Sooner rather than later...

[Griff]

Originally posted by Tobiasly
The Constitution says that Congress has the power to declare war. It says that the states do not have the power to declare war.

I don't see anywhere that it prevents the president from doing so, or states that we are not at war until Congress says we are.

Article I

Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

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;

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;

Article II

Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

Section 2. 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; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.


Just like any other Fed Gov action, Congress proposes and the President disposes (separation of powers). As Dham noted we've engaged in many conflicts without Congressional approval and I would argue that they would include our least justified "wars". UT noted that the Executive Branch will do whatever they can get away with, hence the overblown pronouncement on Padilla followed by Wolfowitz' more restrained comments, timed with the discussion of a new cabinet department. Presidents have long manipulated public opinion and Congress to get the power they want. Teddy Roosevelt having a limited purse and unlimited ambition sent a fleet half way around the world busting the War Department budget, forcing Congress to confisc... er find the money for a return voyage. Bush will make committments putting Congress in a box, forcing them to pony up. The Romans did the same thing, handing more and more power to the executive Caesar when the legislative Senate didn't have the stomach for the hard decisions. Attack of the Clones is based on the same formula.

Anyway Tob, we agree that they must be careful about revealing their sources of information so they don't lose any operatives or jeopardize security.

[Griff]

I hereby petition His Most Excellent Supreme Judge Sycamore, having preliminarily ruled that the US can at once be warring and yet not at war to rule such judgement in effect law staying the hand of Griff as it hangs over a 32oz can of circular rhetorical whoop ass. Your justice is infinite and arbitrary.

[spinningfetus]

Originally posted by dhamsaic


Again, you're trying to emotionally load your argument. <b>If</b> he's tried in a military tribunal... <b>If</b> he's sentenced to death... <b>then</b> we have become the Taliban.
The main problem in your final remarks is that you're using <b>if</b>. If this and if that. It doesn't really matter because that hasn't happened, and the other side can play that game too. No one wins that argument, and it's not worth going there. So let's argue this based upon facts instead, mmmmkay?

Speaking of facts we'll start with an administration that has backed away from Ashcroft's statement that he was coming here to explode a dirty bomb. A dirty bomb would only hurt the real estate it was exploded on if our goverment stockpiled potassium iodide tablets the way they have anthrax antibiotics. The reason for the dirty bomb is fear as the administration has already said, they then turn around and use the word dirty bomb and the word radiation four times in the announcement of the arrest. Who is using fear? I have also noticed everytime this guy is mentioned they also mentioned that this guy was in a gang, what the fuck does that have to do with anything? The <b>fact</b> is he is a US citizen. The <b>fact</b> is he hasn't been charged. Guilty or not he should be let go. And if he does go and explode a bomb, it will be the government's fault for not followning it's own rules. Those rules are there for a reason, one I'm willing to risk my life for. Its that simple, as they say in NH "Live free or Die". As for your point that this is a war specifically against the Taliban and al Quada, what about the expasion of the police action to the Philipines, not because the groups are necesssarily affiliated with the either of the afore mentioned groups but because they are radical muslim groups. You'll also notice that there are over fifty groups of the government's list of known terrorist groups. Does that include the paramilitary groups we trained in Colombia that are now resposible for most of the kidnappings and killings? No, we are trying to give them even more money. Which we will continue to do until they are no longer useful, at which point we will brand them as terrorists. Thats the cynical game our government is playing and as long as we allow them to do so it is the same as us asking to have planes dropped on our heads.

Originally posted by spinningfetus
Speaking of facts we'll start with an administration that has backed away from Ashcroft's statement that he was coming here to explode a dirty bomb. A dirty bomb would only hurt the real estate it was exploded on if our goverment stockpiled potassium iodide tablets the way they have anthrax antibiotics. The reason for the dirty bomb is fear as the administration has already said, they then turn around and use the word dirty bomb and the word radiation four times in the announcement of the arrest. Who is using fear? I have also noticed everytime this guy is mentioned they also mentioned that this guy was in a gang, what the fuck does that have to do with anything? The <b>fact</b> is he is a US citizen. The <b>fact</b> is he hasn't been charged. Guilty or not he should be let go. And if he does go and explode a bomb, it will be the government's fault for not followning it's own rules. Those rules are there for a reason, one I'm willing to risk my life for. Its that simple, as they say in NH "Live free or Die".

Let's get this out of the way really quick. <b>I don't care.</b> We are talking about whether or not we are at war, not whether or not this guy has been charged. Personally, I agree with you that he should be charged. But <b>that is not what we are talking about</b>. I'm not going to fall for your diversionary tactics.

As for your point that this is a war specifically against the Taliban and al Quada, what about the expasion of the police action to the Philipines, not because the groups are necesssarily affiliated with the either of the afore mentioned groups but because they are radical muslim groups.

Yes, nevermind the fact that Abu Sayaaf is linked to al Qaeda. Even if they weren't, it still doesn't change the <b>fact</b> that they were holding <b>two</b> Americans as hostages and had <b>killed</b> another. We were involved in that operation before September 11 and will be finishing it soon (withdrawal date of June 30 I believe) now that the threat to American citizens has been alleviated. We're not fighting them because they're radical muslim groups; we're fighting them because they murdered an American citizen and held, for over a year, two others.

You'll also notice that there are over fifty groups of the government's list of known terrorist groups. Does that include the paramilitary groups we trained in Colombia that are now resposible for most of the kidnappings and killings? No, we are trying to give them even more money. Which we will continue to do until they are no longer useful, at which point we will brand them as terrorists. Thats the cynical game our government is playing and as long as we allow them to do so it is the same as us asking to have planes dropped on our heads.

I'm not quite sure where you get this shit, but I'm guessing it's some totally leftist online rag. Here's a tip: read something else for a change.

The fact of the matter is that <b>nothing</b> our government does makes it <b>A-Okay</b> to murder over 3,000 <b>innocent</b> civilians. The terrorists may argue that, and you may believe it, but that doesn't make it okay. It's hardly the same as "us asking to have planes dropped on our heads". You apologists always crack me up. You say that from a distance because you're comfortably numb. You can argue that now... but I doubt you would if your child was killed in the World Trade Center. Sure, you'll sit here and say that you would, but you can't <b>know</b> because it hasn't happened to you. Suddenly it seems a little different... "She didn't deserve to die like that. She didn't support the presence of US troops on Saudi soil." Yeah. Then you begin to realize that really, no one deserved to die like that. It wasn't deserved. Let me tell you something: a lot of leftist kiddies died in those attacks too. A lot of people that probably <b>hated</b> Bush and probably even people that would have agreed with the bullshit you're spewing right here. Well, I'm sorry, but they weren't asking for planes to be dropped on their heads any more than the others were.

Regardless, this has nothing to do with whether or not we're at war against the Taliban and al Qaeda. We are, as simple as that.

sycamore - I'll respond more to you later. My contention is going to be that the Declaration of War is an outdated idea that is no longer practical and, therefore, will not be called in the future (unless it's a really <b>big</b> war). I'll flesh it out a little more later, but I have got to get everything done before I head out to California and after writing the above response, I have ten minutes less slack-off time.

[spinningfetus]

Originally posted by dhamsaic
You can argue that now... but I doubt you would if your child was killed in the World Trade Center. Sure, you'll sit here and say that you would, but you can't <b>know</b> because it hasn't happened to you. Suddenly it seems a little different... "She didn't deserve to die like that. She didn't support the presence of US troops on Saudi soil." Yeah. Then you begin to realize that really, no one deserved to die like that. It wasn't deserved. Let me tell you something: a lot of leftist kiddies died in those attacks too. A lot of people that probably <b>hated</b> Bush and probably even people that would have agreed with the bullshit you're spewing right here. Well, I'm sorry, but they weren't asking for planes to be dropped on their heads any more than the others were.

Ok, motherfucker now I'm pissed. You're making a whole bunch of assumptions that you don't want to make. Number one, a girl that lived on my floor my freshman year of college did die in the twin towers. I spent that entire day on busy phone circuits trying to get through to all of my firends. My friend saw from the GW his girlfriend die. Another friend of a friend was seriously injured. So you best be sure what the fuck you are talking about next time you accusing someone of being on the outside. I just got done spending six months in one of the highest concentrations of nuclear power plants in North America. I know exactly what I said and what it means. And are you really going to tell me that all of the people killed in the pentagon were innocent? Give me a motherfucking break. And what I was talking about happened in Chile you ever hear of Pinochet? No? Thought not. You know where he was trained along with most of his top henchmen? Ft. Bragg. Now I'm pissed and going to have a cigarette...

Originally posted by spinningfetus
Ok, motherfucker now I'm pissed. You're making a whole bunch of assumptions that you don't want to make. Number one, a girl that lived on my floor my freshman year of college did die in the twin towers. I spent that entire day on busy phone circuits trying to get through to all of my firends. My friend saw from the GW his girlfriend die. Another friend of a friend was seriously injured. So you best be sure what the fuck you are talking about next time you accusing someone of being on the outside.

You're really cute when you're angry!

Do me a favor: come talk to me again when you lose a child in a terrorist attack. I'm pretty sure that's what I said, and I'm not interested in talking to you about it until you have. A guy I knew died as well. That hardly equates to losing a child.

I just got done spending six months in one of the highest concentrations of nuclear power plants in North America. I know exactly what I said and what it means. And are you really going to tell me that all of the people killed in the pentagon were innocent? Give me a motherfucking break.

I never said anything about the Pentagon. As I've said before, attacks on military targets are much more legitimate than attacks on civilians. So while the Pentagon was pretty disgusting (and it's where I lost my coworker), it's easier to justify. What is even more disgusting, and unjustifiable, are all the innocent people on the plane that slammed into the Pentagon. Are you really going to tell me that all of the people killed on flight 77 were deserving of a death sentence? Give me a motherfucking break.

See how that works both ways? I took your words and substituted a few of mine. We can do this forever. Shall we continue?

And what I was talking about happened in Chile you ever hear of Pinochet? No? Thought not. You know where he was trained along with most of his top henchmen? Ft. Bragg. Now I'm pissed and going to have a cigarette...

Again, it doesn't matter. Let me put it in language you will understand: It's wholly motherfucking irrelevant, motherfucker. We're not talking about Augusto Pinochet. We're talking about whether or not we're at war against al Qaeda and, to a lesser degree, the Taliban. I'm perfectly able to sit here and talk Pinochet with you all day, but that doesn't mean I'm going to waste my time. If you're willing to leave the emotion at the door and speak rationally, we can do so. We'll probably even find that we agree on a number of things. But if you're going to keep running off on tangents because you're pissed off, I'm not going to spend any time addressing them. Pinochet has nothing to do with the military action against al Qaeda.

Maybe you should take a break after you read this. Go relax. Play some games, watch some TV, do whatever it is you do in your spare time. Then, when you can respond rationally instead of emotionally, come back and write a response. Otherwise, I have no interest in addressing you any further.

[Nic Name]

In remembrance of this day in history, June 13, 1966, and his latin American heritage, Jose Padilla a.k.a. Abdullah al Muhajir, is changing his name to Miranda Padilla.

[spinningfetus]

That was definiatly emotion talking but you also have to understand a couple of things about what you said and why I was upset. I spent most of that time sleeping less that four hours a night, I lived in a no fly zone. The terror attack terrorized me, but I'll be damned if that means that somebody is going to terrorizing me out of what I believe in. At this point though, it isn't the "terrorists" any longer. At this point its the people that look at me as if I am guilty in thier eyes. It doesn't matter for what, since 9/11 I have been treated as though I'm less of an american for not having flags waving everywhere, that because I think that the constitution is more than an idol to which we pay homage but disregard as a relic of a time long forgotten. Those are emotions sure but they are facts as well. I could cut my hair, dress like everybody else and I'd get hassled less I'm sure but then haven't I lost something I now have? And then the question becomes how much do I have to change to not have people treat me as less than deserving of the very rights this country is supposed to stand for. Not far away from that is the question is where is the line between someone who can be viewed as dangerous? I have a degree in chemstry, I am outspoken in my views, when do they come for me? You asked me how I would feel if I had a child in one of those buildings? I would hate those resposible with all my heart. But I would still rather have that child dead than living in a world where her thoughts could put it into danger? You say that that won't happen, but if the constitution is irrelevant what is going to stop it from reaching that point? We are on a slippery slope right now that goes into a deep chasim, I for one do not want to cut my safety ropes. You say that I have been duped? I ask then whom should I believe and why? The reason that this is all still on the topic is this sets a precident that no one has ever dared to employ, even the darkest hour of our most terrible war. Habis corpus has been suspended in the past but that was a presidential order from the Civil War which is a set of circumstances that do not apply here. What if I had a child with my ex? They would have been raised Muslim, what kind of world would I have been sending them out into? If we are going to crack down on terrorists, thats one thing, there are already more than enough laws on the books that are constitutional that there must be another reason for the recent events, whether that be some conspiricy geek's wet dream or just simple laziness, it is unnecessary. Show me bin Laden's head on a stake, I won't flinch, but then say we are done, or if not at least share a plausible plan with concrete goals and a forseeable end. Maybe while we're at it we may want to question what draws youth into these roles as mass murderers. Its a social phenomenon, not a couple of random acts and those phenomenon have factors that deterimined them. Why not fight the cause instead of the symptom. Morphine may cure pain but its antibiotics that cure diseise.

[steps down off of soapbox]

First off, I wanted to thank you for being more calm that time around. It's easier to read and it helps to keep this from degenerating into a flamefest. I want to hear what you have to say. Really.

Secondly, I apologize for tweaking you. It was unintentional, but I regret that my words had that effect on you. They were not meant that way.

Now, on to your post...

The terror attack terrorized me, but I'll be damned if that means that somebody is going to terrorizing me out of what I believe in.

I agree with you. I don't want to see people terrorized. At all. And that's part of my point - I don't think that <b>you</b> deserved to be terrorized just because you pay your taxes. I don't think that Laura deserved to die because she went to work that Tuesday morning. There are a lot of people that seem to not know exactly how to cope with this - and that's normal, it's part fo being human. But they end up blaming themselves, blaming the public... for something they didn't cause.

I agree that our government has done some pretty awful things. I agree that our government is, right now, doing many things wrong. But no matter what they do, no matter what our foreign policy is, no matter where our troops are stationed overseas... that does not justify the terror you were put through. It does not justify the slaughter of innocent civilians. It never will.

At this point its the people that look at me as if I am guilty in thier eyes. It doesn't matter for what, since 9/11 I have been treated as though I'm less of an american for not having flags waving everywhere, that because I think that the constitution is more than an idol to which we pay homage but disregard as a relic of a time long forgotten. Those are emotions sure but they are facts as well. I could cut my hair, dress like everybody else and I'd get hassled less I'm sure but then haven't I lost something I now have? And then the question becomes how much do I have to change to not have people treat me as less than deserving of the very rights this country is supposed to stand for.

Unfortunately, human beings are imperfect. They do stupid things. Like create outcasts. It's a shame that you're treated as one.

I can't say I wholly know how you feel, because I don't have the same problem. My hair is long, my views are what would be considered "less than wholesome" by many in the country... I don't tuck my shirt in... but I have not been treated as an outcast since the attacks.

However, I've spent the entirety of my life being different. Sometimes it's the long hair. Sometimes it's the fact that I only have one eye. Sometimes it's the fact that I was "underprivileged". Furthermore, my sister has been outcast her entire life for various other reasons, such as the way she dressed. I have seen her pain and I have felt my own. I know that it's not pleasant.

In other words, I'm with you on that one.

Not far away from that is the question is where is the line between someone who can be viewed as dangerous? I have a degree in chemstry, I am outspoken in my views, when do they come for me?

The sad-but-true answer: If you're pale, never. If you're of middle eastern descent, whenever you make a big enough stink that you get their attention. They might not come and get you, but they'll be watching.

Unfortunately, it's a tough situation and it's one that you need to weigh out carefully. Ask yourself "What is it that I really want out of this?" and then act accordingly. I understand that you want to be free in your speech and relatively free (i.e., not murdering babies) in your actions... but sometimes it's best to know when to quit. I really don't think that our country is going to downward spiral into the hell that it seems you're envisioning (and I'll explain why later), so it may be best to get on with your life and let the message take a back seat. They're certainly words that deserve to be heard... but you don't want to end up under intense surveilance because of them. Or at least, I wouldn't.

You say that that won't happen, but if the constitution is irrelevant what is going to stop it from reaching that point?

And that's the beauty of that one fine document. It won't ever be irrelevant. The Bill of Rights won't be irrelevant. Simply put, the public will not ever let that happen.

It's really easy to give the goahead to hassle terrorists and blow up their shit. It's going to be much more difficult to pull it off against American citizens. For a number of reasons. The first is that public opinion is much less supportive of the idea that American citizens can <b>be</b> terrorists. Especially after Lindh gets acquitted (which he probably will). The public is going to realize that hey, this whole "everyone is a terrorist until proven innocent" thing really sucks. They'll be hassled in ways that make their lives less easy and all of a sudden they hate the idea of this crackdown. Imagine, for example, that the government outlawed SUVs because "those who were driving them were aiding the terrorists". Nevermind that this is actually probably true - the backlash would be substantial because <b>it interferes with the everyday living</b> of many Americans. They'll say "this is fucking absurd" and ignore it.

Some things are going to be okay obviously - increased security at airports, though flawed in its implementation, is a <b>good thing</b>. We really don't need someone flying a plane into the Sears Tower. But when you need to get stripsearched to go into the supermarket, there's going to be some very strong backlash.

The second is that the media won't let it happen to you. As soon as someone is publicly being investigated for links to terrorism, their face is all over every TV news channel and website in the nation. There's way too much attention for the government to make any big fuckups - after all, the other governments in the world will now be able to see it along with the public. The US goverment can't risk it unless they have absolute proof that someone is really a terrorist. Otherwise their story falls apart (as is happening with Lindh).

Maybe it will be illegal to publish against the government. In which case, it will still happen - on the internet, no doubt. And all of a sudden, people are still getting their information. The entire public wants to read about this stuff. And the government is simply unable to lock us all up.

All of this is assuming a worst case scenario. I honestly don't think we'll get there. There are a lot of corrupt people in the government, but it is far from 100%. Those that are moderates (read: those that have not been driven to extremism by emotion) will work to ensure that we don't reach that point. I don't believe they'll have that hard of a time, because I don't think that there are many in our government that really want to see us get there.

This has gotten far too long and I have far too much work to get done before I go to California to continue this post. Let me just say again that I appreciate you stepping back and making a thoughtful post, and I, in turn, will do the same.

[Tobiasly]

Originally posted by spinningfetus
Show me bin Laden's head on a stake, I won't flinch, but then say we are done, or if not at least share a plausible plan with concrete goals and a forseeable end.

Isn't it a little too early to assume this won't happen? It's only been 9 months since September, fer chrissakes. Getting bin Laden wouldn't be the end of it, but crushing al Qaeda and related terrorist networks probably would be.

We are at war. Or in a war. Or conducting a war, or whatever you want to call it. It's not as well-defined and it's a little harder to put our finger on than many wars we've been in, but we're still at war.

During a war, you hold enemy combatants and try to get information from them to help you in the war. When the war's over, as it one day will be (when either our objectives are met or the public gets tired of it), you try them or return them to their country or whatever.

And Padilla is an enemy combatant. It doesn't matter that he's an American citizen if we have reason to believe he was working with our war enemy and planning to kill Americans. We are at war, and he is an enemy combatant.

[Undertoad]

Spin-man, with all due respect, and I mean that sincerely, I think you're missing something really important here.

The fact that people have an attitude towards people who are different doesn't really rank on the scale of injustices. It turns out that they are enjoying their freedom just as much as you are. Their ability to openly express their opinion of you is wonderful. They may be ignorant intolerant assholes, but they are allowed. They can look at you sideways, treat you with disrespect, etc. but both sides retain their choices and their freedom.

It is exactly that openness that infuriates the enemy. You say you want the ability to raise a child in another religion without experiencing intolerance? Then you want to fight this war hard. You are in favor of civil rights? That's what this is all about. (If you're killed, your civil rights have kinda been violated.)

The idea that they found a flimsy pretense to hold Padilla is, in that way, comforting. Knowing that we aren't perfect about rights to begin with, the most important thing is that we try hard. That means that, in this case, the govt had to construct a reason to keep the guy, and the rest of the country had to be convinced that it was reasonable. Even though chances are damn near 100% that he was specifically trained by the enemy and sent here to be part of the network.

Can one raise a Muslim child in this country? The answer is undoubtedly yes, and that child can grow up to be very prosperous and successful. Can one raise a Christian or Jewish child in radically Islamic countries? Not under any circumstances.

Consider that 10% of the people living in Israel are Arabs, and that some Arabs have been freely elected to the Israeli government. That's a beautiful thing; can you imagine the level of tolerance and understanding needed to get to that point?

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by Griff
I hereby petition His Most Excellent Supreme Judge Sycamore, having preliminarily ruled that the US can at once be warring and yet not at war to rule such judgement in effect law staying the hand of Griff as it hangs over a 32oz can of circular rhetorical whoop ass. Your justice is infinite and arbitrary.

I hereby declare my judgement to be law, certified in the City and County of Philadelphia, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the United States of America, on Sunday June 16, 2002.

We are adjourned.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by dhamsaic
My contention is going to be that the Declaration of War is an outdated idea that is no longer practical and, therefore, will not be called in the future (unless it's a really <b>big</b> war).

I agree with this to a point.

At the same time, IMO, one of the cornerstones of our government is the separation of power among the 3 branches. Griff touched on this in an earlier post. He mentioned Teddy Roosevelt, and I would throw in LBJ. I think it's important to keep that separation of power, to keep all parties in check. As I understand it, the War Powers Act is meant to further keep the President in check, to avoid another Vietnam. (Though I don't know enough background to say how well this has worked in situations like Grenada, Persian Gulf, etc.)

Jules Witcover of the Baltimore Sun wrote an interesting op-ed piece in May, regarding the War Powers Act and a possible attack on Iraq.