The AUMFs combined with long-standing precedent qualifies these conflicts as "wars" under the Constitution.
RONALD V
Both of which perpetrated numerous acts of war against the U.S. prior to their liberation.
No unlawful enemy combatants and war criminals perpetrated the attacks.
Only by Bush's designation, which was reversed by Obama.
Refresh my memory but I don't recall AQ being a member of the Saudi government, but they were a part of the Taliban government.
All but two of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi. Most of the funding for Al Qaeda comes from Saudi Arabia. Almost all of the suicide bombers in Iraq also came from SA. Never heard of the al-Qaeda being part of the Afghanistan government. They were not even in Iraq until we invaded.
Iraq had perpetrated numerous acts of war against the U.S. and Saddam was conspiring with Islamist extremists (including AQ affiliates) to attack the U.S. right up to the fall of Baghdad.
Only Congress Can Declare War
"The framers of the Constitution attempted to balance the power of the President as commander-in-chief with that of Congress, the representatives of the People.
Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution gives to the Executive Branch the command of the nation’s armed forces, while Article I, Section 8 gives to the Legislative Branch the power to decide when the United States goes to war."
Only Congress Can Declare War|Tenth Amendment Center
The decision of this question must depend upon another, which is whether, at the time of passing the Act of Congress of 2 March, 1799, there subsisted a state of war between the two nations? It may, I believe, be safely laid down that every contention by force between two nations in external matters, under the authority of their respective governments, is not only war, but public war. If it be declared in form, it is called solemn and is of the perfect kind; because one whole nation is at war with another whole nation, and all the members of the nation declaring war, are authorized to commit hostilities against all the members of the other, in every place, and under every circumstance. In such a war, all the members act under a general authority, and all the rights and consequences of war attach to their condition.
But hostilities may subsist between two nations more confined in its nature and extent, being limited as to places, persons, and things, and this is more properly termed imperfect war; because not solemn, and because those who are authorized to commit hostilities, act under special authority, and can go no further than to the extent of their commission. Still, however, it is public war, because it is an external contention by force between some of the members of the two nations, authorized by the legitimate powers. It is a war between the two nations, though all the members are not authorized to commit hostilities such as in a solemn war, where the government restrain the general power.
We held in the first Berk opinion that the constitutional delegation of the war-declaring power to the Congress contains a discoverable and manageable standard imposing on the Congress a duty of mutual participation in the prosecution of war.� Judicial scrutiny of that duty, therefore, is not foreclosed by the political question doctrine.� Baker v. Carr, supra; Powell v. McCormack, supra. As we see it, the test is whether there is any action by the Congress sufficient to authorize or ratify the military activity in question.� The evidentiary materials produced at the hearings in the district court clearly disclose that this test is satisfied.
The Congress and the Executive have taken mutual and joint action in the prosecution and support of military operations in Southeast Asia from the beginning of those operations.� The Tonkin Gulf Resolution, enacted August 10, 1964 (repealed December 31, 1970) was passed at the request of President Johnson and, though occasioned by specific naval incidents in the Gulf of Tonkin, was expressed in broad language which clearly showed the state of mind of the Congress and its intention fully to implement and support the [**7]� military and naval actions taken by and planned to be taken by the President at that time in Southeast Asia, and as might be required in the future "to prevent further aggression." Congress has ratified the executive's initiatives by appropriating billions of dollars to carry out military operations in Southeast Asia n2 and by extending the Military Selective Service Act with full knowledge that persons conscripted under that Act had been, and would continue to be, sent to Vietnam.� Moreover, it specifically conscripted manpower to fill "the substantial induction calls necessitated by the current Vietnam buildup." n3
n2 In response to the demands of the military operations the executive during the 1960s ordered more and more men and material into the war zone; and congressional appropriations have been commensurate with each new level of fighting.� Until 1965, defense appropriations had not earmarked funds for Vietnam.� In May of that year President Johnson asked Congress for an emergency supplemental appropriation "to provide our forces [then numbering 35,000] with the best and most modern supplies and equipment." 111 Cong.Rec. 9283 (May 4, 1965).� Congress appropriated $700 million for use "upon determination by the President that such action is necessary in connection with military activities in Southeast Asia." Pub.L. 89-18, 79 Stat. 109 (1965).� Appropriation acts in each subsequent year explicitly authorized expenditures for men and material sent to Vietnam.� The 1967 appropriations act, for example, declared Congress' "firm intention to provide all necessary support for members of the Armed Forces of the United States fighting in Vietnam" and supported "the efforts being made by the President of the United States *** to prevent an expansion of the war in Vietnam and to bring that conflict to an end through a negotiated settlement * * *." Pub.L. 90-5, 81 Stat. 5 (1967).
The district court opinion in Berk v. Laird, 317 F. Supp. 715 (E.D.N.Y.1970), sets out relevant portions of each of these military appropriation acts and discusses their legislative history. [**8]�
n3 In H.Rep.No.267, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. 38 (1967), in addition to extending the conscription mechanism, Congress continued a suspension of the permanent ceiling on the active duty strength of the Armed Forces, fixed at 2 million men, and replaced it with a secondary ceiling of 5 million.� The House Report recommending extension of the draft concluded that the permanent manpower limitations "are much lower than the currently required strength." The Report referred to President Johnson's selective service message which said, "*** that without the draft we cannot realistically expect to meet our present commitments or the requirements we can now foresee and that volunteers alone could be expected to man a force of little more than 2.0 million. The present number of personnel on active duty is about 3.3 million and it is scheduled to reach almost 3.5 million by June, 1968 if the present conflict is not concluded by then." H.Rep.No.267, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. 38, 41 (1967).
There is, therefore, no lack of clear evidence to support a conclusion that there was an abundance of continuing mutual participation [**9]� in the prosecution of the war.� Both branches collaborated� [*1043]� in the endeavor, and neither could long maintain such a war without the concurrence and cooperation of the other.
Although appellants do not contend that Congress can exercise its wardeclaring power only through a formal declaration, they argue that congressional authorization cannot, as a matter of law, be inferred from military appropriations or other war-implementing legislation that does not contain an express and explicit authorization for the making of war by the President.� Putting aside for a moment the explicit authorization of the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, we disagree with appellants' interpretation of the declaration clause for neither the language nor the purpose underlying that provision prohibits an inference of the fact of authorization from such legislative action as we have in this instance.� The framers' intent to vest the war power in Congress is in no way defeated by permitting an inference of authorization from legislative action furnishing the manpower and materials of war for the protracted military operation in Southeast Asia.
The choice, for example, between an explicit declaration on [**10]� the one hand and a resolution and war-implementing legislation, on the other, as the medium for expression of congressional consent involves "the exercise of a discretion demonstrably committed to the *** legislature," Baker v. Carr, supra 9 at 211, 82 S. Ct. at 707, and therefore, invokes the political question doctrine.
Such a choice involves an important area of decision making in which, through mutual influence and reciprocal action between the President and the Congress, policies governing the relationship between this country and other parts of the world are formulated in the best interests of the United States.� If there can be nothing more than minor military operations conducted under any circumstances, short of an express and explicit declaration of war by Congress, then extended military operations could not be conducted even though both the Congress and the President were agreed that they were necessary and were also agreed that a formal declaration of war would place the nation in a posture in its international relations which would be against its best interests.� For the judicial branch to enunciate and enforce such a standard would be not only extremely unwise [**11]� but also would constitute a deep invasion of the political question domain.� As the Government says, "*** decisions regarding the form and substance of congressional enactments authorizing hostilities are determined by highly complex considerations of diplomacy, foreign policy and military strategy inappropriate to judicial inquiry." It would, indeed, destroy the flexibility of action which the executive and legislative branches must have in dealing with other sovereigns.� What has been said and done by both the President and the Congress in their collaborative conduct of the military operations in Vietnam implies a consensus on the advisability of not making a formal declaration of war because it would be contrary to the interests of the United States to do so.� The making of a policy decision of that kind is clearly within the constitutional domain of those two branches and is just as clearly not within the competency or power of the judiciary.
Beyond determining that there has been some mutual participation between the Congress and the President, which unquestionably exists here, with action by the Congress sufficient to authorize or ratify the military activity at issue,� [**12]� it is clear that the constitutional propriety of the means by which Congress has chosen to ratify and approve the protracted military operations in Southeast Asia is a political question.� The form which congressional authorization should take is one of policy, committed to the discretion of the Congress and outside the power and competency of the judiciary, because there are no intelligible and objectively manageable standards by which to judge such actions
lol yep I guess the ten official U.S. inquiries which cited incompetence, underestimation and misapprehension of Japanese capabilities and intentions, problems resulting from excessive secrecy about cryptography, and lack of adequate manpower for intelligence (analysis, collection, and processing) were all in on the conspiracy, right up until 1995. :roll:
No they were unlawful combatants committing a war crime. A civilian is a non-com and doesn't engage in hostilities.
Lemme guess you're a ****ing twoofer as well as a Pearl Harbor conspiracy theorists? Bust out the aluminum foil lady you're going to ****ing need it.
No he is officially a unlawful enemy combatant.
Not true for example during the IRA border campaign in 1961 military courts were established by Charles Haughey. The U.S. has tried terrorists within our civilian court system as well even after 9-11 but I see absolutely no reason to try non-citizen unlawful enemy combatants in a civilian court, this is a war whether you want to recognize it or not.
More over the Geneva Conventions do not in any way prevent unlawful enemy combatants from being tried by military court.
Yes, I know what superfluous means.
I never knew it to be applied to criminal charges before.
Every other criminal I have seen did not have any superfluous charges.
Every single charge was brought against them. So if I commit a dozen murders, I would only be charged with one, because the other 11 were superfluous?
You don't have to convince me. Convince the FBI!
And Congress did, via the AUMFs. You're operating under the mistaken assumption that Congress must say the magic words: "This is a declaration of war." That's false. Read Dellums, or Bas v. Tingy:
And Congress did, via the AUMFs. You're operating under the mistaken assumption that Congress must say the magic words: "This is a declaration of war." That's false. Read Dellums, or Bas v. Tingy:
BAS V. TINGY, 4 U. S. 37 (1800) -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez
Or Orlando v. Laird:
Salvatore ORLANDO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v
Thank you for confirming there is no US indictment for OBL in regards to 9/11.
Can you provide a link for the indictment for OBL in Spain?
How many troops does spain have looking for him btw?
Does not apply
all congress did was Authorize Bush to make the decision to invade Iraq. Bush made the decision.
any such permission that your Congress gave was under the false information issued from the Executive. they were lied to. you can keep believing all the lies you want. that is up to you.
So do you believe OBL is responsible for 9-11 or not?
what is it exactly that Afghanistan did?
you may want to refresh me on what Iraq did to us as well.
liberation what a laugh. you have got to be kidding.
They really went all out didn't they?USATODAY.com - Spanish judge indicts Osama bin Laden, 34 others for terrorism
And the International War Crimes Tribunal has brought charges against Bush.
International War Crimes Tribunal
Appx. 1,000.
In that he is the leader of the terrorist's group.
I don't think that he can be charged in the US merely on those grounds.
And the International War Crimes Tribunal has brought charges against Bush.
For starters, they are not war criminals, since we have never officially declared war.
See here for other reasons.
He financed the attacks and he conspired with the ringleader KSM to perpetrate the attack.
He can be charged with conspiracy to perpetrate that specific act of terrorism and financing that specific act of terrorism.
There are only currently two indictments against Bin Laden, the first indictment issued by a grand jury on June 8, 1998 and charged OBL with "conspiracy to attack defense utilities of the United States", and the second superseding indictment was issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on November 4, 1998 and charged him with the "Murder of US Nationals Outside the United States, Conspiracy to Murder US Nationals Outside the United States, and Attacks on a Federal Facility Resulting in Death.
The charges are listed here:
Grand Jury indictment of Osama bin Laden - Wikisource
I know that and have already posted those charges as listed on the FBI website.
Nothing there about charges for the 9/11 attack, or anywhere else that myself or anyone else have been able to locate.
If you have a link to the US Justice system charges against him for 9/11, please post it.
just the bolded. you must be joking when you say the official reports. are you really so naive to think that the government tells you the truth. my goodness. how many lies are issued by government everyday? stop your so funny.
The Congress has issued an AUMF which is legally tantamount to a declaration of war.
No, they did not. They authorized the president to make the decision to invade if it was discovered that Iraq posed a threat to the US. Bush made the decision, which was not tantamount to a declaration of war by Congress. And even that authorization to let Bush make the decision to invade was based on doctored intel.
Um under Article 1 Section 8 the Congress has the power to create tribunals and make the rules regarding capture of land and naval forces.
Um once again it's not necessary at this point. Give me one reason why they have to indict him now for 9-11 when they can just as easily do it once he is captured and while he is already under indictment for capital charges?
And this is pertinent to our invasion of Iraq without a threat being demonstrated in what way?
any such permission that your Congress gave was under the false information issued from the Executive. they were lied to.
You couldn't find any US charges against OBL for 9/11 either huh?
And since you avoided the question earlier, how the **** does the Iraq War and its validity have anything to do with detainees who were captured pursuant to the AUMF-Afghanistan?
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?