WASHINGTON, May 22 — Army Gen. Tommy Franks, who orchestrated the U.S. military campaign against Iraq, has decided to retire, Pentagon officials told NBC News on Thursday.



http://www.msnbc.com/news/916898.asp?0cv=CB10



AFP. 21 May 2003. Tommy Franks case to be appealed to Belgium's council of state.

BRUSSELS -- The lawyer seeking to have the commander of the US forces in Iraq tried for alleged war crimes on Wednesday attacked the Belgian government for passing the case over to US prosecutors.

Jan Fermon claimed the decision to refer charges against General Tommy Franks, commander of the US and British forces in the military intervention to overthrow Saddam Hussein, to the other side of the Atlantic was illegal and said he would take the affair to the country's Council of State.

"At the beginning of next week (I shall seek) the suspension and then the cancellation of this decision from the Council of State," Fermon, who represents 17 Iraqis and two Jordanians, told AFP.

Belgium's "universal competence" law allows charges for alleged war crimes to be brought regardless of where they took place.

The charges against Franks allege that US troops in Iraq fired on ambulances, did not show due care in avoiding civilian casualties and failed to safeguard Iraq's cultural heritage.

But on Tuesday the Belgian governmment decided to pass the case to US prosecutors on the advice of the federal prosecutor's office, where the suit was filed last week.

It was the first time the Belgian government had used the powers conferred on it by recent changes to the law to transfer cases to the jurisdiction of the country of origin of the accused individual if it was satisfied he would be fairly treated.

But Fermon argued that the Belgian government, which resigned following last Sunday's general election and is supposed to be operating as a caretaker administration, had no reason to act with such speed.

Furthermore, he argued, such an intervention was in absolute contradiction of the elementary principle of the separation of powers and he accused the Belgian government of "capitulating" to US pressure.

The United States had demanded that the Belgian government move to dismiss the case.

Some 30 current or former political leaders are facing legal action under the law, including Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and former US president George Bush.

http://www.utopia2000.org/

I can see it now; at Franks' trial his defense attorney, Dan Quayle, produces of box of Bic pens seized from Sadam Hussein's desk and argues that these constitute weapons of mass destruction, since they could cause severe head injury or blood poisoning if dropped from a high altitude balloon over New York City.

...Court Martialed for accepting an unlawful Order.

This War was conducted without a formal Declaration of War By Congress which is the ONLY Constitutional authority which has the Authority to Order the Country to War.

The President does not have that Authority.

There is nothing in the Constitution which allows Congress to abictate this responsibility to the President.

This War was illegal under the U.S. Constitution.

Franks should be Tried and Hung by the Neck until Dead.

He is a Traitor to his Country and deserves only the rewards granted to Traitors.

A long Rope and a Tall Tree.

Somebody's never heard of the War Powers Act of 1973.

And if you believe the War Powers Act is un-Constitutional, then (here it is again) take it to court and get it overturned.

Until then, it's the law.

...is apallingly clear.

First you are correct the War Powers Act is Unconstitutional. There is nothing in the Constitution which authorizes Congress to Delegate it's responsibility in the Declaration of War.

However, for someone to challenge an act as Unconstitutional they must have "Standing" before the Court to do so otherwise the challenge will be summarily rejected and dismissed.

Unless you are already Party to a case where said Act has been exercised you do not have standing.

Any member of Congress does by virtue of their position as a Congressperson.

Again the correct Venue for Launching a Challenge is the Congress of the United States.

A Citizen may, under the Constitution, petition for redress of grievances but such a plea has no teeth. You cannot force the issue.

Further even if you achieve Standing, impossible for an ordinary Citizen off the Street, such a Challenge is likely to cost several Millions of Dollars.

You want to donate Ten Mil. to the cause?

...are under a Positive Obligation to observe the Constitution - they swear an Oath to that effect.

It is their right and their Duty to not accept an Illegal Order.

Franks predecessor REFUSED as CENTCOM to launch the Iraq Attack. He was relieved of duty but not prosecuted.

Why?

The War Powers Act is Unconstitutional. Any attempt to Prosecute Franks' predecessor would have failed and a precedent would have been set.

Q.E.D.

>First you are correct the War Powers Act is Unconstitutional.

I never said that. Pay attention.

You have an predisposition to shoot your mouth off without thinking. Of course, your inability to think at all is glaring.

>Again the correct Venue for Launching a Challenge is the Congress of the United States.

I love it. Mr. Arm-Chair Lawyer can't move off it and he's scared to call an real attorney and learn differently. Advocacy groups are constantly going to court over laws they believe to be grevious or unconstitutional. We all know this.

Example:

"Whatever the ultimate fate of the USA Patriot Act, one thing is certain: It will face a serious challenge by advocates who believe that the American government should have limited power over its people."

http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2002/04/11042002091656.asp

Dingo, have you contributed to an advocacy group to help them move this forward?

Also:

"But Steinhardt said that if the government monitored Abdel-Rahman's conversations with Stewart to build a case against the lawyer, then this element of the USA Patriot Act probably will face a court challenge, and a judge may rule it unconstitutional."

How does the Patriot Act face "a court challenge" where a "judge may rule (at least part of) it unconstitutional" if the only "correct Venue for Launching a Challenge is the Congress of the United States"? My, what a waste of time to take it to court when all you got to do is get your Democratic Congressmen and women who would dearly love to see Bush go down and would dearly love to completely ruin the Republican Party (especially after Florida 2000) to stand on the Senate and House floors and day after day pound the podium and demand a challenge to The Patriot Act. So why don't they?

The War Powers Act is LAW. Unless it's challeged and overturned, it remains the LAW.

Deal with it.

...disproves my point.

In all of the examples listed the Parties bringing suit have Standing because of an Exercise of the act in Question.

Do you have a problem with reading the Constitution.

Where in the Constitution is the authority for Congress to delegate it's Responsibility for the Declaration of War?

Cite the Article and the text.

Try again.

Have a nice day.

In order to disprove your point, you'd actually have to make one worth considering.

The War Powers Act of 1973 is LAW. Unless it is ruled unconstitutional, it remains the LAW.

Deal with it.

...a triviality.

You seem to be the one having trouble dealing with it.

I am used to, and expect, corrupt Politicos to abuse their position.

You still have no point. Because something is treated as Law does not mean it is Constitutional.

"A true Patriot hates injustice in his own land more than in any other." - Clarence Darrow

I'm pounding the nail with a hammer. You're still tappin' it with that paper clip of yours.

>Because something is treated as Law does not mean it is Constitutional.

It's LAW until it's proven to be unconstitutional. The average American citizen understands this.

If you don't like it then do something about it. I'm the last person to stand in your way of challenging the law if you believe it to be unconstitutional. For the rest of us, it's not our problem.

...if you are a Patriot and value the historic freedoms of this country.

Jefferson, Adams, Henry, Madison - all viewed defense of the Constitution as a responsibility of all Citizens.

That is one of the reasons for the Second Amendment and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The last barricade against a corrupt and tyrannical government.

Regardless of whether or not you support a given action the Constitution protects your fundamental freedoms when you voluntarily surrender your rights and responsibilities as a free Citizen you become that much a slave.

You are welcome to do as you wish.

“The best we can hope concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”

-- Alexander Hamilton

“We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed;..."

-- Thomas Jefferson from the Declaration of Independence

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom, it is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."

- - William Pitt (The Younger) 1783

I tell the truth, not as much as I would like to, but as much as I dare. I dare more and more as I grow older.

-- Montaigne

I believe the War Powers Act to be Constitutional. So do many, many others. So many, in fact, that we aren't taking up arms and challenging it.

The Constitution gives Congress the right to make laws. The War Powers Act is one of those laws. If you believe the law to be unconstitutional, then do something about it. Mouthing off about it to me and others ain't getting the job done.

If you believe The War Powers Act to be unconstitutional, then that's your problem, not mine. If you believe it's my problem and I just don't see it, then that's your problem, too.

You leftys believe you got all the damn answers. To which we all say: Whatever. And then we go on and do the right thing whether you like it or not. If you don't like that we do that, that's your problem.

You've got lots of problem.

...is Morons who would use the Constitution as toilet paper because there beloved Fuhrer tells them to.

Been to any good Book Burnings lately.

Brigg you are loser, a jingoist, and are no way shape or form a Patriot.

You are the kind of person most dangerous to this country. Someone who would surrender all that many thousands of men and women have given their "last measure of devotion" to preserve.

You are a venal small minded nincompoop who thinks that adhering to a Politician and his corruption is his Patriotic duty. What a Pant Load.

>Franks predecessor REFUSED as CENTCOM to launch the Iraq Attack. He was relieved of duty but not prosecuted.

BTW, you wanna link that to something. The newswires just don't seem to be hot with this bit of revealing info.

Good! Reduced to attacking me personally. Just like they tell you to do in the little Red Book. Can't handle people who disagree with them. The left has all the answers. The rest of us are just lucky you're here to save us from ourselves. Nice.

first you've got to want help.

I misremembered my reference and so thus stand rightly corrected.

What I was thinking of was the following:

"General Frederick Woerner--commander in Panama and replaced by Bush senior when he wouldn't obey an illegal military order to attack Panama

* Admiral William Crowe--Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and replaced by Bush senior when he wouldn't obey an illegal military order to attack Panama."

Franks was mentioned in the same paragraph and so I got the two jumbled - it has been a few months since I read the article. Not an excuse though. I should have gone back and checked my reference.

Here's the Link to the original article: http://www.hermes-press.com/brainwash1.htm

If you hate Muslims and niggers as much as we do, visit our website.

Racist pricks need to die.

And so do you.

Constitution thumpers are just like Jehovas Witnesses. The roll up to your door and try to tell you why "your religion" is the wrong one. When you tell them you're an atheist and begin to explain why theres is wrong, they plug their ears and chant "I can't hear you" at the tops of their lungs.

Constitutionality is VERY open to interpretation. Hence we have a judicial branch of Government, not some indymedia liberal, telling us what is and what is not Constitutional.

The war powers act IS law, whether you like it or not. I've heard strong arguments for the unconstitutionality of being forced to pay Federal Income Taxes too, but don't pay 'em and see what happens. The courts uphold laws and Congress makes 'em.

And whiny assed liberals complain about 'em.

...with some people when the limitations on government actions by the Constitution are inconvenient they are ready to don their boots and stomp all over it.

Sad really.

The Constitution was designed to put limits on Government.

Because someone wishes to do something or Congress passes a law does not mean it is legal under the Constitution.

There is another name for those who argue for a "flexible" Constitution: Slaves.

It's not us to prove that the War Powers Act is Constitutional. It's up to you to prove that it is not.

And whining, followed with a few quotes from patriotic founding fathers, is not proving your case.

The WPA was created because of exactly the foundation of your argument. Constitutionally, it is in fact, the duty of Congress to formally declare war. Unfortunately, because Congress is composed of hundreds of people, all with differing opinions on any given subject, in many cases that process is way too slow. Just the same as you and I can't agree on the Constitutionality of the WPA, Congress could be tied up for an eternity deliberating whether or not to declare war. Meantime, we would be getting our asses kicked by the enemy.

So Congress utilized another one of their "Constitutional Powers" to find away around this. They created a law that authorizes the President the ability to take the troops to battle while the politicians sit on their fat asses an debate.

So while the WPA may not adhere to the "spirit" of the Constitution, it certainly does meet the "letter" of the document. Which is a perfect example of what I mean when I claim that the Constittution is not "the end all, be all". You Constitution thumpers claiming that it is are only fooling yourselves.

Constitutionality is a debatable issue regarding many, many laws. But until the courts decide that they are, they remain law, and we continue to adhere to those laws. Such are the hallmarks of an orderly society.

that you, by opposing the WPA based on an argument that it is not Constitutional, are a traitor to the country. The majority of Americans would agree that it is a necessary law and by trying to undermine it, you are put the rest of us in jeopardy. You make think yourself a patriot, but really, you're a Benidict Arnold or a Johnny Walker Jr.

In short you, are a traitor to the American people.

It must suck to walk around be so afraid all the time.

Do you know anything about the law?

I'm not afraid at all. I know the troops are out there taking care of my way of life, and I know we finally have a competent leader at the helm.

This Country was founded as a Nation of Laws and Not of Men. When that basis is abrogated then we have entered a time of tyranny.

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom, it is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”

- - William Pitt (The Younger) 1783

“No Man is justified in doing evil on the ground of expediency.”- - Theodore Roosevelt

The moment you throw out the Constitution as the Senior Authority for the Government you have thrown out the basis of any legitimate authority the Government has. What you would by your arguments advocate, whether it is your intent or not, is a despotic government with a Ruler and Subjects not a Constitutional Republic consisting of free Citizens who have delegated some authority to that government.

So, pray tell:

Which article of the Constitution Grants to the President the authority to unilaterally declare war?

Which Article of the Constitution grants to the Congress the authority to delegate their Constitutional Responsibility to Declare War to the Executive?

Cite the Article and the text.

Of course you will not do so because like all Quislings you are in favor of what is expedient for your Fuhrer and no such references exist. Do you not think that the concern that a temporary expediency could be used to circumvent the Constitution was not debated in Philadelphia?

In “The Most Dreaded Enemy of Liberty” James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, commented thus:

“The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the power of declaring a state of war. . . the power of raising armies. . . the power of creating offices. . . .

A delegation of such powers [to the President] would have struck, not only at the fabric of our Constitution, but at the foundation of all well organized and well checked governments.”

“I think that you, by opposing the WPA based on an argument that it is not Constitutional, are a traitor to the country. The majority of Americans would agree that it is a necessary law and by trying to undermine it, you are put the rest of us in jeopardy. You make think yourself a patriot, but really, you're a Benidict Arnold or a Johnny Walker Jr.

In short you, are a traitor to the American people.”

The sheer idiocy of the foregoing is almost enough to strike one speechless. It bespeaks volumes of ignorance and total lack of knowledge of even the barest fundamentals underlying the creation of the Constitution and it’s structure and intent.

The Constitutional prohibitions against the arbitrary exercise of power were designed to protect the nation against the rash actions of an irresponsible majority. In the event you don’t get it, entirely possible, the point is that it protects, by among other things making it difficult to change, the rights and freedoms of all. The only way to legally grant the Power to decide to go to war to the President is by Constitutional Amendment.

“The WPA was created because of exactly the foundation of your argument. Constitutionally, it is in fact, the duty of Congress to formally declare war. Unfortunately, because Congress is composed of hundreds of people, all with differing opinions on any given subject, in many cases that process is way too slow. Just the same as you and I can't agree on the Constitutionality of the WPA, Congress could be tied up for an eternity deliberating whether or not to declare war. Meantime, we would be getting our asses kicked by the enemy.”

That is pure unadulterated Horse Shit. The President has the Constitutional authority to act to repel invasions in an emergency. If somebody launches an attack against the United States he does not need to wait for a formal Declaration of War to defend the Nation. To argue that the War Powers Act is needed for this is simply ignorance or disingenuousness.

The separation of War Declaration from the execution of a War was done specifically to prevent the arbitrary use of military power to the enrichment of a few and to the detriment of the Republic as a whole. The so-called “War Powers Act” violates the separation of War Making from the deliberative Process of Declaring War. The separation was done to prevent corrupt use of the military and to specifically ensure that a Declaration of War would in fact be deliberated. Going to war is not something which should be undertaken lightly. As we have seen in Iraq the reasons stated for going to war were false. That is why the founding fathers separated War Making from War Declaring.

Take a look at Rome. What happened to the Roman Republic when the Senate abdicated their authority in favor of an Emperor? A temporary emergency became a permanent state of affairs.

The “Enabling Act” enacted “to quell disturbances in Germany” is what allowed Hitler to assume dictatorial power.

I think I would rather err with Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, Jay, Washington, Adams, Henry, Franklin, and the rest of the Founding Fathers than accept Airic's notion of the proper separation of powers. I have no desire to see my country become a dictatorship.

You really should spend some time reading Jefferson, or Washington or Adams or Jay and put that copy of Mein Kampf back on the shelf for a while.

Through your laziness and neglect you would by your failure to take the time to understand the Founding of the Country and the Arguments that went into establishing that Constitution throw out the very thing which for so long made this country the Beacon of Freedom it was. What you would so blithely and ignorantly throw out in favor of rule by a Tyrant is the very document that establishes the form of our government and defines its authority.

In all candor I must admit that I find the words of the Founding Fathers of greater weight and moment than those of your Fuhrer. For example:

“If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

-- George W. Bush December 18, 2000

I prefer Jefferson:

On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.

— Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), letter to Judge William Johnson, (from Monticello, June 12, 1823)

Or Washington:

If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.

— George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now. — South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905)

I don't dispute that at all. Sounds like we're in agreement. The WPA is a law.

So what are you whining about now, liberal?

Dingo's whining cause he doesn't have the exclusive rights to decide what is constitutional law and what isn't. It's easier to declare "It's not constitutional law", expect people to accept that statement as the gospel, and then build your strawman arguments on top of that rather than actually letting the other foot hit the floor and join an advocacy group to pressure Congress and/or take the matter before the courts. Don Quixote rides again.

"Which article of the Constitution Grants to the President the authority to unilaterally declare war?"

Which article precludes the President from the authority to unilaterally declare war?

"Which Article of the Constitution grants to the Congress the authority to delegate their Constitutional Responsibility to Declare War to the Executive?"

And which article precludes this?

Cite the Article and the text.

Of course you will not do so because like all traitors like you are in favor of what is expedient for the undermining of America and the rapid abolishment of our way of life, and no such references exist.

"Which article of the Constitution Grants to the President the authority to unilaterally declare war?"

"Which article precludes the President from the authority to unilaterally declare war? "

Article 1, Section 8.

Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

It is the purpose of the WPAto fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

Never has the US military been taken into ANY conflict in all of historry, where neither of (1), (2), or (3) above were not first met.

I challenge you to prove me wrong.

Hey guys. I was wondering if you could point me to the laws regarding prior sovereignty of Native Americans?

When Europeans invaded did they entreaty with the natives as required by magna carta (foundation of all western law)? Or did they kill the native people and force survivors onto reservations?

I have a sneaky feeling that all US law for the past 400 years maybe illegal in regard to international law. Perhaps the Global Policeman should check it's own record of murder, rape and pillage before telling the rest of us about truth and justice.

It's a funny thing but I cannot support a State founded on land theft and genocide.

>It's a funny thing but I cannot support a State founded on land theft and genocide.

Welcome to the planet Earth. Someone always possesses land before someone else conquers it from them. It's how we do things around here.

Great name there, Geronimo. Me and some of the other parents showed your name to some kids on the playground and they think it's a great name, too. They're going to say your name everytime they jump off the higher points of the playground equipment.

Yeah OK tell em thats what you yell when twin towers go down.

Well Airic,

you show an ability to read but no real comprehension. The intent and design of the Constitution was specific in that the powers ceded to the Federal Government and it’s various branches are ENUMERATED powers. Let’s see if I can explain this in small words for you.

Enumerated means named or listed, detailed. The Constitution was written to limit the powers ceded to the Federal Government to just those listed and no more.

Laws issuing from the authority of Article 1 Section 8 are limited to only those areas to which the LIMITED authority of Congress extends and no more.

Here quoted is the EXACT text:

“To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

I note that you conveniently kind of “forgot” to quote the actual text cited. Also you forgot to mention the full extent of the qualification on that legislative power. Must have slipped your mind eh?

The Constitution and it’s distribution of powers and authorities are not amenable to change by mere legislative fiat. The only LEGAL way to change those powers and the manner in which they are apportioned is by AMENDMENT. Amendment requires the CONSENT of the States. (Maybe you might remember that cute little line Jefferson penned in the Declaration of Independence “...deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...”.) The War Powers Act changes the distribution of powers laid out in the constitution and therefore contradicts the Constitution. Congress does not have the Authority or Legal Right to do so. Ergo the War Powers Act is in conflict with that limited mandate of ceded powers and limited authorities. You will note, and there was plenty of discussion of this back during Iran-Contra, that no one has ever mounted a specific Constitutional challenge to the War Powers Act because of the Politics involved - not the law. Both sides of the Debate, in that case a Democrat Congress and a Republican President, were afraid of the possible outcome as it is almost a foregone conclusion that it would be thrown out as Unconstitutional under a Court Challenge.

Returning to the core of this argument: Further action was taken to preserve the liberties and restrain the hand of government and misuse of it’s powers when the first 10 AMENDMENTS were made to the Constitution. They are known collectively as “The Bill of Rights” - perhaps you have heard of them. Yes? No?

The two most relevant to the discussion at hand are numbers 9 and 10.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.



You might note the common thread here - limitation of the powers of government.

So, again I name you Quisling, not traitor, as you misquoted me. I chose Quisling because of it’s specific historical connotations. You might look up the name of Vidkun Quisling so that you may fully understand the umm - context.

You would name me Liberal as if an epithet. I shall wear it proudly. I am Liberal in the sense of Jeffersonian Liberalism. The following comes from a very handy, and sadly much the worse for wear, book in my library:

Liberalism:

“(iii) Belief that the individual has natural rights, which exist independently of government, and which ought to be protected by and against government.

(iv) Recognition of the supreme value of freedom, usually glossed as the ability to secure that to which one has a right, together with the view that government must be so limited as to grant freedom to every citizen; perhaps even that government is justifiable only to the extent that it maximizes freedom, or to the extent that it protects the free individual from invasion of his rights.”

--- Excerpted from “A Dictionary of Political Thought” by Roger Scruton, Reader in Philosophy, Birbeck College, University of London; Hill and Wang 1982 Pg. 269.

Also for your consideration the following seems to capture some of the elements of your posts:

“...Fascism is characterized by the following features (not all of which need to be present in any of it’s recognized instances): nationalism, hostility to democracy, to egalitarianism, and to the values of the liberal enlightenment; the cult of the leader, and admiration for his special qualities; a respect for collective organization, and a love of the symbols associated with it, such as uniforms, parades, and army discipline. ... In other words the doctrine contains little that is specific, beyond an appeal to energy, and action; it is, one might say, the form of an ideology, but without specific content (other than can be provided by admiration towards the leader). this perhaps explains some of its appeal it seemed to make no demand other than those the individual himself would make had he the energy. It then provided the energy.”

Ibid. Pg. 169

In summation I regard, you, your fellow travelers, and the policies you espouse as enemies of freedom and antithetical to the principles upon which this Republic was founded. You are an enemy of freedom and no friend to the American Nation as the policies you espouse would destroy the fundamental nature of that nation and turn it to an evil purpose. You may consider me your absolute antithesis and bitter foe until the end.

“Liberty and order will never be completely safe until a trespass on the Constitutional provisions for either, shall be felt with the same keenness that resents an invasion of the dearest rights.”

--James Madison, 1792

“The price of freedom is the willingness to do sudden battle, anywhere, anytime, and with utter recklessness.”        

--Robert A. Heinlein

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.                

--Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Colonel Charles Yancy

They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety and will have neither.       

--Benjamin Franklin

“We owe it to our ancestors to preserve entire those rights, which they have delivered to our care; we owe it to our posterity, not to suffer their dearest inheritance to be destroyed.”  

--Anonymous, 1769 

>It is the purpose of the WPA to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States

Exactly. That's what the War Powers Act did. It didn't change the Constitution. It didn't shift powers. It was passed and signed into LAW for the very purpose of CLARIFYING the true intent of the framers of the Constitution, to sharpen the focus of what they really meant when they wrote it. What that means is if we today could get on the phone and call the framers of the Constitution and ask them to further clarify what they meant, their answer to us would be the very words which are written in the War Powers Act.

And no Congressperson is even trying to get a hearing on this. They have legal-eagles around them all the time besides many of them being attorneys themselves. Attorneys are the one's who WROTE the War Powers Act. Or you can take Dingo the arm-chair attorney.

Dingo, if I ever get a divorce, I want you represent my wife.

...learning disability:

Or Washington:

If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.

— George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now. — South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905)

I hate it when you steal my invectives.

Seems to me you're going back to square one on

that argument there, brigg...

Codgress? More ice please, they stink with special

intrest money when they're not under someone's thumb.

Get real, one dollar, one vote.

>The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter.

Figure it out Dingo. They didn't ALTER the meaning of it. They further CLARIFIED the meaning of it. There's a difference between "altering" (changing) and "further clarifying" (made it more clear).

also get real.

Money=justice.

Look around at our 'justice' system.

HaHaHa gag.

Brigg baby,

You seem to think you have all the answers. Well riddle me this, bright boy: who owned Ireland before the Celts? Anyone ever completely conquer Ireland? Seems to me as they are the ORIGINAL inhabitants, kind of like the Aborigines in Australia and the Native Americans that were here before the Paleface.

Ahhh, but you have selective memory and history books full of lies, so now you preach your ridiculous Bull$hit! Get a clue, WASP-boy: you kind is gettin' fewer and fewer these days.

Please. Spare me the tongue lashing and the phony patriotic rants and quotes. I'm a carnivoire. Let's get to the meat.

I’m really flattered that you’d spend so much time blathering on, trying to convince me of your perspective. But for YOU to call me dishonest? Well a buffoon possibly, an argument could be made. But dishonest?

You buried your position under a pile of political hugger-mugger, totally missing the point. And you failed to take me up on my challenge? I wonder why?

But I’ll go a step further now for you in this discussion. I’d like to know why you so fervently oppose the WPA? How does it threaten YOU as a citizen of the USA for there to be a law that reads:

If our country is under assault by foreign nationals

And either

1. A declaration of war has been issued, or

2. The President has been previously granted specific statutory authorization by congress, or

3. A national emergency has been created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces, then

the constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities is authorized in order to deal with the aforementioned circumstance.

Well? Why would you choose to jeopardize our citizenry by bogging down the process of reaction to immediate threats with debate and disputation? Only someone that does not have the interests of the American public in mind would desire this. A Fifth Columnist.

I retract my statement. You are neither a liberal, nor a traitor. To state that is to imply that at some point you WERE on our side. I would never give the likes of you such credit.

You sir, are merely a collaborator.

Briggand commented:

"And no Congressperson is even trying to get a hearing on this. They have legal-eagles around them all the time besides many of them being attorneys themselves. Attorneys are the one's who WROTE the War Powers Act. Or you can take Dingo the arm-chair attorney. "

I guess that explains why the Supreme Court has NEVER ruled a Congressionally passe law as Unconstitutional.

Oh, they have haven't they.

Briggand you are below buffoon. Work hard though you might get there yet.

>you kind is gettin' fewer and fewer these days.

I'm all worried.



--------------

Dingo

You had a chance to look up "altered" and "clarified" yet?

>I guess that explains why the Supreme Court has NEVER ruled a Congressionally passe law as Unconstitutional.

Oh, they have haven't they.

Yeah. Who said they haven't?

But they aren't on this one, are they? It's because it's iron clad.

If what I'm saying isn't piercing your life of magical bubbles, why do you feel the need to keep having to answer? Either your original posts are strong enough to stand up to scrutiny of the posts to follow without having to be further defended or it isn't. Start writing your posts in such a way that their is no need for you to answer criticism and I'll take you more seriously. Until then, your pretty much worthless.

Brigg you are not worthy of any more of my time than it takes to point out that you have no case.

P.S.: I'll be glad to represent your wife. Don't you think you could use a little weatherization on that Dog House? A Storm Door would help.

Silence.

Something about it makes me sick.

Gonna answer my challenge and questions, or not?

I'm very needy. A high maintenance troll.

Feed me, Seamore.

down boy! now.

What about you, anywhat?

This isn't your garden of evil just for your

side to tromp around in.

Do you even know who's side you're on?

How about giving me a golden shower?

...it is obvious that you are wedded to your fascistic cult of Bush Worship so I shall not waste much more time upon you.

You have no argument left just protestations.

As for your irrelevant questions: Grenada, Tampico, Guatemala, Nicaraugua, Venezuela and the list goes on.

U.S. Presidents misusing U.S. Armed Forces for their personal aggrandizement is not a new thing. Congress being stocked with cowards unwilling to take a stand upon the Constitution and demand that Presidents remain within it's bounds is sadly nothing new. Legalisms are not a substitute for Law. Personalities and Spin Machines are not a substitute for leadership.

You have not however refuted my primary point that only Congress, after due deliberation, has the authority to declare War. The language of the Constitution is quite specific. You may wiggle all you wish but I shall always return to the original text not what you or your Fuhrer would like it to be.

The Collaborator in this argument is you. You would collaborate with, lend aid and comfort, to those who would eviscerate the foundations of our Free American Republic. You are a Quisling, a life form that exists as a parasite upon the body politic sucking forth it's life's blood until you are bloated but never satiated in your quest to dominate your fellow man. You are an enemy of freedom and of the principles upon which this Republic was founded. May you wander endlessly in the "Outer Dark".

I leave you with James Madison's thoughts on the matter:

The Most Dreaded Enemy of Liberty

James Madison, August 1793

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. . . . [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and . . . degeneracy of manners and of morals. . . . No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. . . .

[It should be well understood] that the powers proposed to be surrendered [by the Third Congress] to the Executive were those which the Constitution has most jealously appropriated to the Legislature. . . .

The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the power of declaring a state of war. . . the power of raising armies. . . the power of creating offices. . . .

A delegation of such powers [to the President] would have struck, not only at the fabric of our Constitution, but at the foundation of all well organized and well checked governments.

The separation of the power of declaring war from that of conducting it, is wisely contrived to exclude the danger of its being declared for the sake of its being conducted.

The separation of the power of raising armies from the power of commanding them, is intended to prevent the raising of armies for the sake of commanding them.

The separation of the power of creating offices from that of filling them, is an essential guard against the temptation to create offices for the sake of gratifying favourites or multiplying dependents.

Are YOU into golden showers? If so, would you give me one?

"It is the purpose of the WPAto fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of

the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and

the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into

hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly

indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities

or in such situations.

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce

United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent

involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised

only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3)

a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or

possessions, or its armed forces.

Never has the US military been taken into ANY conflict in all of historry, where

neither of (1), (2), or (3) above were not first met.

I challenge you to prove me wrong."

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

All sorts of overt/covert bloodshed my man, don't try to put a label on state supported terrorism, be it assassination, 'low

intensity' warfare or out right 'police actions etc. your

words mean nothing to the dead and grieving. Economic intrests at the piano keys of our military slaughter machine. Too many people perhaps? Make them into corpses.

There are mountains of them. Bad Karma for this land of sheep. Have we set ourselves up to the retaliation of an outraged world?

You bet.

"As for your irrelevant questions: Grenada, Tampico, Guatemala, Nicaraugua, Venezuela and the list goes on. "

Let's see: Tampico

http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/tampicoincident.htm

Hmmm.



Thus on 20 April 1914 President Woodrow Wilson went to Congress and requested authorisation to use military force to produce the required form of Mexican contrition. Wilson was concerned that Tampico merely comprised the latest in a series of such incidents. Two days later Congress granted Wilson the authority he sought.



This is an example of #2: "The President has been previously granted specific statutory authorization by congress."

Shall I continue to reseach Dio's bullshit further?

Kindly take your sexual perversions elsewhere.

"intensity' warfare or out right 'police actions etc. your

words mean nothing to the dead and grieving. Economic intrests at the piano keys of our military slaughter machine. Too many people perhaps? Make them into corpses.

There are mountains of them. Bad Karma for this land of sheep. Have we set ourselves up to the retaliation of an outraged world?

You bet."

How dare you justify violent and senseless attacks on my nation committed by radical islamic fundamentalists, through obfuscation, smoke, and mirrors.

Go get your bottle of ripple, Fred Sanford. You're obviously on your way to join Elizabeth.

Watch it, sucka.

Grenada:

http://www.historyguy.com/Grenada.html



On October 13, 1983, the Grenadian Army, controlled by former Deputy Prime Minister Bernard Coard, seized power in a bloody coup. The severity of the violence, coupled with Coard's hard-line Marxism, caused deep concern among neighboring Caribbean nations, as well as in Washington, D.C. Also, the presence of nearly 1,000 American medical students in Grenada caused added concern.



This is #3: 3. "A national emergency has been created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."



CONSEQUENCES OF CONFLICT:

1. The Marxist, pro-Cuban governments of Bishop and Coard were eliminated and a regime friendly to American interests took over.

2. The Reagan Administration proved willing to use force to combat what it considered hostile governments in the area.

3. America's European allies expressed disapproval of the unilateral invasion of Grenada.

4. The invasion sent a message to Cuba and Nicaragua that they could only go so far in exporting revolution in Central America and the Caribbean without provoking an American military response.

That's what I get for working from memory. Keep going Airic - maybe you find another minor point upon which to shout AHA!

You have a good research team. How many people you got working with you on this?

A public relations cover for an event is not Justification for an exercise of Military Force.

Subsequent reports showed that while the students were scared they were not in any danger.

Grenada Represented no threat to the United States.

The incursion was not duly authorized and there was quite a bit of debate after the fact about it's legality.

The most you could make a case for would be an operation to get the students out - not replace the government.

Having said that I don't disagree with the outcome but do object to it as a matter of principle.

The President should have in this case sought Congressional Authorization.

The first comment following Airic's "gotcha" was in response to Tampico.

NOTE: Airic has not responded to the central issue of the separation of powers and the need for Congressional Authorization to Declare War - specifically as it relates to current events.

You're full of bullshit.

And all of your patriotic nonesensical blather is debatable.

What exactly is it that you want from your government? You don't run the show. It is the collective will of our citizenry that has shaped the way we are governed. That is democracy. That is freewill.

I'm not sure you'll ever achieve your political goals in America, Dio. Best you should move away, perhaps to some small island nation. Run for President there (or perhaps King). Maybe you can shape the opinions of the locals there into what it is you so actively seek from us more affluent and intelligent people here in the USA. Something you'll never get from us Americans.

"You're full of bullshit."

Unsubstantiated allegation

"NOTE: Airic has not responded to the central issue of the separation of powers and the need for Congressional Authorization to Declare War - specifically as it relates to current events."

Dio and I have had this conversation before. It was the first time I caught him in an outright lie.

He claims that GWB did not have the authority to invade Iraq.

I claimed he did based up #2 of the WPA: "The President has been previously granted specific statutory authorization by congress."

Then Dio said that he didn't get authorization because the Congressional resolution was based upon the President providing proof that Hussein had WMD and ties with bin Laden.

I thought he was full of bullshit, so I went and found the resolution and read it myself. Sure enough, Dio was full of bullshit.

All it said was that the President had to notify Congress within (like within 48 hours?) of carrying out his invasion, if he so deemed it necessary.

Dio pouted, took his ball and went home.

The end.

"Sure enough, Dio was full of bullshit."

Unsubstantiated allegation

...you.

Are.

Wrong.

now don't get your dick in the doorcrack Mr. Outraged.

You know damn well the slaughter usually begins when

the magic men behind the scenes channel money for

destabilization and seizure of strategic interests. Don't

blow chunks and present them as wisdom. This facade of a

free people, all with media driven blinders, noseplugs and

earphones is only that.

If the information the rest of the informed people of the world knew was available to the general public of the

american people. The current admin would hang. The congress would be in cages.

"If the information the rest of the informed people of the world knew was available to the general public of the american people. The current admin would hang. The congress would be in cages."

The drunkard speaks.

Tell us, oh wise sipper of cider? What information might that be?

"The drunkard speaks."

Ad Hominem Attack.

Slam dunk, my good man. Not only does our resident Arm-Chair Lawyer not know the difference between "altered" and "clarified", he can't answer any of this:

>The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

And worse yet, no one in Congress will pick his fights for him. If only he were there everyday to pound the podiums of Congress everyday and demand that a hearing be convened on the constitutionality of the War Powers Act. But alas, 'tis not to be. Oh, woe is he.

"Slam dunk, my good man."

Unsubstantiated Allegation

We support the killing of Muslims and niggers. Please visit our website.

I believe I will have a few beers tonight.

could you post a picture of you, I can hang over the

toilet for when ( in my drunken raging stupor) my pee on

you, if only accidentally?

What kind of beer,....hmmmm I guess there’s some Sam Adam’s Stout...

makes great pungent urine. I will be thinking of you in many other

ways also as I smile.

do you still love me??

May I taste your baby batter?

The sound of fresh rain run-off splashing from the roof reminded me of the sound of urine splashing into a filthy Texaco latrine.

"What exactly is it that you want from your government? You don't run the show. It is the collective will of our citizenry that has shaped the way we are governed. That is democracy. That is freewill. "

A. I want it to follow the Constitution and stay with the clearly demarked boundaries of the fundamental law which the Constitution establishes. That they do not, and misguided morons, defend the practice does not bode well for the future of this country. You would piss away all that has made this country great out of your unreasoned and slavish devotion to your Fuhrer. There are many things I could say about the philosophy you espouse but American is not one of them. It is part and parcel the philosophy of Fascist Worship of a "Leader". (By the way the English Translation of "Fuhrer" is "Leader".)

B. Again you betray your abysmal ignorance of the Constitution and the debates surround it's writing.

We do not live in a Democracy. We live in a Constitutional Republic. The Founding Fathers despised Democracy as nothing better than Mob Rule. Mobs, such as yours, are governed not by principle but by the passion of the moment and that which is expedient to achieve their desired ends. Mobs are all too easily led about by their passions, and in ignorance, as you so notably demonstrate.

Democracy is two Wolves and a Sheep deciding upon "what's for dinner".

"The president is authorized to use the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, and (2) enforce all relevant United Nation Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

As we have already concluded passing a bill does not make it Constitutional.

Where in the Constitution does Congress receive the Authority to delegate THEIR Responsibilities to the Executive?

No such passage exists.

Fiat does not mean legal. The Enabling Act By Fiat gave Hitler Dictatorial powers. That does not mean that it was Just.

When Congress, out of cowardice because they do not want to take the political heat for declaring a war, they pass the buck. Doesn't make it legal, or Constitutional that it is done.

Further the predicate upon which this bill was written was a LIE. Iraq has at no time posed a threat to the United States. The Bush Junta's changing justifications for said war prove by their fluid conversion from one form to the next as they were successively discredited that the real reason for the War was one that would not fly in arena of Public Opinion.

It's the Oil Stupid.

In short despite your having to been able to find a minor "gotcha" you have totally failed to make your point.

You support a regime which by it's actions has shown itself to be hostile to the legitimate principles upon which this country was founded.

You are a Quisling, a Traitor, and a Swine.

but that just your opinion and nobody whose opinion really matters cares about your opinion

...your point?

I defend my views because I am passionate about them. If I provoke just one person into thinking about it I am pleased.

I am not one to set idly by watching Rome Burn.

We hate niggers. Join us.

Where did you get your degree in constitutionl law, and how long have you been practicing?

Dio, I quite understand your position and your passionate defense of it. I wouldn't be here, inspiring you to words if I didn't care.

You've made a lot of excellent points. And you're right in many regards. The way things function in our government from time to time is very screwed up up, and I would wager a paycheck, has made everyone who posts here think the system has gone awry on more than one occasion.

But in spite of all it's flaws and hiccups, it is still one of the best in the world.

I refuse to consider you a bitter foe as you've mandated of me. I consider us very similar in nature. We both love the same ideals and cherish the principle of freedom. We simply choose to do so in our own ways. We represent the dichotomy of American perspectives, and we are both very necessary entities in maintaining the mechanisms and dynamics that have made, and continue to make, America a great nation.

Let me tell you something, brother. I would now, and forever will, be willing to lay my very life down for the freedoms of which both you and I are allowed to indulge. For my family's sake. For my neighbors. And even for you.

That's how far I'm willing to go.

No bullshit.

I feel the same about any american ready to stand.

I feel the same way about this country although I

believe the maggots have taken over. They need to be

disfunctionalized, they are eating this country alive.

I wont go quietly, and we will all need to help each other

if we hope to stop this before the darkness closes in.

It’s our children's future on this fragile earth.

We can do better than this miserable affair.

peace.

Well, far be it from me to spit upon such a gentlemanly comment. I would be a churl to do so. And I thank you for your courage in doing so. You could not have known how I would respond. There is always room for reasoned disagreement - and perhaps agreement on occasion.

“But in spite of all it's flaws and hiccups, it is still one of the best in the world. “

Despite my cavils and fulminations I agree. However, there are trends that I find disturbing. I argue passionately for my belief in a literal application of the Constitution because I believe it does matter. Once we are cut adrift from this foundation we move into the realm of arbitrary rule by decree. Already I fear we have gone further down that path than is healthy for the Republic.

As for your Patriotic Protestation of Death before chains. I admire, and of course share, that resolve. I may be a little older, a little slower, but I still hit what I aim at - most of the time.

However, don’t expect me to give up my addiction to quotes.

"Each man must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, which course is patriotic and which isn’t. You cannot shirk this and be a man. To decide against your conviction is to be an unqualified and inexcusable traitor, both to yourself and to your country, let men label you as they may." - Mark Twain