Post #18,578
11/16/01 2:30:10 PM
|
I think
After reading his remarks, I think the part he objects to is not the tribunal part but the secret part. It would be too easy for foreign governments to arrest Americans and then quietly throw them in prison without telling anybody. We already have this problem on occasion, but catch most because most countries follow the laws about notifying the persons home country if they are arrested.
Personally I have no problems with secret military tribunals, as long as we where in a declared war and some schedual for releasing the information from the trial after the war was ended existed.
As for the victor's justice comment, I think he's worried that to many people it will look like we are just executing some people to justify our war. Of course, a lot of people in the middle east are going to think this anyway. But the principle here is very important. We are likely going to end up executing several people without finding out what crimes they are guilty off or what evidence was used to charge them.
I don't think a formal declaration of war fell through the cracks. I think it was intenionally avoided because it would present too many problems. First, who would we declare war against? Wars are declared against countries, and we don't want to declare war on Afganistan. And in any case, it would be too inconvenient for the Bush presidency to lay these things out because that would also provide an implicit schedule for ending the war. That would mean going back on many of the legal changes they have made, and they don't want to do that.
As cynical as it may be, I think Bush's strategy for winning the next election is to insure that the current war doesn't end before then.
Jay
|
Post #18,579
11/16/01 2:39:43 PM
|
Bush Sr.
As cynical as it may be, I think Bush's strategy for winning the next election is to insure that the current war doesn't end before then. Perhaps he learned a lesson from dad, where the Iraq victory was too quick and didn't last into his bid against Clinton?
|
Post #18,582
11/16/01 3:07:15 PM
|
And then.. the difference between
how *our* system Actually operates (when enough distractions/excuses are around) - and.. Theirs is -
|
Post #18,600
11/16/01 8:15:13 PM
|
What really concerns me...
...is not the "short term" damage - this war needs to go on until the problem is solved.
It's the long term damage that has me concerned. If they want a war, why not declare it, and then invoke "war powers?" With this "undeclared" war, the executive is setting a very dangerous trend by unilaterally discovering all kinds of powers that they did not previously have. The danger comes when some further president uses this precedent to supress dissent within the country itself - and there is no immediate way to stop him, since very few people are challenging the president this time around.
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
|
Post #18,614
11/17/01 12:31:13 AM
|
I seem to recall
That a similar power grab by the executive was enacted sometime in the '30s and never recinded. There may well already be precedent. Not saying I agree with it, and I most certainly share your fears..off to do a little Googling..
-----
Steve
|
Post #18,759
11/19/01 10:57:05 AM
|
Ah...but there's the rub.
Personally I have no problems with secret military tribunals, as long as we where in a declared war and some schedual for releasing the information from the trial after the war was ended existed. The problem is, we're NOT in a declared war. We're in yet another "police action" that has become so popular with Republican administrations who seem to believe that following the Constitutional rules about declaring a "real" war are somehow so restrictive or bothersome (or both). jb4
(Resistance is not futile...)
|
Post #18,793
11/19/01 12:51:27 PM
|
A-yup.
I wish they'd actually declare war - Congress's initial "approval" of the President's actions made some strong references to the "War Powers" act (I don't have a link, but I remember reading it to my roommate at work - ex Special Forces Army type, and we both looked at each other and said "War powers" at the same time, then broke down laughing...) - I just wish they had the cojones to back it up with some real action...
Y'see, if Pres. Shrub declared War, then there would be a constitutional ground for most of the crap that Asscroft is pulling. As it is, he's inventing most of his "powers" on the grounds that nobody is standing up against him taking these powers - and he's grabbing on other fronts as well. Anybody notice the presidential papers rules that got totally overriden this morning? Think maybe Pappy Bush had anything to do with it? I don't have any proof, but I've got a VERY strong feeling...
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
|
Post #18,808
11/19/01 1:27:47 PM
|
Declare war against whom/what?
Countries can only legally declare war against other countries, AFAIK. What country should the Congress have declared war against? [link|http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.J.RES.64:|Here's] the House copy of the Joint Authorization for Use of Military Force: JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens;
Whereas such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States
citizens both at home and abroad;
Whereas in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence;
Whereas such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United
States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL- That 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 that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(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. I wouldn't make too much of the war powers notice. The War Powers Act is law which covers Presidental war-making actions. They're simply explicitly mentioning that it's still active. It seems to me that this joint resolution is close enough to a declaration of war for the constitutional requirements to be met as far as use of force goes. And it avoids the problems of an international legal declaration of war against a country or countries that we couldn't identify at the time. On the civil-liberties issue, this resolution doesn't (it seems to me) address that, but AFAIK a declaration of war wouldn't necessarily either. See, e.g., [link|http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/japwar.html|the declaration of war against Japan]. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #18,812
11/19/01 1:39:24 PM
|
Didn't know that.
But of course, in hindsight, it's perfectly clear to my half-awake brain, that of course, nations may only declare war on other nations. (Note: I've been getting 2-3 hours of sleep a night for the past TWO WEEKS, I am quite admittedly not running on all cylinders.)
This seems like a really bizzare limitation, since not all groups that we disagree with are necessarily nations, yet may require extraordinary resources to deal with. Wonder if there could be an "intermediate" category defined - of there existing an official "state of war" against a well-defined group or groups that pose a direct threat to the U.S., civilization, etc. - and with such, this gives us a blanket "sunset" for when provisions brought in to "deal" with the problem get kicked out, as opposed to our current "well, we want a bunch of new powers, so let's pretend they all get sunsetted, but then exempt the ones we really want..." method.
All provisions that don't get properly debated and discussed for their implications SHOULD be sunsetted. Yes, there are emergencies, and yes, it is often important to move quickly to handle those emergencies. We should also take care that our immediate reaction to those emergencies is followed up with some thought about the long-term implications of those short-term actions, and how best to actually deal with those issues in a way that is minimally damaging to our civil rights.
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
|
Post #18,816
11/19/01 2:07:19 PM
11/19/01 2:09:16 PM
|
"To the shores of Tripoli..."
Make time for some sleep. It's very important. [link|http://www.cato.org/current/terrorism/pubs/dempsey-010925.html|Here's] a brief article from the Cato Institute about the current situation. It wouldn't be the first time the United States has gone to war against non-state actors. In 1801, President Thomas Jefferson went to war against the Barbary pirates, who preyed upon European and American shipping in both Mediterranean and Atlantic waters. James Madison supported Jefferson's efforts, which proved successful by 1805.
Jefferson, unfortunately, operated without a formal declaration of war from Congress. He later admitted that he was "unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense," and that it was the prerogative of Congress to authorize "measures of offense also." Lamentably, Congress last week sidestepped its duty to formally declare war and instead granted the president the authority "to use all necessary force."
Of course, formally declaring war would not mean that U.S. bombers must immediately launch air strikes or that the Marines must eventually conduct a full-scale land invasion. Rather, it would signify that a profound threshold has been crossed that there are certain things Americans absolutely will not tolerate happening to their fellow citizens. He doesn't answer the question though of who they should have declared war against... Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #18,883
11/19/01 8:52:55 PM
|
Hmmm Cato Institute
I recall them from the days of the final shaming of HUAC, SISS into oblivion [for a while].
Prototypical "Right-Wing think tank" was their epithet then. An interesting dance in this link re Clinton's failure to support an Int'l Court.
That thought would have been heresy punishable by death - in HUAC days, a plea for (even rcognizing!) that perhaps, "there are any other Nations than Murica?" whose opinion might match: our Power.
This link a bit more reasonable - I see I haven't followed the morphing of Cato from [folks a lot like my G'mother] into a putative more-balanced Org..
If not too lazy, will try for Google about their history since the Good Ol'Days. Hell, Putin is our 'friend' now; who knows what Cato is (?)
A.
|
Post #18,797
11/19/01 12:59:51 PM
|
Re: Ah...but there's the rub.
that has become so popular with Republican administrations You've got your political party blinders on again. Kennedy, Johnson, even Carter (the fiasco of the military rescue mission to Iran), and of course Clinton over in Bosnia and Serbia and Haiti - why are you singling out Republican administrations when some of the more egregious interventionism has been Democratic? "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it."
-- Donald Knuth
|
Post #18,802
11/19/01 1:06:16 PM
|
I have to agree...
although I don't want. Yet the facts show that Police Actions have occurred on both sides of the politicial fence with alarming regularity.
|
Post #18,813
11/19/01 1:40:13 PM
|
Korea. VietNam.
And even that stupid exercise of chest-thumping called Grenada.
Now take your blinders off.
That "fiasco of the military rescue mission to Iran" as you so accurately coined it, was a fiasco, but it was not a "police action". Nor was the Bosnia/Serbia/You-go-slavia thing (well..It might be considered a "police action", but it was hardly a unilateral action such as the ones listed in the headline or Ronald McDonald's little "diversion"; it was A UN-sponsored activity (which was, of course, sponsored by the US...)
jb4
(Resistance is not futile...)
|
Post #18,817
11/19/01 2:09:49 PM
|
War Powers
Nor was the Bosnia/Serbia/You-go-slavia thing (well..It might be considered a "police action", but it was hardly a unilateral action such as the ones listed in the headline or Ronald McDonald's little "diversion"; it was A UN-sponsored activity (which was, of course, sponsored by the US...) I don't suppose I should state the obvious that the UN is not mentioned in the US Constitution concerning the power to declare a War.
|
Post #18,886
11/19/01 9:09:47 PM
|
Parsing, parsing
How would you define a military action taken without a declaration of war?
Undeclared wars: Korea, Vietnam, Bay of Pigs, Grenada, Panama, Desert Storm, bombing Quadafi, Bosnia, bombing asprin factories in Sudan, Somalia, and probably a number of others.
If it isn't a war, is it a "police action"? If it isn't a police action and it isn't a war, but our troops and their troops are tearing each other up, what would you call it? Is it a police action if we aren't tearing each other up but we only get a couple killed every so often?
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it."
-- Donald Knuth
|
