Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Attorney General Gonzales "There was not a war declaration"
Wikipedia ^ | 2/6/2006

Posted on 11/28/2007 1:18:09 PM PST by ksen

AG Gonzales "There was not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It was an authorization to use military force.

I only want to clarify that, because there are implications. Obviously, when you talk about a war declaration, you're possibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic relations. And so there is a distinction in law and in practice. And we're not talking about a war declaration. This is an authorization only to use military force."


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: doj; gonzales; iraq
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-119 next last
Interesting, the highest attorney in the country has said on record that what the congress did in respect to Iraq was not a declaration of war.

What's the problem? Why can't we get a real, legal declaration of war against our enemy?

Was the Attorney General mistaken?

What say you everyone that has said and argued that what the Congress did was a declaration of war? Does this change your mind?

1 posted on 11/28/2007 1:18:09 PM PST by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: MindBender26

Ping to continue from other thread if you wish.


2 posted on 11/28/2007 1:18:42 PM PST by ksen ("For an omniscient and omnipotent God, there are no Plan B's" - Frumanchu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ksen

I believe the problem is you have to have a country you are fighting in order to have a declaration of war.


3 posted on 11/28/2007 1:19:12 PM PST by SoConPubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks; George W. Bush; Calvinist_Dark_Lord

ping


4 posted on 11/28/2007 1:19:23 PM PST by ksen ("For an omniscient and omnipotent God, there are no Plan B's" - Frumanchu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
I believe the problem is you have to have a country you are fighting in order to have a declaration of war.

True, but wasn't Iraq a country?

5 posted on 11/28/2007 1:20:22 PM PST by ksen ("For an omniscient and omnipotent God, there are no Plan B's" - Frumanchu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ksen
everyone that has said and argued that what the Congress did was a declaration of war?

Several have argued that words mean nothing, that funding did the declaring.

6 posted on 11/28/2007 1:21:37 PM PST by RightWhale (anti-razors are pro-life)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ksen

True. However, to me this is all a matter of semantics.

I really don’t care.

Bush did the right thing, I just wish that 1. He had been more forceful (There should not have been 2 Fallujah battles, 1 would have sufficed) and 2. that different people were initially running the show in Iraq.


7 posted on 11/28/2007 1:23:14 PM PST by SoConPubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
From here:

There are important legal reasons NOT to declare war.

My response from the same thread: What would those reasons be in this case?

Especially given all the talk that has said what congress did was to declare war?

8 posted on 11/28/2007 1:23:34 PM PST by ksen ("For an omniscient and omnipotent God, there are no Plan B's" - Frumanchu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ksen
How do you declare war on an Non nation state organization like Al Qeda?

Saddam Hussein was in violation of the 1991 Ceasefire. We had no need for a declaration of war. As for the rest, here are the reason we are in Iraq.

It is past time for the Dinocons, instead of arrogantly clinging to their Neo Isolationists dogmas, to finally admit to themselves they have been all wrong about Iraq from the start instead of insisting on refighting this argument they lost in 2002.

Why Iraq

One of the really infuriating things in modern politics is the level of disinformation, misinformation, demagoguery and out right lying going on about the mission in Iraq. Democrats have spent the last 3+ years lying about Iraq out of a political calculation. The assumption is that the natural isolationist mindset of the average American voter, linked to the inherent Anti Americanism (what is misnamed the “Anti War movement”) of the more feverish Democrat activists (especially those running the US’s National “News” media) would restore them to national political dominance. The truth is the Democrat Party Leadership has simply lacked the courage to speak truth to whiners. The truth is that even if Al Gore won the 2000 election and 09-11 still happened we would be doing the EXACT same things in Iraq we are doing now.

Based on the political situation in the region left over from the 1991 Gulf War plus the domestic political consensus built up in BOTH parties since 1991 as well as fundamental military strategic laws, there was NO viable strategic choice for the US but to take out Iraq after finishing the initial operations in Afghanistan.

To start with Saddam’s Iraq was our most immediate threat. We could NOT commit significant military forces to another battle with Saddam hovering undefeated on our flank nor could we leave significant forces watching Saddam. The political containment of Iraq was breaking down. That what Oil for Food was all about. Oil for Food was an attempt by Iraq to break out of it’s diplomatic isolation and slip the shackles the UN Sanctions put on it’s military. There there was the US Strategic position to consider.

The War on Islamic Fascism is different sort of war. in facing this Asymmetrical threat, we have a hidden foe, spread out across a geographically diverse area, with covert sources of supply. Since we cannot go everywhere they hide out, in fact often cannot even locate them until the engage us, we need to draw them out of hiding into a kill zone.

Iraq is that kill zone. That is the true brilliance of the Iraq strategy. We draw the terrorists out of their world wide hiding places onto a battlefield they have to fight on for political reasons (The “Holy” soil of the Arabian peninsula) where they have to pit their weakest ability (Conventional Military combat power) against our greatest strength (ability to call down unbelievable amounts of firepower) where they will primarily have to fight other forces (the Iraqi Security forces) in a battlefield that is mostly neutral in terms of guerrilla warfare. (Iraqi-mostly open terrain as opposed to guerrilla friendly areas like the mountains of Afghanistan or the jungles of SE Asia).

Did any of the critics of liberating Iraq ever look at a map? Iraq, for which we had the political, legal and moral justifications to attack, is the strategic high ground of the Middle East. A Geographic barrier that severs ground communication between Iran and Syria apart as well as providing another front of attack in either state or into Saudi Arabia if needed.

There were other reasons to do Iraq but here is the strategic military reason we are in Iraq. We have taken, an maintain the initiative from the Terrorists. They are playing OUR game on ground of OUR choosing.

Problem is Counter Insurgency is SLOW and painful. Often a case of 3 steps forward, two steps back. One has to wonder if the American people have either the emotional maturity, nor the intellect” to understand. It’s so much easier to spew made for TV slogans like “No Blood for Oil” or “We support the Troops, bring them home” or dumbest of all “We are creating terrorists” then to actually THINK.

Westerners in general, and the US citizens in particular seem to have trouble grasping the fundamental fact of this foe. These Islamic Fascists have NO desire to co-exist with them. The extremists see all this PC posturing by the Hysteric Left as a sign that we are weak. Since they want us dead, weakness encourages them. There is simply no way to coexist with people who completely believe their “god” will reward them for killing us.

So we can covert to Islam, die or kill them. Iraq is about killing enough of them to make the rest of the Jihadists realize we are serious. They same way killing enough Germans, Italians and Japanese eliminated the ideologies of Nazism, Fascism and Bushido.

Americans need to understand how Bin Laden and his ilk view us. In the Arab world the USA is considered a big wimp. We have run away so many times. Lebanon, the Kurds, the Iraqis in 1991, the Iranians, Somalia, Clinton all thru the 1990s etc etc etc. The Jihadists think we will run again. In fact they are counting on it. That way they can run around screaming “We beat the American just like the Russians, come join us in Jihad” and recruit the next round of “holy warriors”. Iraq is also a show place where we show the Muslim world that there are a lines they cannot cross. On 9-11-01 they crossed that line and we can, and will, destroy them for it -

If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”

Winston Churchill

9 posted on 11/28/2007 1:25:29 PM PST by MNJohnnie (What drug pushers do with drugs, politicians do with government subsides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ksen

Did not need to declare war on Saddam. He was in violation of the 1991 Ceasefire. That is all the legal justification we needed.


10 posted on 11/28/2007 1:26:12 PM PST by MNJohnnie (What drug pushers do with drugs, politicians do with government subsides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ksen

He’s right.

The question is: why?

We have lost God knows how many men and women in combat since the end of World War II. Yet we have not been at war since 2 September 1945. We haven’t declared war on anyone since 8 December 1941.

WTF?


11 posted on 11/28/2007 1:26:24 PM PST by B-Chan (Catholic. Monarchist. Texan. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ksen
BTW, Gonzales was not AG in 2002. His opinion after the fact is irrelevant.
12 posted on 11/28/2007 1:27:07 PM PST by MNJohnnie (What drug pushers do with drugs, politicians do with government subsides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ksen

I believe it has been a very long time since America had a formal declaration of war.

Truman referred to the Korean War as a “police action,” and he invoked UN authority when the Soviets walked out and the Security Council passed a resolution.

Congress sometimes gave approval of one sort or another, and sometimes not.

Perhaps someone can correct me, but although we have been in numerous armed engagements all over the world, large and small, from the Bay of Pigs to the Berlin Airlift to Grenada to Panama to Vietnam to Afghanistan to Nicaragua to the Horn of Africa to you name it, none involved formal declarations, and many only received congressional approval after the fact, if at all.

I don’t think it’s clear from the Constitution whether there must be a formal declaration, and the president has certain emergency powers that do not require immediate congressional approval, although congress does have the clear right to withhold funds.

Even there, Reagan managed to continue supporting the Contras after congress pulled the funding plug by means of Iran Contra and Mena, both more than a little shady but I think justified in the circumstances.


13 posted on 11/28/2007 1:28:36 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

IIRC, we weren’t at war with Iraq/Saddam the first time ‘round either.


14 posted on 11/28/2007 1:28:55 PM PST by ctdonath2 (The color blue tastes like the square root of 0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

Didn’t Jefferson declare war on the Barbary pirates? Going from memory here...


15 posted on 11/28/2007 1:29:08 PM PST by ovrtaxt (You're a destiny that God wrapped a body around.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan
The question is: why?

It was not legally required, but it would have stopped most of the crap at home.

16 posted on 11/28/2007 1:29:18 PM PST by RightWhale (anti-razors are pro-life)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Several have argued that words mean nothing, that funding did the declaring.

Sure, I understand that argument and have used it on another board when arguing with some libs. However the AG is on record saying that what the congress did in a legal sense was not a declaration of war.

If that's the case and if we are under as dire a threat as people are saying then why hasn't war been declared in a legal as well as a real sense?

17 posted on 11/28/2007 1:29:51 PM PST by ksen ("For an omniscient and omnipotent God, there are no Plan B's" - Frumanchu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ksen
The US Government has made a declaration of war 8 times in its history. The last 3 declarations of was was in World War II.

Declarations of War end with a Peace Treaty.

In Iraq, we ended a Cease Fire, and used UN Resolution violations.

These days we dont make declarations of war because we want everything to be a "unified effort" among several countries, and "unilateral" strikes are considered as bad thing these days.

18 posted on 11/28/2007 1:30:09 PM PST by GregoTX (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ovrtaxt

Don’t know, my knowledge of that part of our history is fuzzy, however, it really interests me and I intend to rectify that deficiency!


19 posted on 11/28/2007 1:31:35 PM PST by SoConPubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

Absolutely not MN, if the Congress can ignore the Constitution on things such as declaring war, why would they feel bound to anything the Constitution limits the Govt from doing?


20 posted on 11/28/2007 1:31:41 PM PST by padre35 (Conservative in Exile/ Isaiah 3.3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ksen
What other thread?

IMHO the War Powers Act from the 70's had help greatly to confuse, muddle and general dilute the power of the Commander-in-Chief.
21 posted on 11/28/2007 1:31:45 PM PST by K-oneTexas (I'm not a judge and there ain't enough of me to be a jury. (Zell Miller, A National Party No More))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ksen

I have heard it argued that the real value of a war declaration gives the government the ability to do certain things that they’re not otherwise supposed to do, in terms of individual citizen’s rights- such as phone tapping, detentions, etc. Under a war declaration, there’s a mechanism to return the country to a state of freedom after the war is over.

I’m not sure about this, but this is what I’ve heard others say.


22 posted on 11/28/2007 1:32:03 PM PST by ovrtaxt (You're a destiny that God wrapped a body around.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
Did not need to declare war on Saddam. He was in violation of the 1991 Ceasefire. That is all the legal justification we needed.

We didn't?

I don't remember war being declared during Desert Shield/Storm either.

23 posted on 11/28/2007 1:32:26 PM PST by ksen ("For an omniscient and omnipotent God, there are no Plan B's" - Frumanchu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ksen

Now, what is the context that Gonzalez said this?


24 posted on 11/28/2007 1:32:34 PM PST by padre35 (Conservative in Exile/ Isaiah 3.3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ksen
Interesting, the highest attorney in the country has said on record that what the congress did in respect to Iraq was not a declaration of war. What's the problem? Why can't we get a real, legal declaration of war against our enemy? Was the Attorney General mistaken? What say you everyone that has said and argued that what the Congress did was a declaration of war? Does this change your mind?

I'm eagerly anticipating something resembling a point.

25 posted on 11/28/2007 1:33:31 PM PST by L.N. Smithee (Edward M. Kennedy High School -- Home of the Killer Whales!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
BTW, Gonzales was not AG in 2002. His opinion after the fact is irrelevant.

His opinion at that time was entirely relevant. He made the claim in front of the Senate Judiciary committee and no Senator, from either party, tried to correct him.

26 posted on 11/28/2007 1:33:36 PM PST by ksen ("For an omniscient and omnipotent God, there are no Plan B's" - Frumanchu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ksen

Declaration was not legally required. Dire threat is not the necessary reason for declaring war.


27 posted on 11/28/2007 1:33:52 PM PST by RightWhale (anti-razors are pro-life)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ksen
Iraq is a country, and America is a country with at least 40% of it’s population bent on nonexistence.
28 posted on 11/28/2007 1:33:55 PM PST by Dead Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

I like that bit about “speak truth to whiners” and I think I will steal it.

I will, of course, attribute it to you a time or two, but after that, its mine.


29 posted on 11/28/2007 1:35:09 PM PST by KC Burke (Men of intemperate minds can never be free...their passions forge their fetters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ksen

That’s what has been simmering in my head for quite some time.

Sure, the action itself can obviously be construed as “declaring war”.
But ... if it’s so easy to just declare it, why haven’t we? and why do supporters of the, er, activities in Iraq get so jumpy when I suggest doing so?

Welcome to the age of non-accountability. People want a war with the option of saying “well, it isn’t really...” if convenient to do so.

On the whole I support what’s being done in Iraq et al.
I just wish our leaders would officially declare what is happening to be what is happening, and not be squeamish about calling a war a war.


30 posted on 11/28/2007 1:36:44 PM PST by ctdonath2 (The color blue tastes like the square root of 0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan
"The question is: why?"

We dont want to be called "Unilateralists", so we dont declare war, we have a military action as being a part of a "Coalition" of nations. IMHO.

31 posted on 11/28/2007 1:38:38 PM PST by GregoTX (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
The truth is that even if Al Gore won the 2000 election and 09-11 still happened we would be doing the EXACT same things in Iraq we are doing now. Logically, yes, since in moving against Iraq, Bush was simply implementing a po;icvy that Clinton enumciated in December, 1998. Nothing was said at the time, but the international situation may have prevented the Senate from acting against Clinton at this time.
32 posted on 11/28/2007 1:40:03 PM PST by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ksen
Instead of just screaming back your dogma, actually read what I posted to you. You took less then a minute to respond to over 3 pages of text.

Obvious you did not even bother to read it, or even think about, this issue at all.

Nice you have feelings about Iraq. Too bad your feelings don't count for anything at all. Your minority viewpoint does not get to trump our votes. Our Govt., of, by and for the people, is doing the will of the people. That you don't care for what it is doing matter not in the least.

Try winning some elections then your Neo Isolationist dogmas might matter but until they do, your minority opinions do not trump our majority rights.

33 posted on 11/28/2007 1:41:00 PM PST by MNJohnnie (What drug pushers do with drugs, politicians do with government subsides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ksen

By the way, this not declaring war since WW2 really has to do with the UN. We’ve been playing by globalist rules for decades now. The elites want it this way, so this is what we get.


34 posted on 11/28/2007 1:41:06 PM PST by ovrtaxt (You're a destiny that God wrapped a body around.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ksen

The Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998, signed into law by Co-President Clinton, shoudl be all the force of law we need.

Right?

(*crickets*)


35 posted on 11/28/2007 1:41:27 PM PST by Old Sarge (This tagline in memory of FReeper 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GregoTX
The US Government has made a declaration of war 8 times in its history. The last 3 declarations of was was in World War II.

I'm looking at Wikipedia's article titled Declaration of war by the United States.

It contains two lists - "Formal declarations of war" and "Military engagements authorized by Congress".

According to the article, Congress began the practice of authorizing the use of military force without a formal declaration of war in 1798.

36 posted on 11/28/2007 1:41:34 PM PST by HAL9000 (Fred Thompson/Mike Huckabee 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: padre35
Now, what is the context that Gonzalez said this?

If you follow the link you'll be able to read the whole transcript.

Basically Gonazales was testifying before the Senate Judiciary committee about wartime executive authority and NSA surveillance authority.

Specifically the AG was responding to Senator Brownback. Here is more of the exchange:

BROWNBACK: Having said that, I've read through most of your white paper material, and I've looked at a great deal of it. I'm struck and I think we have an issue we need to deal with.

Part of what we're working off of is a war declaration dated September 18th, 2001, and the war declaration on Afghanistan, and the war declaration October 16th, 2002 on the use of military force in Iraq, and "The president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks."

It strikes me that we're going to be in this war on terrorism possibly for decades; maybe not. But this could be the Cold War of our generation. Maybe it doesn't go that period of time, but it has the possibilities of going for some extended period of time.

And I share Senator DeWine's concern that we should look, then, at the FISA law, and make sure that as we move forward in this, that we're not just depending upon these authorizations of war to say that that puts us in a superior position under the Article II powers, but that to maintain the support of the American public, to have another set of eyes also looking at this surveillance technique is an important thing in maintaining the public's support for this.

And so I want to look and direct you to looking at the FISA law in particular. And you've made some comments here this today that have been very well stated and thought through. You've talked to one point the FISA law was not well structured to the needs of today's terrorist war effort. The law was passed -- what? -- 27 years ago or something of that nature, and certainly didn't contemplate a war on terrorism like we're in today.

And I want to look specifically at how we could amend that FISA law, looking at a possible decades-long war on terrorism.

Now, one of the areas you've talked about that's cumbersome is the 72-hour provision within the law, if I'm gathering what you're saying correctly.

BROWNBACK: Congress extended this period from 24 to 72 hours in 2001.

Just looking narrowly at what would need to be done to use the FISA authority more broadly and still be able to stop terrorists, if that is extended further, would it make it more likely that she would use the FISA process, if that's extended beyond 72 hours?

GONZALES: It's hard to say, Senator, because whether it's 24 or 72, whatever, I have got to make a determination under the law that at the time I grant emergency authorization, that all the requirements of FISA are met. I think General Hayden said it best yesterday: This is not a 72-hour sort of hall pass.

I've got to know when I grant that authorization, whether I then have 24 or 72 hours to submit a written application to the court, I've got to know at the time I say, "Yes, go forward," that all the requirements of FISA are met. That's the problem.

If I could just also make one final point.

BROWNBACK: Fair enough.

GONZALES: There was not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It was an authorization to use military force.

I only want to clarify that, because there are implications. Obviously, when you talk about a war declaration, you're possibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic relations. And so there is a distinction in law and in practice. And we're not talking about a war declaration. This is an authorization only to use military force.

Senator Brownback made reference to war being declared and AG Gonzales took the time to correct the Senator that, legally, war had not been declared.

the Senator did not try and correct the AG and let the point stand uncontested.

37 posted on 11/28/2007 1:42:40 PM PST by ksen ("For an omniscient and omnipotent God, there are no Plan B's" - Frumanchu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ksen

isn’t wikipedia like posting a blog?

given the accademic weakness of the source I hardly call it appropriate.


38 posted on 11/28/2007 1:46:28 PM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ksen
True, but wasn't Iraq a country?

We were not fighting a country, but an illegal dictatorship and its security apparatus.

39 posted on 11/28/2007 1:46:49 PM PST by wideawake (Why is it that so many self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" know so little about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ovrtaxt

I do not believe he did. My recollection is something like ... he sent the Navy and Marines during a Congressional recess. Then reported to them later.


40 posted on 11/28/2007 1:47:04 PM PST by K-oneTexas (I'm not a judge and there ain't enough of me to be a jury. (Zell Miller, A National Party No More))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
You took less then a minute to respond to over 3 pages of text.

I took less than a minute to respond to two one-line posts of yours. I'm not sure where you are getting the "3 pages of text."

Nice you have feelings about Iraq. Too bad your feelings don't count for anything at all. Your minority viewpoint does not get to trump our votes. Our Govt., of, by and for the people, is doing the will of the people. That you don't care for what it is doing matter not in the least.

Really? It's doing the will of the people? Is that why we had such stunning results in 2006 why the President's approval rating is through the roof?

Try winning some elections then your Neo Isolationist dogmas might matter but until they do, your minority opinions do not trump our majority rights.

LOL, how'd those globalist dogmas treat you in 2006?

41 posted on 11/28/2007 1:50:02 PM PST by ksen ("For an omniscient and omnipotent God, there are no Plan B's" - Frumanchu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
isn’t wikipedia like posting a blog?

In some cases yes, in some cases no.

given the accademic weakness of the source I hardly call it appropriate.

The source is the transcript of the hearings.

Did you bother to go to the source in the OP?

42 posted on 11/28/2007 1:51:24 PM PST by ksen ("For an omniscient and omnipotent God, there are no Plan B's" - Frumanchu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: ksen
Was the Attorney General mistaken?

Yes. Just because CONgress doesn't possess the testicles to call their authorization what it is does not change what the authorization truly is.

43 posted on 11/28/2007 1:52:48 PM PST by sauropod ("A man never stands so tall as when he stoops to kiss ass" - Paul Begala on pandering)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
We were not fighting a country, but an illegal dictatorship and its security apparatus.

Why does that sound like spin?

We used our military to remove the government of a sovereign nation and disbanded its army.

Normally I'd think that would take a declaration of war.

44 posted on 11/28/2007 1:53:12 PM PST by ksen ("For an omniscient and omnipotent God, there are no Plan B's" - Frumanchu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: ksen
Nice you have feelings. Your feelings are not facts. If you were a Judge ruling on a case your opinions about the US Constitution matter, since you are not, your opinions on the topic are irrelevant.
45 posted on 11/28/2007 1:53:48 PM PST by MNJohnnie (What drug pushers do with drugs, politicians do with government subsides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
ksen: Was the Attorney General mistaken?

suropod: Yes. Just because CONgress doesn't possess the testicles to call their authorization what it is does not change what the authorization truly is.

If the AG was wrong why didn't Senator Brownback call him on it when he had the chance?

War has not been declared according to the executive branch of the government as spoken by its chief lawyer. If that wasn't the President's view then Gonzales would not have said it.

46 posted on 11/28/2007 1:55:31 PM PST by ksen ("For an omniscient and omnipotent God, there are no Plan B's" - Frumanchu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
Try winning some elections then your Neo Isolationist dogmas might matter but until they do, your minority opinions do not trump our majority rights.

You speak for yourself. You sure as hell don't speak for me!

47 posted on 11/28/2007 1:56:00 PM PST by sauropod ("A man never stands so tall as when he stoops to kiss ass" - Paul Begala on pandering)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ksen

Part of it being that Congress refused to declare war lest they have to explain themselves to constituents. So they handed the responsibility to the President, knowing it provided them the cover they needed at home, and the opportunity to snipe at him for political purposes, etc.
They were and remain Cowardly.


48 posted on 11/28/2007 1:57:54 PM PST by theDentist (Qwerty ergo typo : I type, therefore I misspelll.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ksen
We have not had an official declaration of war since FDR asked for, and got one on December 8th, 1941. After that date we got the United Nations where we could not "declare war".

I used to be able to give the speech that FDR gave to Congress, and do a damned good impression of him in voice, and word for word. It was a very short speech, for a politician. I have listened to that speech 5000 times and I always get the same feeling....the man (FDR) was pissed. He did the right thing. Yes, I think he was a great President, I don't agree with his politics, but when it came to politics or country, he put the country first, and that makes a Statesman vs a politician. Funny thing is that if FDR was on the democrat ticket today he would be running dead last in the primaries.

49 posted on 11/28/2007 1:58:17 PM PST by timydnuc (I'll die on my feet before I'll live on my knees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
Your feelings are not facts.

I didn't say they were.

I've posted plenty of facts in the form of testimony before the Senate Judiciary committee which you have yet to try and refute beyond the equivalent of "Nuh-uh!"

50 posted on 11/28/2007 1:59:07 PM PST by ksen ("For an omniscient and omnipotent God, there are no Plan B's" - Frumanchu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-119 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson