There's mad precedent giving the power to deploy troops anywhere for any reason, for... what is it, 180 days? Something. After that, there needs to be congressional declaration of war.
yeah, i believe to have read something about that as well, but i am a big believer in two (or 3,4,5,6,etc) wrongs not making a right so just because others have stepped on the Constitution this one shouldn't automatically be given a blank check as well
then again, wasn't there also an act in the 70s which sought to solve the question of who has the power to declare war...i believe that is gives the president some authority so then the law might not be being broken after all...not US law at least, but you know the funny thing is they argue for punishing Saddam for being in violation of UN resolutions, yet at the same time the administration is talking about a unilateral attack, totally overlooking the UN...funny logic, but apparently it makes sense to some people in our government...
As the commander in chief of the armed forces, the president does and has always had power to send troops wherever he chose fit.
Precedents (like the vietnam war) further solidify this power. Though you mention that "2 wrongs do not make a right", in judicial terms, they sort of do when they are precedents.
ok, so you win...lol, no seriously though, while it may be that bush is not overstepping his authority in declaring war, there are a lot of other reasons why war should be avoided, namely the fact that thousands of innocent iraqis and americans will die in the effort for what, imho, is a war for oil
1) inspectors have found no weapons of mass destruction 2) the administration has failed to provide evidence that such weapons exist 3) it would be US and Britain against the rest of the world 4) would you stab someone in the back just because you think they may have a knife to stab you with, even though they just went through a metal detector that did not go off? 5) Meanwhile, North Korea *does* have weapons of mass destruction and here we are sitting with our arms crossed!
Comments 4
Reply
yeah, i believe to have read something about that as well, but i am a big believer in two (or 3,4,5,6,etc) wrongs not making a right so just because others have stepped on the Constitution this one shouldn't automatically be given a blank check as well
then again, wasn't there also an act in the 70s which sought to solve the question of who has the power to declare war...i believe that is gives the president some authority so then the law might not be being broken after all...not US law at least, but you know the funny thing is they argue for punishing Saddam for being in violation of UN resolutions, yet at the same time the administration is talking about a unilateral attack, totally overlooking the UN...funny logic, but apparently it makes sense to some people in our government...
Reply
Precedents (like the vietnam war) further solidify this power. Though you mention that "2 wrongs do not make a right", in judicial terms, they sort of do when they are precedents.
Anyway, a quick google search yields some information you may find of interest:
http://www.geocities.com/way_leroy/ProConVolTwoIssueOnePage2.html
Reply
ok, so you win...lol, no seriously though, while it may be that bush is not overstepping his authority in declaring war, there are a lot of other reasons why war should be avoided, namely the fact that thousands of innocent iraqis and americans will die in the effort for what, imho, is a war for oil
1) inspectors have found no weapons of mass destruction
2) the administration has failed to provide evidence that such weapons exist
3) it would be US and Britain against the rest of the world
4) would you stab someone in the back just because you think they may have a knife to stab you with, even though they just went through a metal detector that did not go off?
5) Meanwhile, North Korea *does* have weapons of mass destruction and here we are sitting with our arms crossed!
I smell black gold...
Reply
Leave a comment