little k -- One of the common experiences of combat veterans is that they have little or no idea what is happening outside their immediate view.
They may not know until after the fact whether their company, for example, is winning or losing the engagement they're caught up in.
And the even larger picture at the regimental or division level? Fuggeddabout it!
The relevance of this to the current Iraq question is that most veterans-- it seems to me -- should know only that they don't have enough information to make a good judgment about the situation.
Yet most seem to be caught up in strong opinions one way or the other, proving I would suggest that we veterans are not the ones to look to to either endorse or refute Bush's plans.
Moose - everyone's got an opinion. That's what america is all about. But, good point about soldiers not knowing what's going on in the big picture until after the fact. But, still, wouldn't they have an edge on the rest of us? I mean, after the fact.
Moose's point about vets not being able to have informed opinions about Iraq is sort of moot, IMHO.
This administration has made access to information a bit of a wild goose chase for most of us.
littlek wrote:Lawsuit
Saying President Bush is "not a king," a group of U.S. soldiers, parents of soldiers and six U.S. House members filed a lawsuit in federal court Thursday seeking to stop the president from launching a war against Iraq without Congressional approval.
This is actually an interesting point. I've often questioned the legitimacy of a President taking our troops into action without the Congressional approval my limited understanding of the Constitution led me to believe was required. I am betting that Asherman or another of our learned company can shed some light on this.
At the same time, I would be interested to know whether new congressional approval would be required to return to the battlefield when the terms of a cease fire have not been honored (as opposed to a completely new military action).
Oh, and of course this lawsuit will not go anywhere, regardless of whether the premise upon which it is based is valid. One can only sue the President or the government, if he or it agrees to be sued. (Right?)
I think we all agree this suit won't get anywhere. It's symbolic.
With regard to Tress' comment about war-making powers, the following is from Section 8, Article I, of the Constitution. Section 8 begins, "Congress shall have the power," and those powers are subsequently enumerated:
"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
"To provide and maintain a Navy;
"To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
Therefore, constitutionally, the Congress exercises sole and sovereign power over the armed forces, both regular and militia (read, National Guard and Reserves), and all war-making powers are reposed in the Congress. Further, Article I, Section 8, lists the following power of Congress:
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
That is, of course, the legal justification of the War Powers Act. This is a case of "The Congress giveth, and the Congress taketh away." Legally speaking, at least, Congress, and not the Prez, decides if and when the United States goes to war.
(In a small aside to Tress: Article I, Section 9, lists prohibitions on the powers of Congress and the government, and includes the following clause: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." Therefore, i would conclude that Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus in 1862, with the prior knowledge and consent of the Congress, was not a case of him acting as "a law unto himself.")
Further, Article II, Section 2, reads, in part:
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;"
So, in any case in which Congress has given the President power to levy war, either without a term, or, the term of which has not expired, he/she is pretty well free to do as he/she please with those armed forces.
Setanta - Thanks for the excellent post. I guess that means that the suit is baseless.
I, of course, agree with all that Setanta has said above.
Just a note of addendum that may be of interest.
The Constitutional power of Congress to declare war has largely been rendered obsolete by treaties regarding the war powers of nations, and U.S. membership in various international organizations. Aggressive war has become a criminal act under international law. Since no nation is prohibited from military action when attacked, there is no prohibition under international law for going to war and no formal Declaration of War is required. Once war is begun it is presumed to continue even if a cease-fire or armistice continues indefinitely. Violation of a cease-fire/armistice, may be cause for a return to active miliary operations. A nation, or group of nations may initiate war if authorized by the United Nations. In the present situations in Korea and Iraq, that authorization was given in 1951 (my date may be off by a year, but I'm too lazy to run down to my library to check the precise date and Resolution number), and prior to the Gulf War. The passage of UN 1441, only underscored the initial authorization.
It is worthwhile to pursue getting another specific authorization, but is not necessary. The real value of pursuing a new specific resolution is to clarify that UN resolutions have real meaning and consequence. This is a test of the UN, I hope they pass.
The whole world is fed up with American behaviour in Iraq.
let the nonsense continue without decency.
