What is the best response to this Iraq charge?

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-10-07 05:39pm

I'm referring to the actions of the United States. By US law, only Congress can declare war. They never did declare war on Iraq, so American tanks, planes and troops have no business being there, period.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-10-07 05:50pm

Incorrect; POTUS is CinC of American Armed Forces and may order them to take actions to defend the U.S. with-or-without a Declaration of War (which invokes different law which may not be desired for said action). The War Powers Act implicitly makes this power legal by regulating it.

There is no statement that says military action out of a declared war is illegal.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2004-10-07 07:12pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Incorrect; POTUS is CinC of American Armed Forces and may order them to take actions to defend the U.S.

and attacking another coutry is considered defending the U.S.? interesting.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-10-07 08:27pm

and attacking another coutry is considered defending the U.S.? interesting.

If that country is an imminent threat, then yes.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-10-07 08:39pm

Iraq never has been and never will be an imminent threat to the United States. Concession rejected.

The War Powers Act was meant to cover cases where there was some sort of emergency and Congress was not able to act immediately. For example, if North Korea invaded (or was massing its troops for an invasion) South Korea while Congress was adjourned, obviously the military (including the President) wouldn't have to sit on their hands and wait for Congress to meet again. The Act allows the President to wage war for 30 days before seeking approval from Congress. It was not a license for presidents to start wars all over the globe as long as they could do it in less than a month or as long as a majority in Congress acquiesced. But like all bad laws, that's the effect.

In any event, the Constitution grants Congress -and only Congress- warmaking powers. The Constitution trumps any act of Congress.

Agrajag · Post by **Agrajag** » 2004-10-07 09:37pm

Anyone who thinks Iraq was a threat only needs to look at the results of this war. No threat.

Post by **Beowulf** » 2004-10-07 09:40pm

Elfdart wrote:Iraq never has been and never will be an imminent threat to the United States. Concession rejected.

The War Powers Act was meant to cover cases where there was some sort of emergency and Congress was not able to act immediately. For example, if North Korea invaded (or was massing its troops for an invasion) South Korea while Congress was adjourned, obviously the military (including the President) wouldn't have to sit on their hands and wait for Congress to meet again. The Act allows the President to wage war for 30 days before seeking approval from Congress. It was not a license for presidents to start wars all over the globe as long as they could do it in less than a month or as long as a majority in Congress acquiesced. But like all bad laws, that's the effect.

In any event, the Constitution grants Congress -and only Congress- warmaking powers. The Constitution trumps any act of Congress.

North Korea is not currently, and in fact never really has been a threat to the US. Of course, were still technically at war with them, so the entire War Powers Act does nothing.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-10-07 09:43pm

Elfdart wrote:Iraq never has been and never will be an imminent threat to the United States. Concession rejected.

The War Powers Act was meant to cover cases where there was some sort of emergency and Congress was not able to act immediately. For example, if North Korea invaded (or was massing its troops for an invasion) South Korea while Congress was adjourned, obviously the military (including the President) wouldn't have to sit on their hands and wait for Congress to meet again. The Act allows the President to wage war for 30 days before seeking approval from Congress. It was not a license for presidents to start wars all over the globe as long as they could do it in less than a month or as long as a majority in Congress acquiesced. But like all bad laws, that's the effect.

In any event, the Constitution grants Congress -and only Congress- warmaking powers. The Constitution trumps any act of Congress.

And you're an imbecile, because military action is not necessarily war. War is a very definitely defined legal concept. And military action is not ipso facto war, and never was, even before 1946. For example, one does not declare war on internal rebellions; we did not in the Civil War. We had dozens of interventions in the late Ninteenth and early Twentieth Centuries. None of those were wars.

And stupid, you just admitted that the War Powers Act allows military action to be sustained if Congress approves, but Congress' approval is not an ipso facto declaration of war in the case of the War Powers Act, proving that military action is not synonymous with war. War, as far as nations and the Constitution is concerned, is a well-defined legal status.

Now you're right if you're asserted legalese and technicality has been used to avoid "going to war" for decades to satisfy political doublethink. But arguing that it is illegal is simply incorrect.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-10-07 10:14pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
Elfdart wrote:Iraq never has been and never will be an imminent threat to the United States. Concession rejected.

The War Powers Act was meant to cover cases where there was some sort of emergency and Congress was not able to act immediately. For example, if North Korea invaded (or was massing its troops for an invasion) South Korea while Congress was adjourned, obviously the military (including the President) wouldn't have to sit on their hands and wait for Congress to meet again. The Act allows the President to wage war for 30 days before seeking approval from Congress. It was not a license for presidents to start wars all over the globe as long as they could do it in less than a month or as long as a majority in Congress acquiesced. But like all bad laws, that's the effect.

In any event, the Constitution grants Congress -and only Congress- warmaking powers. The Constitution trumps any act of Congress.
And you're an imbecile, because military action is not necessarily war. War is a very definitely defined legal concept. And military action is not ipso facto war, and never was, even before 1946. For example, one does not declare war on internal rebellions; we did not in the Civil War. We had dozens of interventions in the late Ninteenth and early Twentieth Centuries. None of those were wars.

And stupid, you just admitted that the War Powers Act allows military action to be sustained if Congress approves, but Congress' approval is not an ipso facto declaration of war in the case of the War Powers Act, proving that military action is not synonymous with war. War, as far as nations and the Constitution is concerned, is a well-defined legal status.

Now you're right if you're asserted legalese and technicality has been used to avoid "going to war" for decades to satisfy political doublethink. But arguing that it is illegal is simply incorrect.

Explain when a war is a war and when it's not a war. I'm dying to hear this one.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-10-07 10:24pm

The Declaration of War establishes a legal state of War. When it doesn't exist, there is no War, from a legal point-of-view. That's the whole fucking point.

The Civil War from the prespective of the Federal government was putting down an insurrection, same as the Whiskey Rebellion (and this, idiot was a mere years off from the Constitution, yet no one questioned it then; your assertion about this being new was ignorant, don't blame me for it). Neither which are "wars" in the legal sense. Given that the CinC can order American troops into combat without a Declaration, it is obvious conflict is not exclusive to a state of declared war, nor legally need be.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-10-07 10:30pm

Beowulf wrote:North Korea is not currently, and in fact never really has been a threat to the US. Of course, were still technically at war with them, so the entire War Powers Act does nothing.

Actually, I don't think we ever really were legally at War with North Korea. It was a police action under the aegis of the UN.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-10-07 10:33pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:
Beowulf wrote:North Korea is not currently, and in fact never really has been a threat to the US. Of course, were still technically at war with them, so the entire War Powers Act does nothing.
Actually, I don't think we ever really were legally at War with North Korea. It was a police action under the aegis of the UN.

Yes it was. However technically all that was negotiated was a cease fire, not a treaty. So it's a bit odd.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-10-07 10:40pm

Stormbringer wrote:Yes it was. However technically all that was negotiated was a cease fire, not a treaty. So it's a bit odd.

But because it's through the UN, it would be difficult for the United States to renew hostilities in a legal fashion since the cease fire is between the UN and North Korea.

Post by **Beowulf** » 2004-10-07 10:41pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:
Beowulf wrote:North Korea is not currently, and in fact never really has been a threat to the US. Of course, were still technically at war with them, so the entire War Powers Act does nothing.
Actually, I don't think we ever really were legally at War with North Korea. It was a police action under the aegis of the UN.

Hmm... I could have sworn we did declare war... Eh...

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-10-07 10:42pm

Beowulf wrote:Hmm... I could have sworn we did declare war... Eh...

Nope, the US hasn't declared war on any nation since World War 2 as far as I know.

Agrajag · Post by **Agrajag** » 2004-10-07 11:12pm

WAR is NOT a LEGAL concept! WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT with this garbage.

Vietnam was a war regardless of semantics over legal declaration of it. Do you actually believe that a country that is constantly seeing tanks roll down their street and blow up buildings in their neighborhoods on a daily, seemingly endless period, believe they are involved in anything but a war? Do you really think they give a rats ass about the legal declaration of a war?

Most people today believe we are currently at war. We talk about the war in Iraq. The "war" has been supposedly over for a long time now but somehow no one here is saying, we have a real problem with the Iraq Conflict. Get real.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-10-07 11:17pm

Shut the fuck up, dumbass. I awknowledged it was legalese in order to play PR games and matter zip to what's going on on the ground.

But if you paid attention, Elfpenis was asserting that the current trend of not declaring war was somehow unique (false) or intrinsically illegal (also false).

Maybe you should read before losing your shit and displaying all these over-emotive theatrics.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-10-07 11:20pm

To quote Heinlien's Starship Troopers:

You are just as dead if you buy it in police action as if you buy it in declared war.

Declarations of War are purely a legal construct that doesn't really change what's going on.