What's new

Obama's Made New Friends !

The resoltuion allowed the use of force only if they were in violation of the terms...which they were not.

Maybe you were to young to remember the series of events that led up to this. Do you recall the cat and mouse game with UNSCOM?

Iraqi soldiers on September 24, 1991, prevented one inspection team from removing documents related to the design of a nuclear weapon from the Nuclear Design Center in Baghdad by holding the inspectors in a parking lot for four days, before allowing them to depart with the documents.

Saddam's internal security forces also sought to intimidate Iraqi personnel familiar with the details of its illicit programs to deter them from passing information to the inspectors. If the Iraqi authorities discovered that government officials had been too cooperative with the inspectors, they harshly punished not only the whistleblower, but also his entire extended family. Former IAEA inspector David Kay recalled that disloyalty often was punished by death:

The first Iraqi defector after the war came out and gave us some basic information on the calutron process. He had staged his own death on the highway to Mosul, and he thought they would not find out that he was still alive and had defected. He had been out for less than two months when a journalist printed the story. His entire family down to second cousins were killed

Not surprisingly, few Iraqis chose to put their families at risk by providing information to the UNSCOM inspectors. According to official Iraqi documents seized by UNSCOM, 85 percent of the defectors from Iraq's scientific community chose not to contact Western governments

Under these conditions, UNSCOM's efforts to uproot Saddam's proscribed programs were a thankless, difficult, and potentially dangerous task. Given the fact that Iraq is bigger than the state of Texas and had extensive government-owned compounds often disguised as civilian industrial facilities, fertilizer plants, or other innocuous buildings, searching for Saddam's clandestine WMD programs was like searching for a needle located in one of hundreds of haystacks.

One Step Ahead. In addition to its shell game of storing contraband items in underground structures, wells, and houses in residential areas, Iraq also played a frustrating game of cat and mouse with inspectors, shuttling prohibited components from site to site. For example, on June 28, 1991, IAEA inspectors searching for calutrons used in Iraq's nuclear program were denied entrance to a military barracks at Abu Ghraib. With the aid of U.S. satellite intelligence, UNSCOM was able to track the movement of trucks transporting the calutrons to the Military Transport Command facility in Fallujah. The inspectors arrived just in time to see the Iraqis, who had been warned of their approach, trucking the calutrons away, leaving the inspectors to follow in hot pursuit.

As it became more sophisticated, Baghdad reportedly moved particularly sensitive documents and materials to new hiding places every 30 days to prevent defectors from giving useful intelligence on a timely basis to UNSCOM authorities.19 By the time defectors had left the country, established their bona fides with foreign intelligence agencies, and passed their information on to foreign governments to pass on to UNSCOM to act upon, the information was outdated.

Or remember the cat and mouse game with Saddam?

He Lied So Often, No One Believed He Removed WMD

The great mystery of the 2003 war in Iraq - "What about the WMD?" has finally been resolved. The short answer is: Saddam Hussein's persistent record of lying meant no one believed him when he at the last moment actually removed the weapons of mass destruction.

In a riveting book-length report issued by the Pentagon's Joint Forces Command, Iraqi Perspectives Project, American researchers have produced the results of a systematic two-year study of the forces and motivations shaping Saddam and his regime. Well written, historically contexted, and replete with revealing details, it ranks with Kanan Makiya's Republic of Fear as the masterly description of that regime. (For a condensed version, see the May-June issue of Foreign Affairs.)

It shows how, like Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Soviet Union, Saddam's Iraq was a place of unpredictably distorted reality. In particular, Saddam underwent a change in the mid-1990s, developing a delusional sense of his own military genius, indeed his infallibility. In this fantasyland, soldiers' faith and bravura count far more than technology or matériel. Disdaining the U.S. military performance from Vietnam to Desert Storm, and from Somalia to the Balkans, the tyrant deemed Americans a cowardly and unworthy enemy.
 
Maybe you were to young to remember the series of events that led up to this. Do you recall the cat and mouse game with UNSCOM?



Or remember the cat and mouse game with Saddam?

He Lied So Often, No One Believed He Removed WMD
No, I am not too young to remeber that.

I agree with you that most thought that he was in violation, even though he was not.

He was a persistent liar. A liar that did keep Iran in check for a long time.

Maybe you are too young to remember when we were supporting Saddam?

"As with all sovereign nations, we respect Iraq's independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity."
-- Donald Rumsfeld, 1983

"This is a regime that is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people."
-- Donald Rumsfeld, March 21, 2003

"We don’t have an opinion on inter-Arab disputes such as your border dispute with Kuwait, and we have directed our official spokesman to reiterate this stand, and I have a directive from the President, personally, that I should work to expand and deepen relations with Iraq."
– April Glaspie, US ambassador to Iraq, transcript of meeting with Iraqi leadership a week before Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990

View attachment 8176
 
I see that you still cannot answer the earlier question.

And I see you cannot answer mine.

As far as yours "who surrenders when we win the "war on terror"?"

Isn't it obvious to you? There will be no surrender. There will be no peace in the world. As long as there are extremists who are hell bent on our destruction it will be a game of chess. Its just a matter of time until it strikes our nation again. The only thing we can hope for is that we have the leaders who has the nerve to do what needs to be done to stave off any impending attack. And when they do strike, we strike back 100X greater. Be it popular or not...that's how it goes.


But chances are more then likely with this current liberal kissy-huggy administration, that time may be sooner then we think.
 
The above is NOT a Declaration of war. It's political window dressing.

So what you really mean to say is your personal (delusional) beliefs prevent you from accepting that the US and the UN acted accordingly. Is that correct? :blink:

You might as well get used to "political window dressing" as thats all your going to get for the next four years.
 
What part of the US Constitution did Bush circumvent?

Tug,

We have been over this before. Read this Supreme Court case and it will tell you what part. To answer your question directly, Article I, Section 9, Clause 2. The government argued valiently, as you do, that the detainees are enemy conbatants. That was neither here nor there, however, as the enemy combatant status determination made no difference in whether Bush's procedures violated the constitution. Bush/executive was not the only person to blame; while Bush carried out the unlawful procedures, someone had to grant the authority to carry out Bush's plan, and that was congress.
 
Piney,

I'm not a legal scholar but are you sure about the "UN .. law of the land" thing? I don't quite know how to phrase this but don;t we abide by international law becasue we 'chose' to not because we 'have' too? The UN has no enforcement capability unless the member nations send troops under a UN flag.

Just asking as I am really not clear on this. I am not convinced that just because we are a member, that Constitutionally we are obligated to abide by their rulings. What happens if the UN for what ever reason were to make a decision that was in direct conflict with the USC?

Lily,

You seem to far better versed in the legalities but didn't W Co. do quite a few things with out Congressional approval? Such as rendition, secret CIA prison camps, torture, tribunals ... etc?
 
Tug,

We have been over this before. Read this Supreme Court case and it will tell you what part. To answer your question directly, Article I, Section 9, Clause 2. The government argued valiently, as you do, that the detainees are enemy conbatants. That was neither here nor there, however, as the enemy combatant status determination made no difference in whether Bush's procedures violated the constitution. Bush/executive was not the only person to blame; while Bush carried out the unlawful procedures, someone had to grant the authority to carry out Bush's plan, and that was congress.

Read this Supreme Court case to understand the long standing precedent used to justify the procedures and policies established by President Bush, Congress and their legal counsel in the months following the 11 September 2001 attacks. Using this unchallenged precedent as the rule of law, President Bush, Congress and their legal counsel did nothing unlawful or unconstitutional. Had the law been otherwise, the military would not have transported prisoners to Guantanamo Bay, but would have kept them in Afghanistan, transferred them to another of our foreign military bases, or turned them over to allies for detention.

Until 12 June 2008, the writ of habeas corpus did not, nor had it ever, ran in favor of alien enemies detained abroad by our military forces in the course of an ongoing war. Guantanamo Bay is located within the sovereign territory of Cuba and outside of US Constitutional jurisdiction.

In Boumediene v. Bush, and specifically “The Suspension Clause†the Supreme Court was tasked to determine whether there was a conflict between the Suspension Clause and the Military Commissions Act. A conflict would arises only if the Suspension Clause preserved the privilege of the writ for aliens held by the United States military as enemy combatants at the base in Guantanamo Bay.

The Supreme Court purported to derive from precedents a “functional†test for the extraterritorial reach of the writ, which showed that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 unconstitutionally restricted the scope of habeas. The most pertinent of those precedents, Johnson v. Eisentrager, conclusively establishes the opposite!

It’s interesting to note that in Johnson v. Eisentrager, Justice Jackson held that American courts lacked habeas jurisdiction: “We are cited to no instance where a court, in this or any other country where the writ is known, has issued it on behalf of an alien enemy who, at no relevant time and in no stage of his captivity, has been within its territorial jurisdiction. Nothing in the text of the Constitution extends such a right, nor does anything in our statutes.â€

Justice Jackson elaborated on the historical scope of the writ: “The alien, to whom the United States has been traditionally hospitable, has been accorded a generous and ascending scale of rights as he increases his identity with our society. But, in extending constitutional protections beyond the citizenry, the Court has been at pains to point out that it was the alien’s presence within its territorial jurisdiction that gave the Judiciary power to actâ€.

Lest there be any doubt about the primacy of territorial sovereignty in determining the jurisdiction of a habeas court over an alien, Justice Jackson distinguished two cases in which aliens had been permitted to seek habeas relief, on the ground that the prisoners in those cases were in custody within the sovereign territory of the United States.

It must be noted that the 2008 Supreme Court ruling in Boumediene v. Bush provides essentially the same habeas corpus protection as that provided in the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act.

The ruling in Boumediene v. Bush wasn’t an indictment of the Bush Administration’s policies and procedures but a reversal of the long standing precedent of Johnson v. Eisentrager.
 
The ruling in Boumediene v. Bush wasn’t an indictment of the Bush Administration’s policies and procedures but a reversal of the long standing precedent of Johnson v. Eisentrager.
Tug,

First, thank you for the discussion. Second, the Boumediene ruling was a "ding" on Bush's policies and it forced the Bush administration to overhaul their procedures almost immediately. What you noted in your post was eloquently stated, however, you gloss over the fact that the Boumediene opinion specifically states that section 7 of the Military Commissions Act (the act practically drafted by the Bush Administration and guiding Bush's policies) was UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and that that Bush's procedures set forth in the Detainee Treatment Act (enacted by Congress) are an inadequate substitute for habeas corpus. It is a simple historical fact that some of the procedures/policies that Bush was enforcing were held to be unconstitutional. Third, just because a president erroneously relies upon previous precedent, such as Johnson v. Eisentrager, doesn't mean that congress' statutes and the president's actions/policies are not unconstitutional.
 
If you think Nazi party and islamic-jihad terrorists are one of the same then your dead wrong. You should really stop relying on CNN to get your factual data. Try the library for a start.

And where exactly are you getting your factual data?
 
And where exactly are you getting your factual data?

Definitely not soundbites from the MSM.

The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.
Thomas Jefferson
 
Definitely not soundbites from the MSM.

The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.
Thomas Jefferson

That's not what I asked. So far I've seen you use blogs and op ed pices to try and support your arguments. Not a very good idea mind you. Like the blog that talked about Copperhead Democrats. Of course the blog failed to mention that Lincoln opposed the war with Mexico. It also made comments they failed to back up with facts. I noticed you link to the AP. What is the difference between the AP and CNN?
 
That's not what I asked. So far I've seen you use blogs and op ed pices to try and support your arguments.
Come again???? :blink:

Like the blog that talked about Copperhead Democrats.
Which happens to be factually correct, go research it for yourself.

Of course the blog failed to mention that Lincoln opposed the war with Mexico. It also made comments they failed to back up with facts.
That was a deflected attempt/argument that you created. Not me.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top