Discussion:
USA IS AT WAR?
(too old to reply)
Garlon3A
2005-12-31 18:13:50 UTC
Permalink
the president thinks that because we have a "war on terror" he is allowed to
do all sorts of things that he could not during peace time. but being in a
state of war is a not just a euphamism. it is a specific legal status that
must be declared and spelled out by congress. congress authorized the
president to us military force against al qaeda and the taliban. they they
authorized the president to use force against iraq. but a declaration of
war, which is neccessary for the president to claim new powers under the war
powers act, has not been declared. this means that any new rights and
powers that the president has must be spelled out and legislated by
congress, such as the patriot act. anything bush does under the patriot act
is legal, since congress passed it as legislation. but until congress
declares a national state of war against islamic militants or anyone else,
bush cant invent new powers for himself.
BernardZ
2006-01-01 02:12:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Garlon3A
the president thinks that because we have a "war on terror" he is allowed to
do all sorts of things that he could not during peace time. but being in a
state of war is a not just a euphamism. it is a specific legal status that
must be declared and spelled out by congress. congress authorized the
president to us military force against al qaeda and the taliban. they they
authorized the president to use force against iraq. but a declaration of
war, which is neccessary for the president to claim new powers under the war
powers act, has not been declared. this means that any new rights and
powers that the president has must be spelled out and legislated by
congress, such as the patriot act. anything bush does under the patriot act
is legal, since congress passed it as legislation. but until congress
declares a national state of war against islamic militants or anyone else,
bush cant invent new powers for himself.
A resolution passed by Congress a fews days after the attacks of Sept.
11, 2001 which authorized the use of force against terrorists.
--
It would be much cheaper if my wife could learn to appreciate plastic
flowers.

Observations of Bernard - No 91
Garlon3A
2006-01-01 02:32:47 UTC
Permalink
it authorized the use of force against terrorists. it was not a full
declaration of war, and bush has not declared a national state of emergency.
only under these declarations can bush use warrentless wiretaps without ever
consulting the FISA court. bush broke the law.
Post by BernardZ
Post by Garlon3A
the president thinks that because we have a "war on terror" he is allowed to
do all sorts of things that he could not during peace time. but being in a
state of war is a not just a euphamism. it is a specific legal status that
must be declared and spelled out by congress. congress authorized the
president to us military force against al qaeda and the taliban. they they
authorized the president to use force against iraq. but a declaration of
war, which is neccessary for the president to claim new powers under the war
powers act, has not been declared. this means that any new rights and
powers that the president has must be spelled out and legislated by
congress, such as the patriot act. anything bush does under the patriot act
is legal, since congress passed it as legislation. but until congress
declares a national state of war against islamic militants or anyone else,
bush cant invent new powers for himself.
A resolution passed by Congress a fews days after the attacks of Sept.
11, 2001 which authorized the use of force against terrorists.
--
It would be much cheaper if my wife could learn to appreciate plastic
flowers.
Observations of Bernard - No 91
BernardZ
2006-01-01 15:22:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Garlon3A
it authorized the use of force against terrorists. it was not a full
declaration of war, and bush has not declared a national state of emergency.
only under these declarations can bush use warrentless wiretaps without ever
consulting the FISA court. bush broke the law.
Crap again. Here is the full text of what the congress issued where it
states.


http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/sept_11/sjres23_eb.htm


(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of
the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is
intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the
meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution
supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
Post by Garlon3A
Post by BernardZ
Post by Garlon3A
the president thinks that because we have a "war on terror" he is allowed to
do all sorts of things that he could not during peace time. but being in a
state of war is a not just a euphamism. it is a specific legal status that
must be declared and spelled out by congress. congress authorized the
president to us military force against al qaeda and the taliban. they they
authorized the president to use force against iraq. but a declaration of
war, which is neccessary for the president to claim new powers under the war
powers act, has not been declared. this means that any new rights and
powers that the president has must be spelled out and legislated by
congress, such as the patriot act. anything bush does under the patriot act
is legal, since congress passed it as legislation. but until congress
declares a national state of war against islamic militants or anyone else,
bush cant invent new powers for himself.
A resolution passed by Congress a fews days after the attacks of Sept.
11, 2001 which authorized the use of force against terrorists.
--
It would be much cheaper if my wife could learn to appreciate plastic
flowers.
Observations of Bernard - No 91
--
It would be much cheaper if my wife could learn to appreciate plastic
flowers.

Observations of Bernard - No 91
L Alpert
2006-01-01 15:51:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Garlon3A
it authorized the use of force against terrorists. it was not a full
declaration of war, and bush has not declared a national state of
emergency. only under these declarations can bush use warrentless
wiretaps without ever consulting the FISA court. bush broke the law.
It matters little. Vietnam was never a officially a "declared" war either.
Post by Garlon3A
Post by BernardZ
Post by Garlon3A
the president thinks that because we have a "war on terror" he is allowed to
do all sorts of things that he could not during peace time. but being in a
state of war is a not just a euphamism. it is a specific legal status that
must be declared and spelled out by congress. congress authorized
the president to us military force against al qaeda and the
taliban. they they
authorized the president to use force against iraq. but a
declaration of war, which is neccessary for the president to claim
new powers under the war
powers act, has not been declared. this means that any new rights
and powers that the president has must be spelled out and
legislated by congress, such as the patriot act. anything bush
does under the patriot act
is legal, since congress passed it as legislation. but until
congress declares a national state of war against islamic militants
or anyone else,
bush cant invent new powers for himself.
A resolution passed by Congress a fews days after the attacks of
Sept. 11, 2001 which authorized the use of force against terrorists.
--
It would be much cheaper if my wife could learn to appreciate plastic
flowers.
Observations of Bernard - No 91
Andrew Nichols
2006-01-01 10:07:12 UTC
Permalink
America has been in a state of war since Lincoln declared it during the
Civil War. It was never lifted....

Andrew
Loading...