Only this administration could call THIS a victory.

[uscitizen]

Without a declared war the military can only defend our borders against incursions. Nothing more as related to foreign operations.

 

[elvis]

Without a declared war the military can only defend our borders against incursions. Nothing more as related to foreign operations.

define "defend our borders". Saddam Hussein was going to mushroom cloud New York, remember?

 

[Moon]

Rules are a bit different in a DECLARED war.

what difference does it make if it's declared or not?

In my opinion US troops should not be used for combat on foreign soild with an official declaration of war.
I suspect the founding fathers felt the same way.

You'd be wrong.

On Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801, Yusuf Karamanli, the Pasha (or Bashaw) of Tripoli, demanded $225,000 from the new administration. (In 1800, Federal revenues totaled a little over $10 million.) Putting his long-held beliefs into practice, Jefferson refused the demand. Consequently, in May 1801, the Pasha declared war on the United States, not through any formal written documents but in the customary Barbary manner of cutting down the flagstaff in front of the U.S. Consulate. Algiers and Tunis did not follow their ally in Tripoli.

In response, Jefferson sent a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress. Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify."

The schooner USS Enterprise defeated the 14-gun Tripolitan corsair Tripoli after a fierce but one-sided battle on August 1, 1801.

In 1802, in response to Jefferson's request for authority to deal with the pirates, Congress passed "An act for the Protection of Commerce and seamen of the United States against the Tripolitan cruisers", authorizing the President to "... employ such of the armed vessels of the United States as may be judged requisite ... for protecting effectually the commerce and seamen thereof on the Atlantic ocean, the Mediterranean and adjoining seas."


Link

 

[uscitizen]

Without a declared war the military can only defend our borders against incursions. Nothing more as related to foreign operations.

define "defend our borders". Saddam Hussein was going to mushroom cloud New York, remember?

Only partisan fools believed that.

Preemptive attacks on other sovern nations is not allowed in the constitution unless war is declared.

 

[Revere]

Morons think that the constituion only is against what they are against.

The Constitution doesn't speak to persons outside the US.

 

[uscitizen]

Morons think that the constituion only is against what they are against.

The Constitution doesn't speak to persons outside the US.

It sure as hell speaks to the US military.

True the consittution gives us no power at all to interfere in the affairs of other nations unless war is declared.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Without a declared war the military can only defend our borders against incursions. Nothing more as related to foreign operations.

define "defend our borders". Saddam Hussein was going to mushroom cloud New York, remember?

With what?

 

[Revere]

Morons think that the constituion only is against what they are against.

The Constitution doesn't speak to persons outside the US.

It sure as hell speaks to the US military.

What rights does the Constitution afford foreign nationals on foreign soil?

 

[uscitizen]

The Constitution doesn't speak to persons outside the US.

It sure as hell speaks to the US military.

What rights does the Constitution afford foreign nationals on foreign soil?

The consittution gives us no power at all to interfere in the affairs of other nations unless war is declared.
And without a delcared war our military cannot engage in combat in any foreign country or interfere in their affairs.

so if we seize any person on foreign soil without their govt approving extradition or a declared war it is an unconstitutional action and illegal.

And the US citizens performing that action should be prosecuted in US court. Of course if they return to the USA. If they do not we would have to pursue extradition to get them back.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Constitution doesn't speak to persons outside the US.

It sure as hell speaks to the US military.

What rights does the Constitution afford foreign nationals on foreign soil?

The Constitution limits what the U.S. government can do to foreign nationals on foreign soil.

 

[Revere]

It sure as hell speaks to the US military.

What rights does the Constitution afford foreign nationals on foreign soil?

The Constitution limits what the U.S. government can do to foreign nationals on foreign soil.

Tell us where.

 

[Immanuel]

It doesn't deal with it. It only deals with it if you lack the sense to bring them on to US soil and try them here.

If you shoot them in the head in the field, or blow up their mud huts with Predator Drones, those are strictly international law isssues.

Are you saying that you support killing people who may or may not be innocent without a trial as long as they are not American citizens?

If they look at you cross-eyed they are fair game?

This is one of the big issues I had with the Bush Administration. I have always felt that these people deserved some kind of hearing rather than to be killed or locked up for life in Gitmo or some other unknown prison.

Immie

 

[Revere]

It sure as hell speaks to the US military.

What rights does the Constitution afford foreign nationals on foreign soil?

The consittution gives us no power at all to interfere in the affairs of other nations unless war is declared.
And without a delcared war our military cannot engage in combat in any foreign country or interfere in their affairs.

so if we seize any person on foreign soil without their govt approving extradition or a declared war it is an unconstitutional action and illegal.

And the US citizens performing that action should be prosecuted in US court. Of course if they return to the USA. If they do not we would have to pursue extradition to get them back.

Where does the Constitution give non-US persons rights? Did Balkan war criminals have US Constitutional rights?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

What rights does the Constitution afford foreign nationals on foreign soil?

The Constitution limits what the U.S. government can do to foreign nationals on foreign soil.

Tell us where.

Any power not given to the U.S. government by the Constitution is not a power that the U.S. government has. Since the U.S. government is not granted the power to go around assassinating foreigners by the Constitution they have no authority to do so. The 10th Amendment applies to foreign affairs as surely as it does domestic affairs.

 

[Revere]

It doesn't deal with it. It only deals with it if you lack the sense to bring them on to US soil and try them here.

If you shoot them in the head in the field, or blow up their mud huts with Predator Drones, those are strictly international law isssues.

Are you saying that you support killing people who may or may not be innocent without a trial as long as they are not American citizens?

If they look at you cross-eyed they are fair game?

This is one of the big issues I had with the Bush Administration. I have always felt that these people deserved some kind of hearing rather than to be killed or locked up for life in Gitmo or some other unknown prison.

Immie

I'm saying enemy combatants not on US soil have no right to civil trial in the United States, for a variety of reasons, first and foremost of which is the extraconstitutionality ineherent in combat capture and interrogation.

You think Al Qaeda operatives should be mirandized?

 

[uscitizen]

What rights does the Constitution afford foreign nationals on foreign soil?

The consittution gives us no power at all to interfere in the affairs of other nations unless war is declared.
And without a delcared war our military cannot engage in combat in any foreign country or interfere in their affairs.

so if we seize any person on foreign soil without their govt approving extradition or a declared war it is an unconstitutional action and illegal.

And the US citizens performing that action should be prosecuted in US court. Of course if they return to the USA. If they do not we would have to pursue extradition to get them back.

Where does the Constitution give non-US persons rights? Did Balkan war criminals have US Constitutional rights?

Umm we were never never constitutionally involved in a Balkan war.
No war was declared.
Our involvement there was unconstitutional, so your point is again moot.

 

[Revere]

The Constitution limits what the U.S. government can do to foreign nationals on foreign soil.

Tell us where.

Any power not given to the U.S. government by the Constitution is not a power that the U.S. government has. Since the U.S. government is not granted the power to go around assassinating foreigners by the Constitution they have no authority to do so. The 10th Amendment applies to foreign affairs as surely as it does domestic affairs.

You're mired in the old "US doesn't have the right to wage hostilities abroad without declared war" crap.

 

[Revere]

The consittution gives us no power at all to interfere in the affairs of other nations unless war is declared.
And without a delcared war our military cannot engage in combat in any foreign country or interfere in their affairs.

so if we seize any person on foreign soil without their govt approving extradition or a declared war it is an unconstitutional action and illegal.

And the US citizens performing that action should be prosecuted in US court. Of course if they return to the USA. If they do not we would have to pursue extradition to get them back.

Where does the Constitution give non-US persons rights? Did Balkan war criminals have US Constitutional rights?

Umm we were never never constitutionally involved in a Balkan war.
No war was declared.
Our involvement there was unconstitutional, so your point is again moot.

But war criminals were given military, nto civilian trials.

My point is what it should be.

 

[uscitizen]

The constitutional course of action was to get permission from the Afgan govt to use our troops to go after the terrorists on afgan soil ie a treaty.
If they did not grant us that permission then our only recourse per the constitution would have been to declare war on Afganistan to be able to send troops there.

 

[uscitizen]

Tell us where.

Any power not given to the U.S. government by the Constitution is not a power that the U.S. government has. Since the U.S. government is not granted the power to go around assassinating foreigners by the Constitution they have no authority to do so. The 10th Amendment applies to foreign affairs as surely as it does domestic affairs.

You're mired in the old "US doesn't have the right to wage hostilities abroad without declared war" crap.

so you are saying that the constitution is crap?