Justice Stevens says Bin Laden killing was legal

[TheBrain]

My bad. I thought Abbotabad was in Pakistan. And that Pakistan had not authorized the US to enter its airspace.

Your response does nothing to negate what I said.
We did not attack Pakistan. We attacked someone IN Pakistan, which is not the same thing,
Thus, my statement stands:
The bill of rights doesnt apply to a wartime opponent engaged on the battlefield.

My bad fucktard.

I thought that if our military penetrates their sovereign territory such was an act of war.

But I guess that is true only when they enter OUR territory but not when we enter theirs.

All clear.

.

Aren't you a genius. IF Pakistan chooses to declare war on us then in fact I guess we are at war with them, but our "invasion" does not imply that we declared war on them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Sir, they were not.

They were.
The Constitution does not specify the format for a decalartion of war.
Given that, Congress can use whatever language it chooses, to that end.
The net effect of both resolutions of force was to create the conditions necessary for the US to go to war, and as such, are declarations of same.

A declaration of war:
-limits the presidential powers,
-narrows the focus, and
-implies a precise end point to the conflict.

Your source doesn't have a clue as to what it is talking about.
To wit:

Please show where any of these specifications noted above are made in the following declarations of war:

DOW v Japan, 8 DEC 1941

JOINT RESOLUTION Declaring that a state of war exists between the Imperial Government of Japan and the Government and the people of the United States and making provisions to prosecute the same.

Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.

DOW v Germany 11 DEC 1941

Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war against the Government and the people of the United States of America:

Therefore be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Government of Germany; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.

Not that you're interested in reality, but the fact of the matter is that nothing INCREASES Presidential authority like a declaration of war.

 

[M14 Shooter]

My bad fucktard.
I thought that if our military penetrates their sovereign territory such was an act of war.

That's because you started with a conclusion and then worked to fit facts around it.

Thus, my statement -continues- to stand:
The bill of rights doesnt apply to a wartime opponent engaged on the battlefield

Shut the fuck up.

Awww.. puddy can't handle the fact that I am right and there's nothing he can do to change that.

 

[Contumacious]

Your response does nothing to negate what I said.
We did not attack Pakistan. We attacked someone IN Pakistan, which is not the same thing,
Thus, my statement stands:
The bill of rights doesnt apply to a wartime opponent engaged on the battlefield.

My bad fucktard.

I thought that if our military penetrates their sovereign territory such was an act of war.

But I guess that is true only when they enter OUR territory but not when we enter theirs.

All clear.

.

Aren't you a genius. IF Pakistan chooses to declare war on us then in fact I guess we are at war with them, but our "invasion" does not imply that we declared war on them.

Listen dumb ass, the reason the son-of -bitches invaded Pakistan is because it is small country which will be easily defeated. The fuckers would not dare invade Russian or Chinese territory.

.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

My bad fucktard, I thought undeclared wars were unconstitutional.

The war in Afghanistan is a declared war, made so by the Congresssional authorization to that end.

Iraq, too.

Sir , they were not. We haven't ever declared war on Afghanistan or Iraq. The only thing COngress has ever authorized is funding . We haven't declared war on anyone since 1942

Not true, they authorized the use of military force. That makes those actions constitutional, like it or not, unlike some of the other military actions we have been engaged in, and are currently engaged in. The Constitution does not require that Congress actually use the words "declare" or "war" when declaring war.

 

[TheBrain]

The war in Afghanistan is a declared war, made so by the Congresssional authorization to that end.

Iraq, too.

Sir , they were not. We haven't ever declared war on Afghanistan or Iraq. The only thing COngress has ever authorized is funding . We haven't declared war on anyone since 1942

Not true, they authorized the use of military force. That makes those actions constitutional, like it or not, unlike some of the other military actions we have been engaged in, and are currently engaged in. The Constitution does not require that Congress actually use the words "declare" or "war" when declaring war.

We're not disagreeing. There are declared wars, and there are undeclared wars. I don't believe either one is unconstitutional.