Democrats are taking ownership of a defeat in Iraq

Quote:

This is so patently absurd, that i'm surprised that no one has called him on it. Article One, Section 8 reads, in part:

Actually I did call him on it a few short pages back... by doing exactly what you just did; posting an excerpt from Article one, section 8.

He ignored me, the same way he will ignore you, and so this senseless argument will go on.

I see others have beat me to the "declaration of war" requirement in the Constitution.

Another thing you should check out is the Posse Comitatus law MM. Then you may wish to view the War Powers Act. The President can NOT use the military anywhere he wants to, any time he wants to, for as long as he wants to. He is restricted by legislation passed by Congress under their powers.

The purpose of the War Powers Resolution is to ensure that Congress and the President share in making decisions that may get the U.S. involved in hostilities. Portions of the War Powers Resolution require the President to consult with Congress prior to the start of any hostilities as well as regularly until U.S. armed forces are no longer engaged in hostilities (Sec. 3); and to remove U.S. armed forces from hostilities if Congress has not declared war or passed a resolution authorizing the use of force within 60 days (Sec. 5(b)). Following an official request by the President to Congress, the time limit can be extended by an additional 30 days (presumably when "unavoidable military necessity" requires additional action for a safe withdrawal).

PURPOSE AND POLICY
SEC. 2. (a)
It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
SEC. 2. (b)
Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
SEC. 2. (c)
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces

Congress's Joint Resolution September 14, 2001
emphasis added
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.

Congress's Joint Resolution Oct. 16, 2002
Public Law 107-243 107th Congress Joint Resolution (H.J. Res. 114) To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
...
[10th]Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

[11th]Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385) passed on June 16, 1878 after the end of Reconstruction. The Act was intended to prohibit Federal troops from supervising elections in former Confederate states. It generally prohibits Federal military personnel and units of the United States National Guard under Federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act substantially limit the powers of the Federal government to use the military for law enforcement.

The original act referred only to the United States Army. The Air Force was added in 1956, and the Navy and the Marine Corps have been included by a regulation of the Department of Defense. This law is often mentioned when it appears that the Department of Defense is interfering in domestic disturbances.

Source: G-OPL

"POSSE COMITATUS ACT" (18 USC 1385): A Reconstruction Era criminal law proscribing use of Army (later, Air Force) to "execute the laws" except where expressly authorized by Constitution or Congress. Limit on use of military for civilian law enforcement also applies to Navy by regulation. Dec '81 additional laws were enacted (codified 10 USC 371-78) clarifying permissible military assistance to civilian law enforcement agencies--including the Coast Guard--especially in combating drug smuggling into the United States. Posse Comitatus clarifications emphasize supportive and technical assistance (e.g., use of facilities, vessels, aircraft, intelligence, tech aid, surveillance, etc.) while generally prohibiting direct participation of DoD personnel in law enforcement (e.g., search, seizure, and arrests). For example, Coast Guard Law Enforcement Detachments (LEDETS) serve aboard Navy vessels and perform the actual boardings of interdicted suspect drug smuggling vessels and, if needed, arrest their crews). Positive results have been realized especially from Navy ship/aircraft involvement.

Today, Generals Eaton and Batiste, who led troops in Iraq, expressed outrage at the President's veto of the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act.


Body:
Today, two retired Generals who led troops in Iraq expressed outrage at the President's veto of the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act.


The President vetoed our troops and the American people. His stubborn commitment to a failed strategy in Iraq is incomprehensible. He committed our great military to a failed strategy in violation of basic principles of war. His failure to mobilize the nation to defeat world wide Islamic extremism is tragic. We deserve more from our commander-in-chief and his administration.
--Maj. Gen. John Batiste, USA, Ret.

This administration and the previously Republican controlled legislature have been the most caustic agents against America's Armed Forces in memory. Less than a year ago, the Republicans imposed great hardship on the Army and Marine Corps by their failure to pass a necessary funding language. This time, the President of the United States is holding our Soldiers hostage to his ego. More than ever apparent, only the Army and the Marine Corps are at war - alone, without their President's support.
--Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, USA, Ret.

1) a declaration of war..
We already know that war has not been "declared" by congress since WW2,so that is out.

2)specific statutory authorization

Congress has the ability to regulate military law, but only the President can decide when and where the military is used.

I don't understand your reasoning there MM..

You claimed Congress has NO SAY. then you point to this as evidence?

Quote:

1) a declaration of war..
We already know that war has not been "declared" by congress since WW2,so that is out.

Who is Congress again and what did you say they had no power to do? They DO have the power to decide to when and where the military is used.

Quote:

2)specific statutory authorization

Who provides this statutory authorization? If such authorization is needed to use the military can not that authorization be rescinded? It is silly to think that Congress can only vote one way on any authorization. They can vote any way they want to. If they can authorize then they can also NOT authorize. It is implicit in the fact that they can authorize.


Iraq was NOT involved in 9/11. I can't believe you are even bringing that one up. It seems you can't make a valid argument so you need to bring in 9/11? Even Bush has said that Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11 so an argument that this legislation even applies is BOGUS. In spite of this silly attempt, you seem to forget you are pointing to a piece of legislation by CONGRESS who you claimed has no say in the use of the military. It defeats your argument by pointing to legislation. Legislation is passed by Congress. Congress has a say in when and where troops can be used. The legislation states it pretty clearly. The military was authorized for use by Congress against those involved in 9/11 attacks. Congress can rescind its authorization any time it wants to by passing new legislation.

Let's examine your statement again MM

Quote:

Congress has the ability to regulate military law, but only the President can decide when and where the military is used.

It seems you know you are wrong but you don't want to admit it. You keep pointing to legislation authorizing or restricting military use while claiming the Congress has no say.

SEC. 2. (c)
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces

What I am saying is that Congress has no OPERATIONAL control over the military.
They do NOT have the power or constitutional authority to decide who we attack or defend,where the military is used,what battles are fought or not fought,etc.

That is strictly the role of the CinC.

What I am saying is that Congress has no OPERATIONAL control over the military.
They do NOT have the power or constitutional authority to decide who we attack or defend,where the military is used,what battles are fought or not fought,etc.

mysteryman wrote:

What I am saying is that Congress has no OPERATIONAL control over the military.
They do NOT have the power or constitutional authority to decide who we attack or defend,where the military is used,what battles are fought or not fought,etc.

What is a declaration of war? An invitation to tea? I would call it a decision of who we attack. Wouldn't you? The constitution CLEARLY gives the Congress the power to declare war.

parados wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

What I am saying is that Congress has no OPERATIONAL control over the military.
They do NOT have the power or constitutional authority to decide who we attack or defend,where the military is used,what battles are fought or not fought,etc.

What is a declaration of war? An invitation to tea? I would call it a decision of who we attack. Wouldn't you? The constitution CLEARLY gives the Congress the power to declare war.

After we declared war against Japan in WW2,congress did not have the authority to decide where we attacked.
They do not have the authority to decide tactics or strategy.

mysteryman wrote:

parados wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

What I am saying is that Congress has no OPERATIONAL control over the military.
They do NOT have the power or constitutional authority to decide who we attack or defend,where the military is used,what battles are fought or not fought,etc.

What is a declaration of war? An invitation to tea? I would call it a decision of who we attack. Wouldn't you? The constitution CLEARLY gives the Congress the power to declare war.

After we declared war against Japan in WW2,congress did not have the authority to decide where we attacked.
They do not have the authority to decide tactics or strategy.

Sure, that's why FDR sent troops to Brazil...

You need to learn your history better.

mysteryman wrote:

You need to learn your history better.

That's rich coming from you. I notice that you have not answered the post in which i pointed out how wrong you were about our experience of the war in the Pacific.

It is not surprising that the United States sent troops to Brazil, they were a United Nations partner, and they sent a division to fight with us in Italy. I'm sure George Marshall wanted to be sure they were properly transported to the theater of operations.

While I will say that what the dems are doing is stupid,and will,IMHO,paint themselves into a corner,it is not treasonous or illegal.

Then on another thread MM has the audacity to post this..

mysteryman wrote:

While I will say that what the dems are doing is stupid,and will,IMHO,paint themselves into a corner,it is not treasonous or illegal.

The last time I checked the Constitution was the supreme law of the land.


Remind me again... when did we attack Brazil? My statement was in direct response to your claim that the Congress can't decide who we attack. Congress decided we could attack Japan. US troops were used against Japan. We did NOT attack Brazil in response to declaring war on Japan. We sent troops to Brazil for defense in response to declaring war on Germany. Much the same reason we sent troops to England. Congress decided who we could attack.

As to the article you linked to,I dont know who Col. Patterson is,nor have I ever heard of him.
BUT,judging ONLY by what you posted, he is an idiot.
What the dems are doing is not treason,it dosnt even come close.
While I will say that what the dems are doing is stupid,and will,IMHO,paint themselves into a corner,it is not treasonous or illegal.

Iraq Generals to President: You've Failed Us

Quote:

Today, Generals Eaton and Batiste, who led troops in Iraq, expressed outrage at the President's veto of the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act.


Body:
Today, two retired Generals who led troops in Iraq expressed outrage at the President's veto of the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act.


The President vetoed our troops and the American people. His stubborn commitment to a failed strategy in Iraq is incomprehensible. He committed our great military to a failed strategy in violation of basic principles of war. His failure to mobilize the nation to defeat world wide Islamic extremism is tragic. We deserve more from our commander-in-chief and his administration.
--Maj. Gen. John Batiste, USA, Ret.

This administration and the previously Republican controlled legislature have been the most caustic agents against America's Armed Forces in memory. Less than a year ago, the Republicans imposed great hardship on the Army and Marine Corps by their failure to pass a necessary funding language. This time, the President of the United States is holding our Soldiers hostage to his ego. More than ever apparent, only the Army and the Marine Corps are at war - alone, without their President's support.
--Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, USA, Ret.

You were trying to be sarcastic about FDR sending troops to Brazil,and now you are trying to cover your ass when you found out that he actually did