- Joined
- Aug 17, 2005
- Messages
- 20,915
- Reaction score
- 546
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Pacridge said:So those men who lost their lives all slipped in the shower?
How long is the list of causalities for our guys stations in Japan?
Trajan Octavian Titus said:It's you who doesn't get it it is not a Declaration of War which is of importance it is the War Powers of the President which are at issue these war powers were given to the President on September 14, 2001 in a Joint Resolution of Congress. There is no legal difference between a formal Declaration of War and an a Joint Resolution of Congress granting the President the War powers.
That passage has nothing to do with the war powers of the President the FISA act which was written in peace time does not trump the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
Trajan Octavian Titus said:They were not there in a combat role rather an adivsory one.
Trajan Octavian Titus said:They were not there in a combat role rather an adivsory one.
NYStateofMind said:That, my friend, is for the courts to sort out. I'm simply pointing out that there is a difference. You asked for for an example, there it is.
Whether a law is written in peacetime or wartime has no bearing on which "trumps" which. There are legal scholars on both sides making good points, that isn't one of them!
As far as being disingenuous, nope. I didn't say it was Eisenhower's war, just that he sent the first troops in. That's a fact. It's also a fact that Nixon got us out of it. As far as I'm concerned, it wasn't a Democrat's war or a Republican's war, it was a war that ALL Americans have had to deal with....just like our current war. No matter who sends the troops there, it's an AMERICAN war. I just like the facts to be straight, and TOT seems to like to play fast and loose with them.
I also don't like the suggestion that the lives lost under Eisenhower are somehow less important than the ones lost after that. Shame, shame, shame. Who is supporting the troops? Oh, that's right, the Republicans....as long as it's the current war, but not a so-called Democratic war? I support them no matter who sent them there.
NYStateofMind said:Again, shame on you for dismissing the sacrifice these soldiers made. They were killed in action, they didn't die sitting at a conference table as you seem to imply.
Pacridge said:I see so they didn't die in combat?
What are you talking about? Crime, law written after the fact? Where did you get that from? You are going very far afield.Trajan Octavian Titus said:It's not for the Courts to decide it's settled law when the President is granted the war powers he is granted all of the war powers. If you want to dispute the Constitutionality of the war powers resolution in and of itself then go right ahead but no one in this country can not be found guilty of any crime if the law is written after the fact. Ex Post Facto partna.
NYStateofMind said:What are you talking about? Crime, law written after the fact? Where did you get that from? You are going very far afield.
If you want to get further into the debate re: FISA, there are plenty of other threads already going. That wasn't my intention when I posted the link. That was simply an illustrative example.
I believe I've stated my points pretty clearly, you just refuse to acknowledge them. There isn't much point in repeating them.
Where did I argue that this war is illegal? Or any war, for that matter? I said that Congress has not declared war since WW II. Don't put words into my mouth.Trajan Octavian Titus said:You are arguing that this war is illegal or that we are not at war because the President excercised his war powers under the statutory resolution rather than a formal declaration of war and I am saying that statutory authorization is settled law in granting the president the war powers there is no legal distinction made between a statutory resolution for the use of force and a formal declaration of war, that's simply the current situation.
Trajan Octavian Titus said:Now you can argue that the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional in and of itself but that is neither here nor there, because unless it was deemed to be unconstitutional before the President used it as justification to call upon article 2 section 2 then it is irrelevant because of ex post facto.
Weren't we talking about the Vietnam? I thought we were talking about Vietnam.....sheesh, one of us needs to start paying attention better.....Trajan Octavian Titus said:Your points are moot; the war powers under Article 2 section 2 of the Constitution have been granted to the President on September 14, 2001 in a Joint Resolution of Congress, in full accordance with the war powers resolution of 1973. Case dismissed.
NYStateofMind said:Where did I argue that this war is illegal? Or any war, for that matter? I said that Congress has not declared war since WW II. Don't put words into my mouth.
You can argue that with yourself all you want, I never argued any of that. :rofl
Weren't we talking about the Vietnam? I thought we were talking about Vietnam.....sheesh, one of us needs to start paying attention better.....
Hello.....it helps if you pay attention to what the other person said......:2wave:
Ok, I'm done playing in the sandbox now.
Trajan Octavian Titus said:Two problems here,
1) the U.N. doesn't trump our national soveriegnty if Truman didn't want the war in Korea he would have had us veto it in our vote on the Security Council.
Trajan Octavian Titus said:2) Under Eisenhower the troop levels were minimul and we were there in an advisory rather than combat roll, under Kennedy, however, we assasinated the South Vietnamese President and ensured that we were there to stay. (though I am for the Vietnam war, it was a Democratic war none the less.)
Trajan Octavian Titus said:When granted the war powers the President is granted the inherent war powers under Article 2 Section 2 so what the hell is the difference if he is granted the war powers through a declaration of war, a joint resolution of congress, or an attack upon this country? The net result is the same, in all three instances the president is granted the war powers so your point is moot.
Vandeervecken said:Nobody ever said it did. However we had a treaty obligation, and treaty law is second only to the Constitution in law. The claim was made that Truman started the wear, he did not. It is as simple as that.
The claim was made that Kennedy started the war, he did not. Troops fought in combat and died under the Presidency of the man who first put is there, the Republican Eisenhower. Obviously Kennedy didn't start it. You can argue accurately that he escalated it, but he did not start it any moire than Clinton started Somalia.
Vandeervecken said:Nobody ever said it did. However we had a treaty obligation, and treaty law is second only to the Constitution in law. The claim was made that Truman started the wear, he did not. It is as simple as that.
The claim was made that Kennedy started the war, he did not. Troops fought in combat and died under the Presidency of the man who first put is there, the Republican Eisenhower. Obviously Kennedy didn't start it. You can argue accurately that he escalated it, but he did not start it any moire than Clinton started Somalia.
I love how when you claims are shown false you try and shift what you say your claims were. Remind you of anyone? "It was the WMD's!" "No, it was the nuclear program!" No it was Iraq was supporting al-Qeada!" Wait, we were liberating the Iraqi people!"
Yet these are the very same people that accuse those of us who don't believe in mythical sky-lords lack any core morality? :rofl
Vandeervecken said:The differences are many and varied. Some points for you to ponder:
If you claim there are no differences, then why did the war powers act list three different levels of conflict? If it recognises these three things are different, then are then not different?
If you do not understand that differeing legal acts contain differeing legal standards do you indeed have even the most basic knowledge necessary to engage in a meaningful debate on this subject?
Here are a few things for you to read to start getting a baisc grounding on the subject:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040101facomment83101/kenneth-roth/the-law-of-war-in-the-war-on-terror.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_warNot using the word "war" is also seen as being more public relations-friendly. For these reasons, they have generally ceased to issue declarations of war, instead describing their actions by euphemisms such as "police action" or "authorized use of force."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?