• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Held without charges

Agammamon said:

Yes, and in pretty much every case the Supreme Court's review has determined that the suspension of Habeus Corpus or indefinate internment has been unconstitutional. They did it after Lincoln in the Civil War, and after the japanese internment camps of WWII.
Click to expand...

Did they do it during WWI, the Civil War, WWII or Vietnam?
 
Rob Lister said:


Actually, we are at war. It has been declared. It just hasn't been declared in the typical manner (which isn't very typical anyway since it hasn't been used since WWII). The declaration takes the form of specific funding and support by the congress.

The war on drugs, like the war on poverty, is a different animal but even so, if the funding and support for locking up suspected drug dealers existed, it would be done as well. If it were, I've little doubt that there would be far fewer drugs availible for sale (and that would be a sad, if not bad, thing.)
Click to expand...

But war HASNT BE DECLARED right?? Isnt that kinda important if your gonna shred the Billl o Rights. Right now everything is so vauge its as if the Feds could do anything to anyone and claim "war on terror". Thats utter BS. On top of that they use reserving freedom as a justification. Oh the irony.
 
Rob Lister said:


Wrong. It has been.
Click to expand...

How when and where??? I dont recall congress doing any declaration of war. From what I gathered they did this lame ass punt to GW saying heres some money do what you want.. I dont recall the United States waging war vs AlQueda or Iraq specifically.

If you wage war dont you have to name an enemy. Like when we to war with Japan.
 
Tmy said:


How when and where??? I dont recall congress doing any declaration of war. From what I gathered they did this lame ass punt to GW saying heres some money do what you want.. I dont recall the United States waging war vs AlQueda or Iraq specifically.

If you wage war dont you have to name an enemy. Like when we to war with Japan.
Click to expand...

You don't recall it yet you must know about it or you wouldn't have brought it up. Odd. Also, note that you go on to use the term 'wage' as it applies to war instead of 'declare'. But no, I don't think you have to name anything explicitly. It (they) already have been named implicitly, i.e. 'those who harbor...'
 
Im no expert on the subject but Im pretty sure there is a specfic proceadure for Congress to declare war. Once thats done certain war powers are available. Then all the newspapers have headlines like "WAR DECLARED" in big bold letters.

I dont remember those big bold headlines?? Congress just played some sort of 3 card monty. That way if things went welll they can take credit, if things go bad they can say that it was all GW's game.
 
Tmy said:
Im no expert on the subject but Im pretty sure there is a specfic proceadure for Congress to wage war.
Click to expand...

congress can't wage war. That's the presidents job. Congress can only authorize it (more at 'fund it'). The specific procedure, contitutionally, is that they 'declare' it but the constitution leaves upon the form that declaration may take. Funding it explicitly is but one form.
 
Tmy said:
Then all the newspapers have headlines like "WAR DECLARED" in big bold letters.

Click to expand...

Newspapers (in the US) haven't had those types of headline for atleast 60 years, does that mean there haven't been wars since then?
 
Tony said:


Newspapers (in the US) haven't had those types of headline for atleast 60 years, does that mean there haven't been wars since then?
Click to expand...

Well yes! War hasnt been declared since WW2.

I had damn link to the 9-18-01 "Joint Resolution" of COngress but when I posted I got the JREF to busy thingy.

Gall darn it.
 
Tmy said:
Im no expert on the subject but Im pretty sure there is a specfic proceadure for Congress to declare war. Once thats done certain war powers are available. Then all the newspapers have headlines like "WAR DECLARED" in big bold letters.
Click to expand...

Since you mentioned it, here is the opinion of an expert:

Constitutional Law Professor and top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Joe Biden on the subject of Use of Force Resolutions and Declarations of War.


Moderator: (Inaudible) Talbot(?). Senator, thank you for this broad gauged approach to the problems we face. My question is this, do you foresee the need or the expectation of a Congressional declaration of war, which the Constitution calls for, and if so, against whom? (Scattered Laughter)

Joe Biden: The answer is yes, and we did it. I happen to be a professor of Constitutional law. I'm the guy that drafted the Use of Force proposal that we passed. It was in conflict between the President and the House. I was the guy who finally drafted what we did pass. Under the Constitution, there is simply no distinction ... Louis Fisher(?) and others can tell you, there is no distinction between a formal declaration of war, and an authorization of use of force. There is none for Constitutional purposes. None whatsoever. And we defined in that Use of Force Act that we passed, what ... against whom we were moving, and what authority was granted to the President.
Click to expand...

They are discussing Afghanistan, but he's talking generally.

MattJ
 
Ok found the link to the Resolution. It actually refers to a section of the War Powers ACt

``Authorization for Use of Military Force"


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.

__________________________________________

But does this allow Bush to do away with the Civil rights of Americans???

Reading this I dont see how it justifies teh Iraq invasion.
 
rikzilla said:
As "American" said, spies and saboteurs are fair game...but I think even these guys got a trial.
Click to expand...

Though George Dasch did get a rather nasty treatment from the US. In my opinion, giving a death sentence to a guy who voluntarily reports himself as a spy and tells all the details of his pals is not exactly the best way to encourage other spies to defect.

Sure, his sentence was commuted to 30 years in prison and in the end he got an amnesty 3 years after the war had ended, but that was still a quite rough treatment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom