| Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 StereophileAVTech Media Americas Inc., USA
All rights reserved
Any war democrat runs...ask them...don't see any protests or riots over today's adventures.
Major difference, the Bush Administration wasn't handed two wars that had been seriously mismanaged for years nor a wrecked ecomnomy trillions in debt. The Bushies chose to go to war against two all but defenseless countries (and involve dozens of others which leaves Iran, China, Venezuela and North Korea stronger than the weakened countries Clinton had handed to Bush) who had not harmed the US.
If that is the "same boss" to you, then you and I see this very differently. I suspect the 4,00 plus dead and the 31 thousand plus wounded would agree as would the scores of casualties across the globe.
Under international law there have been legal wars.
Under moral doctrine, there are "justified" engagements.
Bush's wars are neither.
By any common sense, war is stupid and should not be entered on a whim, a series of lies and a misguided belief it will be a cakewalk nor should it be waged for political gain or the benefit of contributors.
I know, George told us that in early 2003.
The occupation by force, however, continues.
Get your head out of your ass, JIMV. This is real stuff. People are still be murdered and maimed.
I suppose that would make a good opening statement to the international courts when the Bush administration oficials are slowly rounded up for war crimes.
Must be convenient on your world where you get to determine what wars are legal
A virulent strain of BDS...you really do need to get that treated...untreated it will lead to hallucinations and constipation.
Must be very convenient in your world to get to ignore international laws and treaties.
So you don't think the Iraq war was legal?!
I've never heard a right wingnut job say that!
If the war is illegal, what should we do about its perpetrators? What would the appropriate action be to punish those who authorized and knew about illegal activities taking place during an ilegal war, actions such as torture or the murder of innocent civilians by mercenaries? What about war profiteers, what should we do with them? What would be the proper fate of a leader or leaders who took us unprepared into an illegal war?
Hmmmmm?
No question it was legal...only the crackpot left thinks otherwise. Besides...it is so 'last year'...drag your ire into 2009. We have a fellow destroying the economy of the entire world as I type and you are all singing his praises, clueless as to how much he is spending of other folks money.
Totally inaccurate.
WWII - Taken to victory over two world powers and their allies in 4 years or so. Democrats ran it exclusively.
WWI - Woody pretty much handled that problem. Democrat.
Korea - Herry went in, Ike capitulated. Worked out so well, we still have the problem.
Vietnam. Well, who started it? Ike? It was escalated by Kennedy and Johnson, and we were knocking the bad guys around until Nixon decided to capitulate. We saw how turned out. Boat people, surrender, communist rule. Destabilized Cambodia and allowed the Khmer Rouge take over and kill millions.
Reagan won Grenada!
Clinton won in Serbia without a casualty.
Bush 41 fought a war in Iraq and couldn't even oust Saddam. Bush I quit after a few hours. We saw how that turned out....
Bush 43: 6 years of wars without a clear goal. WWII was fought around the world in less time, by Democrats.
In the last 100 years, name a war the Republicans have won other than Grenada.
Democrats are the finishers, Republicans the chickenhawks.
Then you are wrong on all counts. The invasion was never aurhorized by any international body, actually the US was rebuked for entering into an act of aggression - oh, I know you hate those international bodies but they do exist and we used to get along with them until George came along - and war was never declaerd by Congress. The war has been as illegal as the armed occupation.
What is it about the war that makes you unable to realize it is for real and people are being killed? You cannot dismiss suffering and call yourself a human being. That the mess George and Dick made of the economy has taken people's attention off the war is no reason to dismiss it is "so last year" just to get off the hook for its results. Only a fool would say anything of the sort. It is and will remain for decades to come a drain on our economy and our standing in the world.
Once again trying to change the topic to your favorite few talking points is nothing more than a sign of a weak position or an unthinking mind. I'm beginning to believe you've hit the perfecta on this one, JIMV.
Oh this is too easy..the democrat congress came within one vote of eliminating the draft in July of 1941. The left was against Hitler when he was fighting the commies in Spain, all for Hitler when he signed the Non Aggression pact with Hitler in 1939 that let Hitler and Stalin carve up Poland, and loved Hitler until Hitler invaded Papa Joe in the summer of 1941...
He won in 1916 on a platform 'he kept us out of war' while millions dies in Europe. He then tried to tie us to the league of nations while the rest of the world laughed. He also had hundreds of seditionists arrested during the war contrary to today's lefts views on 'dissent'.
The war was pretty well botched as it was our first war where the politicians in Washington ran the thing, and 38,000 died.
Vietnam. Well, who started it? Ike? It was escalated by Kennedy and Johnson, and we were knocking the bad guys around until Nixon decided to capitulate. We saw how turned out. Boat people, surrender, communist rule. Destabilized Cambodia and allowed the Khmer Rouge take over and kill millions.
Yup, and Panama
Except the 500-2000 civilians killed in the bombing including a score of Chinese diplomats in their embassy.
The country would not let him finish...so we had to go back wen the barbarians kept killing folk and shooting at us.
WWII did not have the democrats fighting the terrorists war right here. Traitors then were shunned or rounded up.
You left out the lefts role in Vietnam...the only war we ever lost, because the dems sold out their country for power.
Republicans actually fight the wars...look at how the military votes. The left valiantly fights the political wars. Getting shot at for their country is not part of the lefts agenda.
'International body'???
Show me where the Constitution requires permission to act in our own self interest. You really do need to read the thing.
My ire is for where we are at right now. That is still defined by eight years of Republican incompetence and cronyism.
I'm not the least bit concerned with your predictions based on what Rush and Sean and Bill can conjure up to keep you line both with constant illogical fear and by hating anyone who doesn't repeat exactly what you have been brainwashed to say.
Remember when you predicted doom and gloom for the Stock Market after Obama was inaugurated? Didn't work out, did it? The Stock Market has regained some ground and consumer confidence is up, polls indicate more citizens feeling confident about the direction of the country for the first time in five years.
These are not exagerations either, they are hard numbers that exist as a reflection of where we have been and where we are headed.
While we still have a long way to go up from the depths to which GWB had taken us, the signs are pointing in the right direction, the bus is turning itself and it is only those who can do nothing more than hope for this country to fail who stand on the sidelines predicting the crash will come under a Democratic watch.
You all need to get out of the way when the bus is moving!
Precious little you have been told will happen has actually occurred, has it? The world hasn't come to an end, we haven't been attacked, the economy is slowly regaining strength, the world likes us a bit once again, Obama is being greeted as a welcome visitor and not as a pariah in England.
I would say you should take your own advice and direct your ire where it will do the most good - at those who got us into this mess and who insist on doing nothing to assist in our recovery rather than condemning any attempt to extricate us from the quagmire. Your party has no answers and you have nothing to say. Until you do your fearful predictions are wasting everyone's time.
Like I said, it's time for you to go count the canned goods in the bunker and leave the work to those willing to do it.
The Constitution provides for international treaties and agreements. It also places the function of declaring war in the hands of Congress, not in an imperial presidency.
You really need to read our founding documents and their amendments.
Congress voted for going to war in Iraq. So, much for your illegal war. You want to try again? Tell the ghosts of the Tokyo fire bombings that killed more civilians than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined about our legal war definitions. The fact remains there is no such thing legal about war. Especially, those that have experienced it. The words, "legal" and "war" together are an abomination to humanity. Bin Laden declared war against the United States. He didn't get sanctioned by the world body to attack America. Does that mean he declared an illegal war? You starting to see the stupidity in your illegal war logic?
Also, you seem to like to throw around the word, "fascist" a lot with GWB in mind. Likewise, I throw out the National Socialist Party in the same manner in contrast. The difference is I know what fascism and Nazism are and you don't and anyone with any sense knows that such folly is trying to sell a bill-of-goods. That much is obvious in your talking point rants that you expect us college educated folks to take seriously. You have graduated beyond high school, right? You do realize you have been trolled into obscurity?
Yep, this country was founded on operating in its own best interest. "From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli" aren't just lyrics in a song. It's about kicking some Mexican and Muslim ass a long time ago without asking the world for permission. Maybe Jan will go up to a Marine and tell him they need to change the lyrics. I hope so.
OK, I'll make it even simpler...where in any treaty does it require our having the permission of some foreign body to acting?
As to Congress declaring war...read the case law.
Yeah, if Bush was such a fascist why didn't he bring back the Sedition Act of 1918. It worked for Woodrow Wilson (D). Any respectable fascist would have done anything to forcibly suppress opposition and criticism. Last time I saw Bush he was letting someone throw a couple of shoes at him.
Sure, you're wrong. Congress voted to give the President the authority to use force.
Not the same as "go to war".
And the Republican controlled Congress at the time stopped a second vote on that resolution when it became clear Bush was going to kick the inspectors out of Iraq and start the shock and awe bombing.
There has never been a vote on a war resolution and there has never been a declaration of war on the state of Iraq made in the US Congress in the past eighteen years.
Check it out, dooooode!
Not from that mishmash of logic I don't. The Second World War was, by international consensus and moral equivalency, a "legal" and a "justified" war for the US to engage in. The fact remains there are "legal" wars and there are "illegal" wars. There are morally "justified" wars and there are "unjustified" wars. The invasion and continued occupation of Iraq by the US is neither legal nor morally justified.
I suppose it's worth explaining that, no, he did not begin a "legal' war. He started a religious war in the eyes of the Islamic world. That doesn't qualify as "legal" or "justified" to outside observers.
In the view of most outside observers Bin Laden instigated a criminal action that requires police action and not a military response. No country can declare "war" on an idea and Capitalism and terrorism are both nothing more than ideas. "You starting to see the stupidity in your illegal war logic?"
To the rest of your post ...
ROTFLMF'ingAO!!!!!
You're kidding, right? Gimmme a break, commissar LS.
God, that's a gut buster!!!!! Really, that is hysterical!!!!! Congratulations on being an idiot.
OK, how about the UN charter? We signed on as a charter member agreeing to abide by the UN regulations, resolutions, sanctions and provisions. The UN did not approve of the invasion of a soveriegn nation by the US when we had not suffered an act of aggression by the first nation or its allies. That's why Bush never went back for the second vote on the war resolution, you ninny! He knew he would be defeated again and his war of aggression would offically be condemned by an international body so he never went back for the second vote and just did as he pleased. Several nations tried to introduce resolutions that officially condemned the invasion but those resolutions were blocked by the US using its power as a permanent member of the Security Commitee. So the bombing began.
If George hadn't been seeking a "legal" war in the first place, he wouldn't have paid off his "coalition of the billing" and he wouldn't have bothered with the UN in the first place. Powell wouldn't have had to say those stupid things and accompany them with cartoons and the first resolution of force would have passed easily. George was well aware of the protocol involved in waging war, he just chose to ignore it when he didn't get the result he wanted.
"Case law" does not become Constitutional law nor can it supercede the Constitution. If it did, George would never have been annointed President by the US Supreme Court, State's Rights would have prevailed in that case and the recount would have continued under the order of the Florida Supreme Court.
The US Constitution gives Congress the sole ability to declare war, no other branch of the government can usurp that priviledge without a Constitutional amendment. So "case law" would be hard to apply to a basic tenet of the Constitution if that case had not resulted in a Constitutional amendment to that effect. That hasn't happened and isn't about to happen, that would be the Imprial Presidency so many people accused Cheney of engineering. That is why we no longer pay duty to the Queen.
There is no such amendment to the Constitution to provide the Executive Branch with the power to unilaterally declare war. The President has the perogative to act in an emergency to protect the nation from imminent threat (as in, "We can see it coming without using the binoculars") and then return to the Congress for a declaration of war - which constitutes a permission slip - but George was not faced with imminent threat and did not return to Congress for his permission slip. Like a petulant child he kicked out the inspectors and started bombing when things weren't going his way.
If you want to present "case law" as a defense in court, it's customary to present the case you are referring to. You don't tell the judge to "go read the case law" and expect the judge to do all the work you don't want to do. Show me what "case law" you have that proves GWB was entering into a legal war or shut up about it.
"Case law" certainly does not supercede any Consitutional provision or amendment when the "case law" has been made up to fit a predetermined outcome. Read the "case law" presented as a defense for denying so called "illegal combatants" their rights that even the US Supreme Court laughed at when George and Gonzo tried to sneak it through.
"Case law" is used as an argument in court, but it does not constitute law unto itself. Only the legislative branch of the US government can pass laws that are constrained by the US Constitution. The judicial branch can declare such a law unConsitutional, but the executive branch cannot perform either function.
If the court decides the case in question does not apply to the case being tried, then case law is nothing more than a back issue of an Archie comic book as far as the court is concerned.
Why don't you send these terrific ideas to Gonzo, he's going to need them when he is arrested for war crimes and God knows he ain't the greatest law mind going.
You two are just punch drunk now, aren't you? It happens when you get beaten everytime you turn around.
Give up, move on, you've lost.
Hey, I started a thread about the Republicans announcing their alternative "Obama's plan will fail" budget on April Fool's Day.
Announcing your budget on April Fool's Day?!
That should be good for a hunk o' yucks! I noticed you two haven't had anything to say about that bit o' brilliance on the Repub's part.
LOL!!!!!
Really..Article II section 7 provides for
"Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll."
Article 51 says this:
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security"
I looked up a dozen papers from law schools under the concept of the unilateral use of force and found that those from liberal sources says it is illegal and those with a more conservative slant disagree making the issue one of opinion and not law.
Case law under the Constitution is the law that counts as the cases in question define what the particular part of the Constitution means under that law. Look up Marbuty v Madison and Judicial Review. Just what do you think the court is reviewing?....case law. The Supreme court trumped the corrupt Florida Court, upholding the Constitution and substantive due process. Read the case.
Only 5 wars in our history have ever been declared yet we have been in over a score of wars or police actions. The courts have never precluded such actions and the Congress could have exercised its power to stop the action at any time by cutting off the Money. That is what they eventually did in Vietnam, leading to our only military defeat.
Actually, when one is squealing something is illegal, it is usually the responsibility of the person making the claim to provide the specific law being broken.
Article II - And the UN did not intervene in George's plans, did they? However, that wasn't the issue in making the invasion legal. George went to the UN to gain their (an international body with whom we [the US] had agreed to abide) approval, to legitimize his war. He didn't get it and then said "screw it" when it became obvious he would not gain approval on the second vote - he knew his actions would be delegitimized - so he did what he pleased. Why do you think George personally went to the UN? Why did he send Powell to make the presentation if he wasn't asking for their approval?
That he did those things did not make his war legal. The resolutions introduced by other member nations on the day the invasion began would indicate exactly that.
It was an act of aggression against a sovereign state that had not attacked the US. There were no legitimate threats that could have been considered "imminent" coming from Iraq. That is why George did not get his war resolution in the UN. Why don't you look up the UN article that speaks to acts of aggression against member states and what the repercussions to those actions should be? There was no precedent for what George did. Period!
We as a nation went to war against Iraq in 1991 when it invaded another nation and in that case there was some degree of provocation on the part of the invaded nation. The Republican Presidents cannot have this both ways. Either it is illegal to invade or it is not. Which is it and what then makes anyone in their right mind believe the 2003 invasion was "legal"?
Answer; nothing.
We were not attacked by Iraq, were we? That would seem to any rational person to make this article unhelpful toward legalizing or even legitimizing the invasion.
Did you check to see what those opinions were before George invaded a country that did not attack us and which posed no imminent threat to our national security?
What do you think "case" law is? It applies to a specific case only. It can be used as an argument for legal standing but it is not binding law until the Legislative branch makes it so. That's Civics 101. Only the Legislative branch can make a law.
Often case law applies in a state but not in a federal trial. Often case law is denied because the court deems it irrelevant to the case at hand. If Alabama invaded New York, there still would be no case law for George to invade Iraq.
Actually, that means nothing, Panama and Grenada, two other invasions of sovereign nations that had not attacked the US, two other invasions waged by Republican Presidents, were undeclared and illegal wars, that doesn't make them a matter of precedent to follow. It should in fact make them precedents to avoid as they were illegal actions taken by the Executive Branch without consent of Congress. They border on being unConstitutional and illegal under international laws.
Actually, when one wants to use case law as an argument, the person wishing to introduce the specific case law is the one who introduces the specific law and then explains just how it pertains to the case at hand.
Either show me the case law that would justify the Iraq invasion as "legal" or shut up about it. You brought up the subject of "case law", now you need to prove which case and how it applies. Until you do so, this is a dead subject and you are just spouting BS you thought you had heard on some right wing talk show.
"I don't understand why you buy eggs at seven cents a piece in Malta and sell them for five cents."
?????....how soon they forget. How convenient is the memory of the left. Using YOUR argument, we were operating under a UN resolution to enforce no fly zones where Saddam could not use his airforce to murder his citizens. Saddam was shooting at those flights on almost a daily basis by the time we attacked...I guess those didn't count as attacks. The barbarian tried to kill an ex president...but I guess that is OK as long as that President was not a democrat.
"imminent"...nothing in our Constitution that requires a threat be imminent before we stop it. That was pre-911 thinking and resulted in thousands dead. But that is OK, after all, the left set up those rules so they must have been right...the Church Commission, Goerelick's 'wall'...amazing stupidity.
No issue goes to the court unless a law already exists. When the issue goes to the court, the courts determination in turn becomes the law until it is reversed by a new law or change in court ruling.
Let me ask you a question...Can the Government fine a farmer for growing grain for his own use on his own land where that grain never leaves the property much less cross state lines? If so, under what Constitutional provision?
Can the Congress pass any law they desire? Is a law on its face 'unconstitutional'? if not, by what process does it become unconstitutional?
Interesting concept, but not based in law. What makes an act 'illegal'? Hint, it is not your saying it is.
Not under the US legal system. In our system one is considered innocent until found guilty through a specific process, a trial. If there is no trial, there is no guilt, regardless of partisan desires. If the body of case law does not find the behavior in question a violation of the law, there is no violation.
For there to be that trial there must be a law in violation, an arrest under that law, and a trial and conviction. Failing that...you have opinion and partisanship.
Again...you claim the war was illegal. Your evidence is, opinion. Present me your legal case so I can rebut your position. As it is all I rebut is your opinion, which, is based on, the opinions of fellow cocktail party revolutionaries of the far left. Their views do not count in the court.
We fought the war. The act is done. Make your legal case or stop pretending the action is illegal.
You're getting awfully deep in the woods to argue a point that is not arguable. And your plan here is what? Just throw enough pasta at the wall to see what sticks?
You really might just want to skip down to here; * because you've got so much BS in here that is just wasted space.
Yes, the Iraqi's were interfering with our aircraft, they had been doing that for twelve years prior to the invasion and we had been flying further outside of the "no-fly zone" into Iraqi airspace under George in an attempt to taunt them into shooting down one of our pilots. Bush was prepared to sacrifice a flyer or three to get his war. But Saddam never took that bait, did he? Do I need to mention Bush's plan to disguise a US plane as a UN aircraft in an attempt to start a "justified" war?
GWB never made the no-fly zone a serious issue in the run up to the invasion, did he? If that were a legitmate case for going to war, he could have presented that to Congress and to the UN and had a vote on that. He didn't. Why do you suppose that is? Maybe because only the most rabid hawks would have declared war on a nation that still to that point had not downed an aircraft or captured a flyer.
That wasn't even a very good try, JIMV.
Bush Scandals List
192. A list of reasons to invade Iraq
Selling the war: Part 1. Iraq the reasons. Some say there was no reason for the war. This is untrue. Many reasons were given for it, just no good one. Here are a dozen of them grace of Bush, Cheney, the neocons from the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), and the 2002 AUMF.
WMD
Saddam Hussein behind 9/11
Saddam Hussein connected with al Qaeda
Fighting terrorists there so we don
Oh for heavens sake...you go from a bad legal case to one of the famous internet lists of pretend crimes and spun events to prove a point you cannot prove,
As I said, give me a LEGAL case...skip the opinion, the fake lists, the imaginary numbers and BS pretending to be facts...A legal case...you know, with constitutional cites and specific case law...A LEGAL case...
As long as you dredge up BS, you are not proving your case...Put another way, just because your cocktail party revolutionary friends say something does not make it either true of a prevailing opinion in court.
Oh, and case law trumps common law...all actual law trumps all opinion, legal dissent, law review articles, etc. Only when a senior judge says that this is the law and the appeals process has run out is it the law...
You are trapped in political theory pretending to be law, opinion pretending to be law. You sound like folk I argue with on 2nd amendment forums who believe the founders intended armor to be a protected weapon under the amendment. Nothing at all supports that but they want it to be so it is...in the court of their opinion.
I'm sure somewhere in the recesses of your skull you think this is intelligent repartee.
It ain't!
I know "Catch 22" is your favorite movie of all time but it falls about 187th on my list.
Get a brain, Commissar LS.
Still, there is law and then there is your opinion...
As I said, no!
I am free to give my opinion. If you don't like my opinion, you're free to give your own. I am not trying a case here - this is after all an audio forum where you just happen to have found a cozy home to use as your own a political slander forum.
You told me to read "case law", like there was only one "case law" to read. You haven't said which "case law" would pertain to this situation, you've just driven the bus of the cliff trying to obfuscate and derail your own post!
You have done nothing to progress your point other than to say mine is only opinion. I never denied that. I and many others say the invasion was illegal! Until there is a court trial - which is unlikely given the muiltitude of other crimes Bush can be tried on - there is no "legal" decision, there is only opinion. My "legal case" presented to you would acomplish what exactly? On the other hand, your telling me what "case law" you were referring to would at least let me know you atre not just full of hot air. Tell me what case law you meant or else you are the one who looks like a fool here.
So you have introduced an issue - case law- which you cannot back up and now you want to tell me I only have opinion on my side?!!! What sort of BS is that?!!! This is how you debate?!!!!!
GeeeeeezuuuuusChrrrrrriiiiiiiist!
That deserves a ROTFLMF'ingAO!!!!!!!!!
That really does!
Really, guy, taking this into another world is hardly a debating style that wins hearts and minds. You just made yourself look like a class A fool!
Hahahahahahahahaha! That's great, just great.
Show me the "case law".
Huh? Oh, you can't! You don't have any "case law" to prove your opinion? There is no "case law" that would make the invasion of Iraq legal?
I knew that.
Now what does that have to do with the economy and the on-going occupation?
Hmmmmm?
My point is made...you have none. When you get your act together, speak to me of those imaginary illegal wars...tell then, tell your equally uninformed buddies. I am sure they will all pat you on the back and advise you how clever your are, while not producing anything in the way of a legal case.
It is easy being a leftie...you never have to prove anything. Simply saying it is enough in your world.
And simply saying "read the case law" and then never producing "case law" is equally easy in the world of people with no respect for the law - that would be the right wing nut jobs.
Show me the case law that makes the invasion legal.
That's all you have to do to prove you are not as nuts as you seem to be.
Pretty simple, you started this, you brought up "case law" now you have the opportunity to end it by showing me the case law.
Can you do it?
I think not.
"I'll tell you what justice is. Justice is a knee in the gut from the floor on the chin at night sneaky with a knife brought up down on the magazine of a battleship sandbagged underhanded in the dark without a word of warning."
On premptive war
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm
On the legality of the war and detainment
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/03-334/03-334.mer.ami.4states.pdf
On the legality of undeclared wars
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=400&invol=886
On congressional approval of the actions taken
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution
etc, etc, etc
The left likes to ignore congressional action, case law and supreme court precedent because it does not agree with their one world order international anti american rules trumps our Constitution and law.
There are literally scores of cases where the actions taken are allowed BUT, the left pretends they do not exist, even though the case law on their side is few and far bewteen and mostly reversed on appeal.
WHAT?!
Commissar LS, eihter make real responses or go back to your DVD player, it's calling you.
Case law is moot. Public law is relevant.
Public Law 93-148
Public Law 105-338
Public Law 107-40
Public Law 107-243
All interrelated. All legal. All laws.
I do not think our friend understands the idea of law...simply emoting and calling Bush a meanie is sufficient in Jan's world. Why all his or her associates know it is so, making it so.
Wow! You can use a search engine. If you had presented anything that actually made the invasion of Iraq legal through case law, I would have been impressed.
So far you've shown me the arguments presented by John Yoo who is one of the Bush administration officials about to be indicted and pursued by Spain for his part is abstracting the law to justify torture. Then you provided the Alabama Attorney General's argument for whether US courts have jurisdiction over detainees. This is like giving me the argument of a mass murderer for killing people - in fact it is almost identical.
Then you tried to pass of a 1970 decision that ruled individual States do not have the right to decide their citizens are absolved from fighting in a Congressionally declared war. A "Congressionally" declared war! Unless you care to pay attention to who does the declaring of war in this ruling this is even less useful to the issue.
Finally, yes, you have provided the resolution I mentioned several pages ago. This is where the disagreement falls between Liberals and Conservatives as to what this law actually authorized Bush to do. It is not a declaration of war. It has nothing to do with the UN whose approval GWB sought without winning his case.
Providing it does not prove your case any more than it proves mine, though mine is a bit better supported here since this is not a Congressional declaration of war. However, Conservatives won't believe that, they believe Dick Cheney.
So far you've proven nothing other than your ability to dig up non-related documents.
Try this one ...
Keep trying, guys, this is getting to be hillarious!
Public Law 93-148: "providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat. The War Powers Resolution requires that the president notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war."
We had not been attacked by Iraq and the inspectors were doing their job inside of Iraq when George kicked them out to start the bombing. This only confirms that Congress alone has the power to declare war and the Executive Branch does not.
It's called,"pissing on your shoes and telling you its raining". The likes of Jan would rather see one-tenth of one percent of bonuses be unconstitutionally taxed at 90% than making sure the 99.9% of people associated with the same corporation getting the pensions they earned. There is no real truth to Jan's self-centered and selfish moral dogma and dilemma. He isn't excited Obama won the presidency. He's too busy building up Internet case law against congressional public law. I suggest he get a good attorney.
Jan, like many Bush protesters, erroneously espouses from some indirect sources that he himself has not actually read let alone properly researched. The arguments he propounds are often elaborately structured and rely upon quotations either misconstrued, taken out of context, or from circumstances which are not subject to any existing law or no law at all. Such as archaic laws prior to current public law 93-148. Surely the current public laws are just as easy to research as the archaic ones. Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest as a means to an end. We cannot prohibit people like Jan from holding his beliefs but we the people can penalize him if he acts on some of those beliefs. That is the law. I'm sure his angst over Bush goes beyond what he would dare not post on the Internet.
It's too bad that Jan doesn't realize that if Bush was a fascist that Jan would be either imprisoned or dead by this time. There would be no Obama as president. Bush would still be president. I don't base this on my own opinion. I base it solely on Jan's own rants posted on these forums. The fact that Bush served out his term and Obama is now president is of no interest to Jan.
I just want to apologize to the rest of the forum for purposely trolling Jan. I honestly did not believe he would fall of the edge to such a degree. He was obviously understating his radical element involvement over at Democratic Underground. I'm referring to the very small totalitarian percentage of DU membership that control the entire exchange of ideas or rather lack thereof. Some have mislabeled him as a liberal. Jan is not a liberal. He hasn't a liberal bone in his body. Jan is an anarchist. There will always be somebody in power that will keep him awake at night. For that I am forever grateful for the torture that must cause him to endure.
Who ya' talkin' to?
Oh, yeah, yourself.
ROTFLMAO!
Commissar LS, I have Italian blood in me. Italians invented fascism - and they hung it upside down in the streets too! You got no clue what fascism is you poor little deluded child you.
Hey, Commissar! What are you doing on an audio forum?
Oh, yeah! Nothing!
ROTFLMAO!
You two are boring me!
I'm Italian too. So, what's your point? We're both wrong? Right? Who gives a fuck if you're Italian.
Commissar LS! What's the matter, you don't know how to post something without resorting to "fuck"?
You are a sorry POS!
And you're still boring me.
Italians in my family say, "Fuck You!" to just about everybody.
Old Italian Man in Whorehouse: "You put so much stock in winning wars. The real trick lies in losing wars, in knowing which wars can be lost. Italy has been losing wars for centuries, and just see how spendidly we've done nonetheless. France wins wars and is in a continual state of crisis. Germany loses and prospers. Look at our own recent history. Italy won a war in Ethiopia and promptly stumbled into serious trouble. Victory gave us such insane delusions of grandeur that we helped start a world war we hadn't a chance of winning. But now that we're losing again, everything has taken a turn for the better, and we will certainly come out on top again if we succeed in being defeated."
Alas, here I go again. Trolling Jan is like being on auto-pilot.
The only way to figure out which war was illegal is to look at who was put on trial and what the verdict was.
Yes Buddha we know that. But you need an indictment first.
You can indict a peanutbutter sandwich.
even if it has jelly ?
Especially if it has jelly. Jelly ignorance is no excuse.
Pages