CONGRESS DID DECLARE WAR! Joint Resolution Authorizing The Use Of Force Against Terrorists

U.S. Congress ^ | 9/14/2001 | U.S. Congress

[Orion]

Suppose the president decides that a domestic group, say the Militia of Montana or even the NRA was involved, can he use the military against them?

Bingo! When the gov't can suspend citizens' rights by waiving your run-of-the-mill "national security" wand, there is no limit to the danger we all face.

Would it not be nice to be suspending parts of the Constitution under a formal war declaration, rather than a limp-dick "force resolution?"

That's OK, we have been suspending the Constitution for years, and the GOP has accelerated that decline. All you statists chime in and tell us how the Constitution takes a back seat to court rulings, resolutions, and laws redefining the Constitution.

[mrsmith]

"All you statists chime in and tell us how the Constitution takes a back seat to court rulings, resolutions, and laws redefining the Constitution. "

This is a good line to use on everyone who wants to change the meaning of the Constitution from what it meant when Jefferson and Adams fought their undeclared wars by congressional acts.

Thanks, I was too polite to put it in such terms!

[William Tell]

mrsmith said: "He got that authority from congress, and fought a Constitutional war against the pirates."

I am actually willing to believe that Congress can declare war without saying "Declaration of War". However, the War Powers Act seems to explicitly recognize the existence of two different things. The very ambiguity which Congress ought to avoid has now been legislated into existence.

Jefferson seems to have conceded that there is a difference between defense and offense. He also seems to have conceded that the actions of the pirates constituted acts of war against the US and not just crimes against persons and property.

He seems to have suggested to Congress that they authorize him to engage in offensive war activities. Jefferson seemed to recognize that Congress has the power to declare war and that he doesn't. Apparently Congress granted Jefferson the use of the military to pursue an achievable objective.

For the life of me, I can't see why there is any reasonable objection to declaring war if one is going to fight a war. Nor can I see any justification for creating an unConstitutional War Powers Act which gives legislative weight to an ambiguity which shouldn't exist.

If our Founders wanted to grant the government the power to conduct law-enforcement in foreign lands, they could have said so. The concept is not so complicated nor so new that it couldn't have been included. Instead, Congress recognized the sovereignty of other nations, expecting them to recognize our sovereignty. The power to declare war is the power to challenge the sovereignty of others. It is only of secondary interest in crime-fighting.

[Senator_Palpatine]

>>>>>INTERPRETATION OF JOINT RESOLUTION SEC. 8. (a) Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred-- >>>>>>

...My esteemed colleagues,If I may say so,In response to the direct threat to the Republic from the Confederacy of Independent Islamic Systems, I propose that the Senate gives immediate emergency powers to George W. Bush! The Jihadists have gone too far this time....in Pakistan. Where is the next threat? On U.S. soil? Again?just like 9-11? We must strike FEAR to the ENEMY....Exceptional times demand extreme measures! Exceptional measures demand exceptional Declaration of War!

Now,go out to the Command Ship and Await my Orders....

[rmlew]

Congress can't declare war on an organization.
It did what it could; essential institute a letter of Reprisal authorizing the President to carry out such actions as deemed neccesary to destroy Al-Queda.
This is not a declaration of war, but it doesn't need to be.

We should have declared was on Afghanistan and should declare war on Iran, Iraq, and Syria.

[mrsmith]

Jefferson's inaugural remarks are a clear and accessible exposition of the constitutional issues involved. I don't understand why oppponents of a war conducted under congressional acts feel they have to raise this shibboleth of 'unconstitutionality'.
It won't wash with anyone who believes the Constitution menans the same now as it did to the Founders- who fought two wars that way before they fought one under a Declaration.

I believe that, in general, a Declaration of War is a superior method of conducting war for many reasons. Primarily, it gives the administration a large and sufficient authority and field of actions; and it imposes upon congress a desire to end the war so they can reclaim the powers they lose to the executive during the duration!

[William Tell]

mrsmith said: "I believe that, in general, a Declaration of War is a superior method of conducting war for many reasons. Primarily, it gives the administration a large and sufficient authority and field of actions; and it imposes upon congress a desire to end the war so they can reclaim the powers they lose to the executive during the duration!"

I quite agree. That is why I would like to hear the justification for engaging in an undeclared war. To me it seems like an exercise in misplaced accountability and an invitation to mischief. Other than for political posturing, I can't see why a declaration is undesireable. But then I tend to be a pretty direct person.

Similar discussions took place concerning the so-called "line-item-veto". When Congress passes a bill, they are voting on all of the provisions in the bill. The idea that the President should be able to pick and choose from among the provisions is ridiculous. They might as well permit him to rearrange the letters to spell different words.

[TheWriter]

If Congress did officially declare War, most insurance companies would not have to pay benefits to the families of the victims. Most policies have exclusions for Acts of War.

Further, Congress already passed a law the year before authorizing the President to respond to an attack just like this. I can pull the exact PL number if you need it.

Folks presume that War must be declared for this type of response. Nonsense: in the event of a nuclear war, the nukes are flying WITHOUT anyone's approval but the President's.

[NormsRevenge]

But then I tend to be a pretty direct person.

Yes U R :-).. I hate beat around the bush folks myself, and U Sir are not beating around anybody's bushes today ... :-| ..

[Twodees]

[Once upon a time, conservatives knew that]

Conservatives still know it. The people we're arguing with here are neoconservatives which is a cool-sounding term they invented to hide the obvious fact that they are a gang of mewling socialists. Anyone who tries to call himself a conservative while defending the unconstitutional actions of politicians is no more a conservative than Hillary Clinton is.

These imbeciles actually think they are mounting devastatingly logical arguments when in fact they are simply regurgitating what George Will and the other socialist pissants on TV have said. I'm a little tired of having these clowns running around pretending to be the only true conservatives. They're destroying the image of conservatism.

[Twodees]

[Who says it has to say "Declaration of War"]

The US Constitution says so, if you're talking about the president exercising war powers. If the subject is a private citizen making war on the seas against foreign powers, the document provides that a Letter of Marque or Reprisal is within the power of Congress to issue. Of course, I've never seen you give the slightest indication that you have ever read the document except to scan it for little hooks to hang your arguments on, but you need to hear the truth whether you want to hear it or not.

A reverence for the founding document of this great country is the one characteristic which clearly separates conservatives from you neocon liberals. The sooner you poseurs go and join the democrats in a single socialist party, the better.

[moneyrunner]

”Crime and war are two different things. War may be fought because a government refuses to recognize the valid claims of the United States to hold people accountable for crimes. People who cause us to go to war may be held accountable for "war crimes" if they fall into our hands as a result of waging war.”

I’m afraid you lost me here. Was the attack on 9/11 a crime - in your opinion? Sort of a large scale version of a drive-by shooting? Was WW2 fought because the Japanese government failed to arrest the men of the fleet that attacked Pearl Harbor? Should our reaction to 9/11 be to send the NY Police department to arrest Osama Bin Laden and read him his Miranda rights? Can you write an intelligible sentence?

”Our government has the resources and the sophistication to be able to manage this distinction. Failure to manage it properly has the potential to destroy us.”

OK, you really did mean that we should have sent the cops rather than the military. You know, I think you would have been more comfortable with a Clinton/Gore administration. That was and would have been their reaction: calling for a UN resolution, sending the FBI over to Afghanistan to ask Mullah Omar to cooperate. Yep, that would have done the job. Meanwhile the assembly of the next terror weapon goes on.

”The political decision to support a corrupt South Vietnamese government caused the death of many tens of thousands of Americans. I don't wish to see the repeat of such a mess. And yet a lack of clarity with regard to who is the enemy and what is a crime could lead to very serious problems "ending" the war.”

A recent inhabitant of one of the more PC institutes of lack-of-learning I see. Your knowledge of history is flawed, your reasoning skills need work and your ability to articulate your thoughts will take a lot of work.

[moneyrunner]

” Fine. Tell me whether the "celebrations" that you just described are an act of war or a permitted activity by a "neutral".

Sigh. The celebrations were an indication of the hatred on the part of the celebrants and their delight in the death of Americans.

”If it is an act of war, then it must be justified to use military force to stop it. If it is not an act of war, then we better learn to distinguish between "hate" and "crime". They are not the same. "Hate" is a thought. "Celebration" is a form of expressing joy. Thinking and expressing oneself are not crimes.”

I am not going to discuss serious issues with someone who should be institutionalized.

Goodbye.

[William Tell]

moneyrunner said: "Was WW2 fought because the Japanese government failed to arrest the men of the fleet that attacked Pearl Harbor?"

We are probably both of the opinion that the Japanese government sanctioned the attack on Pearl Harbor. It was an act of war. The individuals in the Japanese government who were responsible for making the decisions which allowed that attack could have found themselves facing war crimes trials at the end of the war and some of them may have.

[William Tell]

moneyrunner said: "Should our reaction to 9/11 be to send the NY Police department to arrest Osama Bin Laden and read him his Miranda rights? Can you write an intelligible sentence?"

The US did request that the Taliban government turn over Osama and his henchman to the US. Had they done so, I believe that they would have faced trial in a US court room just as those who were prosecuted for the prior bombing of the WTC did.

I believe that the hijacking of an airplane in interstate flight is a federal crime, so it would probably have been the FBI who was sent to pick up Osama in Afghanistan rather than the New York Police. If the cooperative government of Afghanistan had expressed a need, then I have no doubt that the US would have found a way to provide law-enforcement assistance.

[William Tell]

moneyrunner said: "A recent inhabitant of one of the more PC institutes of lack-of-learning I see. Your knowledge of history is flawed, your reasoning skills need work and your ability to articulate your thoughts will take a lot of work."

I stated that the decision to send our forces to Viet Nam was a political decision.

I claimed that the South Vietnamese government was corrupt.

I pointed out that tens of thousands of American lives were lost.

I inferred that a lack of clarity regarding who is the enemy and what are the goals could cause a similar loss of American lives in an undeclared war against "terror".

Perhaps you could be a little more specific regarding the flaws in my understanding of history or in my reasoning. As for my articulation, you might try paraphrasing my comments as a way of eliciting clarification if you find the need.

[William Tell]

moneyrunner said: "I am not going to discuss serious issues with someone who should be institutionalized. "

I was asking whether jubilation on the part of others when Americans die constitutes an act of war. If it does not, then we should dismiss any idea of making war against nations simply because they hate us.

You are the one who included this in your description of the seriousness of our nation's situation. I was simply pointing out that this is an indicator of our problems and not the cause. Perhaps you might explain why you thought that this was important.

[Hugin]

In 1815, during Madison's administration, they declared war. Jefferson just had a resolution.

Twelve years after the fact, huh? So I guess we will be declaring war on Iraq pretty soon. Hey, that actually does work out OK, doesn't it?

[Freemeorkillme]

Reminder_BTTT,

FMOKM

[_Jim]

BTTT