congress at the earliest opportunity. Certainly both Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Iraq required actual declarations of war, even if the word is missing. Dave |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
You state share the blame, I state share the credit. There is not a formal DD form to declare war. Congress has found in the past their control over war by funding in special appropriations is far more control than giving carte blanche authority. We've only had five formal declarations. What that consist of Congress passes bills to declare a war. No big deal, no recourse, no control. Can you believe Congress telling President Roosevelt not to invade Italy, Bulgaria, Romania or France just Germany. The Wars Powers act didn't exist until 1973. Just how did we survive without it. Simple. Take the case of the Barbary Pirates. Then President Jefferson ordered the Navy to secure prisoners and safe passage of the Meditterean. To do this, the Navy/Marines did battle with a not so sovereignty self appointed monarch of North Africa, based in Tunis, Tripoli, Algiers, Salé and ports in Morocco. After winning, Jefferson conceded the territory back to him condemning those allies that assisted to prison and death. That was 1801. In 1815 the same battles, different President, had to win all over again. Just a brush of history that seems to repeat itself. Having to bleed over the same ground twice. The war powers of the President has been addressed a great deal. During President Lincoln's day his taking over banks, newspaper and transportation could not overshadow civilians imprisoned for alledge acts against the Union and no habeas corpus. Even Congress in the War Powers discussion has acknowledge the President has the ability of action without consent during times of threat to our country and its citizens. Spanish American, WWI and WWII were a long time coming. During the trying time of decision Presidents were balancing the scales and only through an overt aggressive act took us to war. We had the luxury for those wars were over there. This time the war came home. Congress and the President had to act quickly for a number of reasons, foremost allowing the country be brutally attacked without action only shows cowardice and begging for more of the same. Saddam was a good example to the middle east of how to score against the enemy without being directly injured. He continually going unscathed while those around him were being bludgeoned. Article II Section II directs the President as the Commander in Chief of armed forces. In this capacity he not only has the power but the responsibility of acting in the time of crisis. He would be breaking the law if he continually accepted armed aggression from source foreign and domestic without doing anything about it. |
|||
|
|
New Member |
First of all i'm no expert on this subject, but it seems to me that even if congress doesn't issue a formal declaration of war, authorizing funding for a war expresses approval of the actions of the president in sending our troops overseas.
If the congress doesn't think the president is acting within his constitutional powers it seems to me that they should refuse to fund a war until they have issued a formal declaration. Just my opinion... |
|||
|
|
suspended pending review,Nemesis |
You have a peculiar view of historical events. Italy declared war on the United States. France of course was occupied by Germany and we never made war "on France." Once a declaration of war is made, then you have to fight the enemy upon whom you declared war. This seems rather obvious to me - Apparently you seem to feel that Bush making war on Iraq, was because Iraq, like Italy, was an ally of our enemy. Pure fantasy as we knew then and know now.
Jefferson responded to the declaration of war made on US by the Barbary Pirates. The very name should tell you what kind of action this was. Plain and simple, it was an armed request that [/QUOTE]they cease making war on us, not that we were making war on them.
Fighting off raids by pirates hardly amounts to what you are claiming. In any case, Congress knew exactly what the issues were and approved the actions. They defacto approved of the war. They never delegated their resonsibilities away. Plain and simply BOTH Barbary wars, were simple police actions. In BOTH cases the pirates like all pirates were interested in one thing - They demanded money - That's it.
All acts that the Constitution specifically empowers the President to take with the approval of Congress - Which he got. The Supreme Court in fact ruled on this issue in 1866, stating that Lincohn was innitially acting uncontitutionally, until he got the approval of Congress, which made it legal.
That will cover Grenada, wont cover either Iraq of Afghanistan. Mr. Bush got his defacto Declaration of War for Afghanistan, but did not get such a declaration for Iraq. Instead Congress delegated it's Constitutional Powers to him. A shameful act of Unconstitutional cowardice on their part.
You mean we had no time to make decisions on Iraq and Afghanistan? But we DID act Constitutionally over Afghanistan. We certainly had YEARS to decide over Iraq. In Iraqs case even Bush took a year and a half to act. Indeed, he took far more time then his father, who did act Constitutionally.
This is nonsense, and you KNOW it's nonsense. In Gulf War One, Mr. Bush got his defacto Declaration of War from Congress, and there was a hell of a lot less time involved. Since the end of Gulf War One, Saddam was no threat to his neighbors, so what's your point? Crisis cannot be definned as a process in which months or years are taken to make decisions. For example, in Grenada, an immediate crisis in which hours counted required the President to act. He didn't have time to go to Congress - That's the definition of CRISIS! Dave |
|||
|
|
New Member |
Why on Earth are we even discussing this? The job of the president and other branches of government is to protect our interests and promote prosperity. You can throw around all the complaining legal crap you want... Iraq continued to fire on us after they signed a cease fire... period! It was unfinished business and continued to pose an international threat according to everyone at the time. I don't recall anyone other than Saddam Husein stating there were no WMD's there before the conflict.
Our leaders have a hell of a responsibility to uphold, America runs on oil, look at what is happening now. Our enemies are raking in record profits and all you people do is target the American companies who are. We need to transform form our energy plans to include everything else the great people of this nation can come up from hydrogen to ethanol, etc. We are the only country I know of that CHOOSES to be subordinated by the world market for oil rather than developing our own oilstocks further to ease transition to other energy sources over the next 20 years. |
|||
|
|
New Member |
Oh, yea... and Jeff Huber is still a crack pot. He should've done what everyone else who has served did this weekend... remember the fallen that fought and died to give him the right to publish his anti-everything U.S. propaganda.
God bless our troops in harm's way and bless the fallen. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Thanks for the reminder. Ms. Roth-Douquet is one bright lady. She can read the tea-leaves. Did you catch my comment on her article? |
|||
|
| Powered by Eve Community | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
