Answers to Ron Paul's Questions on Iraq From an Opponent of the War

Lew Rockwell ^ | 9/14/02 | Jacob G. Hornberger

[DugwayDuke]

"The Air Force didn't start out as the "Air Force." It was a part of the Army. Later, when air combat became more important and more specialised, it branched off from the Army and was RENAMED "The Air Force.""

And, what was the Constitutional Authority for "branched(ing) off" the Air Force? I've checked the Constitution and I can find no authority granting Congress this power. Was this an unconstitutional ursurpation of authority? Shouldn't Congress have passed a Constitutional Amendment to accomplish this? How does Congress's actions here differ from the War Powers Act?

While we're at it, where is the Constitutional Authority for the United States to even have airplanes? Clearly, the Founding Fathers did not envision such a development. How about the Federal Aviation Agency? Is it Constitutional? Where in a "clear reading" of the Constitution are these things authorized?

[CIB-173RDABN]

That oversteps the limits of the constitution, by supplying the what if as a fact. Did Saddam attack? No. Do we have the constitutional right to intervene with the problem of Kuwait's sovereign status? By the constitution, I don't see it. I can see the logic, but not the legality.

You have two points here, first you take exception to my "what if" statements and second your claim that our assistance to Kuwait was unconstitutional.

I will grant you the "what if" scenario I set up was of the worse case type, but that does not make it any less valid.

Do you have any doubts that if Osama and his friends were able to get a nuclear device under the World Trade Center they would not have done so?

Do you have doubts that there are some working in that area attempting to develope weapon grade biological agents?

Do you have doubts that when the time comes they will use them against us?

If you do have doubts, there is no point to this discussion.

As to the second point. In this nation, it has come to pass (and not that I like it one bit, but that what is or is not constitutional has been left up to the Supreme Court. For you to say that something is unconstitutional does not make it so. It may be unconstitutional according to your reading and understanding of the constitution, but unless you sit on the Supreme Court, it does not matter.

(The only recouse I see it is we have is to elect conservative members of Senate who will in turn approve conservative Justices who will then be able to begin the reversal of the last 60 years.)

[dennisw]

You can use it..... I'm not hosting the image though. I don't whose website it's on.

[jwalsh07]

Well, at least the quality of your thought has gone up from the post I answered. You are now at the level FR has become with its goon squads.

Guys or gals like you are a joke. You call me a Nazi and when I tell you to eat sh5t, you lecture on the level of discourse at Free Republic.

The same exact tactic used by Clintonistas the world over. I stand by my original response.

Eat Sh5t.

[aSkeptic]

"Did you know that Japan cannot have a military? Or is your understanding of history as deficient as your understanding of "rights."

FYI..... http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/east/11/08/ret.japan.warships/

[Luis Gonzalez]

"I'm saying that we are not in the middle of an emergency NOW. The emergency stiuation was over within days."

If it's all the same to you, I'll trust that decision to the people in charge of national security, not to you.

You are igonoring those points that you can't refute, such as the fact that the Congress isn't bound by the constitution to only enter our Armed Forces into a military conflict under the guise of a declaration of war.

Unless of course, you can show me that limitation in the constitution, or for that matter, any of these time limitations you seemed to have conjured up out of thin air.

BTW, this "emergency is over" attitude of yours is pretty amazing considering the fact that an active terrorist cell was just busted this weekend.

I guess we should all be grateful YOU'RE not in charge of national security.

Now, you continue to suggest, in spite of the voluminous amount of factual information that I have provided, that the president is acting outside his constitutional limits, but you do so without bothering to refute a single item I've posted.

That's called dodging.

That's also a win for me.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You're now being a comnpletely dishonest debater, shame on you.

I have provided ample evidence of the Congress's involvement, and of their actions under the Constitution to conduct the current action against the terrorist networks threatening the security of the nation. And you continue to ignore that, trying desperately to somehow create the image of a president acting against the wishes of Congress, and the constitution.

Quit lying.

[jammer]

I apologize for wording my statement that way. I said, but did not mean, that you were J.G. I DO think you use that technique--endlessly repeating things that are not demonstrated by the evidence. The wording was extremely infelicitous.

But, I am extremely sorry to have said that--I certainly didn't mean you were a Nazi, even if my poor wording "said" that. Again, my sincerest apologies.

[timestax]

bttt

[jwalsh07]

You go up a few rungs on the ladder jammer. I withdraw my crass comments as well. Have a good weekend.

[jwalsh07]

I DO think you use that technique--endlessly repeating things that are not demonstrated by the evidence.

After you have a good weekend, perhaps you can present some evidence of your claim. I'll be waiting.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Answer the question you have been dodging all along. Show me the provision in the constitution that impedes Congress from authorizing the use of the US Military in anything other than a declared war.

And then, show me the reasoning you are using to arrive at the consclusion that whatever we're doing in Afghanistan has reached a satisfactory conclusion. Including the continuing search for bin Laden and the remmants of Al Queda.

Your simple allegation that "it's over" isn't sufficient.

[Luis Gonzalez]

All you have to do now is to convince me, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that you are qualified to decide when this mission is over, and the end result achieved.

The reality of the fact is that Congress, has yet to pull financing of this operation, which tells me that they continue to support the president doing whatever he's doing. I am posting all sorts of information that refutes your claims, and all you have been doing is claiming that you can ascertain, from the comfort of your computer desk, when the mission is over, better than the people on the ground there.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Tell me the last time Congress authorized military action in Iraq."

"August 2, 1991, the Senate adopted an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill supporting the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of Resolution 687. Senator Dole said the amendment was not intended to authorize the use of force by the President, and that in his view in the current circumstances the President required no specific authorization from Congress. As enacted, Section 1095 of P.L.102-190 states the sense of Congress that it supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution."

[Clinging Bitterly]

> Our Constitution says that Congress has the war power. Let them exercise it.

Sure does. Congress can declare it - the War Powers Act says that too, but in the last 50 years, Congress has not done so, yet we have been in plenty of wars in that time.

Seems to me, if it were an exclusive war power that Congress has, and it really wanted to keep it, it'd take the issue to court and the court would rule so. This has not happened.

> I fully support a war of conquest in the Middle East, but I demand a LEGAL war.

There have been resolutions passed by Congress throughout history, saying it supported doing certain things that could fairly be characterized as acts of war, and so we have the usual word games that mean what we all know they mean. I don't like that any more than you do, but I don't lose sight of the fact that the political animal that inhabits Washington D.C. is an invertebrate species. Sometimes the right thing gets done in spite of them.

Dave in Eugene

[dcwusmc]

How wonderful for you. If you had read my post and seen who it was directed at... but no, that was too much bother...

I guess I was such a disgrace that I was in the Marine Corps from 1967 to 1993... and then got kicked out in shame and dishonor.... I was in Vietnam, too, bub. Were you? When the armchair commandos sent 58,000 people to come home in bodybags to no discernible effect and purpose? When people like Bobby MacNamara KNEW we could not win, yet hid that information from Congress and the President... THAT kind of civilian control? Or the kind that WON WWII because they had respect for the people who knew what they were doing and gave good advice to the decision makers?

My comment was addressed to the alleged chancellor palpatine, whoever that is... but it holds true for anyone wishing to send our kids off to die at the whim of a politician, especially when there are other ways to deal with the situation whereby we need NOT get bogged down in a situation that will most assuredly drag on and last decades. That is about the last thing we need to do.

[dcwusmc]

I have already posted a suggestion for dealing with both Saddam AND the terrorists that could end the war in months, not years, and NOT continue the rape of the Constitution here at home. You might wanna check it out...

[dcwusmc]

The Marine Corps has always been a department of the Navy... the MEN'S department...

[Isle of sanity in CA]

All of my earlier remarks stand. Your time in the Marines does not give you an free pass to be an bully in my book. I saw who your post was directed to. You thought that you could throw out the "I served, did you?" card on palpatine to shut him up. This is immoral. This is wrong. This is not honorable. Is it the Corps position that those who haven't served can not make decisions regarding war and peace?

BTW - I wasn't in Vietnam. I am too young. Are you now changing your position to say that if you haven't served in Vietnam your opinion doesn't count? I'm not buying 'bub'.

I get that you are bitter about what happened to you 30+ years ago. However, it's not an excuse for your bullying behavior.

[Gunrunner2]

>>Iraq should hide its weapons.<<

Encouraging Iraq to hide its weapons in contradiction of its agreement not to, and its agreement to disarm, is not a good thing—for anyone.

>>Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I still define a sovereign nation as being one that is "self-governing, and not ruled by any other state." <<

Sovereign nations are sovereign—until they lose a war. When that happens then they become non-sovereign when the wining side rightfully imposes conditions on their continued existence. (Called “surrender terms” or “terms of the cease-fire.”)

War is the ultimate infringement on sovereignty. And Iraq, by engaging in actions that violated another countries sovereignty, lost a war and therefore lost its right to sovereignty.

>>No government gave up its sovereignty by joining the United Nations treaty organization. Member nations did not become junior partners, like the present States of our nation are subservient to the national government in Washington.<<

Indeed. I see you agree that the US can make its own decisions and act in its own defense—all without subjugating the US government to some supra-national organization, which, as you know, would be a violation of sovereignty.