define 'illegal war'

[klah]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: klah

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
A war not authorized by Congress (see "War Powers Act") or not authorized by the U.N. Security Council.

Then Clinton illegally invaded Yugoslavia.

Did his actions kill more than 10,000 innocent civilians?

It was between 1,000 and 5,000, but the number of civilian casualties during a war is not relevant to the legality of going to war. NATO started an unprovoked war with a sovereign nation.

Amnesty International was one of the few liberal groups that declared the war 'illegal'. Where were the protestors? Goes to show that all of the protestors that pretend to care about such matters really have other motives.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
A war not authorized by Congress (see "War Powers Act") or not authorized by the U.N. Security Council.

there is some question as to the consitutionality of the war powers act

I understand what you're saying, however I've always questioned that as our constitution specifically gives Congress the power to declare war.

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 - Section 8: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States . . . To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

 

[CindySue22]

It's probably illegal if you lose.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
A war not authorized by Congress (see "War Powers Act") or not authorized by the U.N. Security Council.

there is some question as to the consitutionality of the war powers act

I wrote a paper on that some years ago...will try to dig it up when I get home. I, for one, argued that the War Powers Act is, in fact, unconsitutional, as Congress has allowed the Executive to ururp power when they used the wording:

"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."

In short, my argument is that the framers never intended for a "collective judgement of both Congress and the President." Instead, as I believe Hamilton put it (or perhaps Jefferson), 'Congress makes the decision to set the boat in the water; the President guides that boat to battle'....

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: CindySue22
It's probably illegal if you lose.

..or 1.) running for President 2.) wear baggy pants

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
A war not authorized by Congress (see "War Powers Act") or not authorized by the U.N. Security Council.

there is some question as to the consitutionality of the war powers act

I understand what you're saying, however I've always questioned that as our constitution specifically gives Congress the power to declare war.

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 - Section 8: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States . . . To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

while the supreme court may not agree i'd always taken it to mean that once congress gave the go-ahead for a war the president had control over its prosecution. of course some things will need the president prosecuting a war before congress can act, and that is a reasonable exception. but it has never gone through the court system because each side is unwilling to lose. the president maintains that the WPA is unconsitutional, the congress says it is, and neither has the power to decide constitutionality of anything.

 

[Gand1]

Damn! Hell must have froze! I agree %100 with Galt! :shocked:

 

[ElFenix]

there is also the historical context of the constitution to consider... at that time there was basically no need for a standing army, there was very much a fear of any professional army... contrast that to today where not only do we have a professional army it is basically ready at moment's notice. the realities of modern warfare require a professional army that is constantly in training, getting better at what they do.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
there is also the historical context of the constitution to consider... at that time there was basically no need for a standing army, there was very much a fear of any professional army... contrast that to today where not only do we have a professional army it is basically ready at moment's notice. the realities of modern warfare require a professional army that is constantly in training, getting better at what they do.

Sure, but with something as critical as declaring war (and actually going to war) it seems prudent to have both Congress and the PotUS onboard. Checks and balances and all that. I don't disagree with your concept of the PotUS going to Congress and asking for war, Congress signing off on it, and then the PotUS prosecuting it.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: ElFenix


while the supreme court may not agree i'd always taken it to mean that once congress gave the go-ahead for a war the president had control over its prosecution. of course some things will need the president prosecuting a war before congress can act, and that is a reasonable exception. but it has never gone through the court system because each side is unwilling to lose. the president maintains that the WPA is unconsitutional, the congress says it is, and neither has the power to decide constitutionality of anything.

'Congress' has yet to receiving standing in court regarding the War Powers Act of '73...(R)'s tried to take Willy to court, but they, like many before them, were unable to get standing...the only way Congress is going to take back all of their war-power authority is to pass a new resolution, and thus a new War Powers Act, reclaiming the power they gave away...until then, the collective bunch of cowards continue to appropriate funds to fight the wars, then bitch about how the President is usurping their power...pull the purse strings close, take the political hit, and take the higher ground...yea, right

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: Gand1
Damn! Hell must have froze! I agree %100 with Galt! :shocked:

Welcome to the world of reason, sir...glad you finally arrived; we've been waiting for you.

 

[chess9]

DealMonkey:

Exactly. Congress just shuffled the ball off to the Prez 'cause they didn't want the potential downside. Kerry is just as bad as the rest of those slackers.

Furthermore, did you guys see the piece on CNN, I believe, where the guy was saying all Congress had to do to check the underlying facts supporting the war resolution was go to another building an read the docs? The back up docs did not support Bush's many statements, apparently. (I came in late and didn't see all the interview.)

-Robert