Only this administration could call THIS a victory.

[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?

Only partisan fools believed that.

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

I don't believe it. But imagine if the rhetoric were true..

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Simple NOT true. The Constitution gives Congress the sole power to pay for the military under any and all conditions said Congress wishes to use them EXCEPT as police in this Country.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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 are wrong. Congress has sole power granted by the Constitution to pay for the military. They have the right and power to declare wars. They also have due to the paying for the military the right to use said military in any manner they wish outside the borders of this Country they are willing to pay for. Further laws govern specifics. The war powers act grants to Congress the right to authorize the use of the military in foreign affairs at the Presidents request.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I have a cousin that has his doctrate in constitutional law and teaches at a major university.
He and I have discussed this issue of the use of military force on foreign soils without a declared war.

Kevin and I are 100% correct on this per a strict constitutional intrepretation.
You are 100% wrong and I am thru with you on this matter.
Argueing with a rock does neither party any good.

So the President was wrong in 1801 and 1802? Congress was wrong for approving the actions? These were the founding fathers you keep claiming were opposed to this.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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 are wrong. Congress has sole power granted by the Constitution to pay for the military. They have the right and power to declare wars. They also have due to the paying for the military the right to use said military in any manner they wish outside the borders of this Country they are willing to pay for. Further laws govern specifics. The war powers act grants to Congress the right to authorize the use of the military in foreign affairs at the Presidents request.

Incorrect.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I have a cousin that has his doctrate in constitutional law and teaches at a major university.
He and I have discussed this issue of the use of military force on foreign soils without a declared war.

Kevin and I are 100% correct on this per a strict constitutional intrepretation.
You are 100% wrong and I am thru with you on this matter.
Argueing with a rock does neither party any good.

So the President was wrong in 1801 and 1802? Congress was wrong for approving the actions? These were the founding fathers you keep claiming were opposed to this.

Jefferson also engaged in the Louisiana Purchase, which was also unconstitutional. However, it's the Constitution itself, and not historical episodes that decide what is or is not constitutional.

 

[daveman]

The whole enemy combatant thing is unconstitutional.

As I say be careful for what you wish you may get it.
Strict constitutional intrepretation will have many unliked consequences for many/most.

No, it's not. It's part of the Geneva Conventions, which we signed and ratified; therefore, it's US law: http://www.cfr.org/publication/5312/enemy_combatants.html

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The whole enemy combatant thing is unconstitutional.

As I say be careful for what you wish you may get it.
Strict constitutional intrepretation will have many unliked consequences for many/most.

No, it's not. It's part of the Geneva Conventions, which we signed and ratified; therefore, it's US law: Enemy Combatants - Council on Foreign Relations

Dont bother them with facts.

 

[Ravi]

Will the "rule of law" be victorious if guilty men walk?

Better a guilty man walk than an innocent man be locked up.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The whole enemy combatant thing is unconstitutional.

As I say be careful for what you wish you may get it.
Strict constitutional intrepretation will have many unliked consequences for many/most.

No, it's not. It's part of the Geneva Conventions, which we signed and ratified; therefore, it's US law: Enemy Combatants - Council on Foreign Relations

Dont bother them with facts.

Yes, it's legal, as long as (1) the Supreme Court retains the doctrine of judicial review, and (2) no one thinks ratifying a treaty supplants the Constitution. Yes, authorization of force is constitutional. However, constitutional does not exempt any American, including the President or RGS or daveman, of personal and culpable responsibility for war crimes.

By the by, daveman, when did you start trusting the CFR?

 

[uscitizen]

Keep in Mind that legal and constitutional are not the same thing.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The whole enemy combatant thing is unconstitutional.

As I say be careful for what you wish you may get it.
Strict constitutional intrepretation will have many unliked consequences for many/most.

No, it's not. It's part of the Geneva Conventions, which we signed and ratified; therefore, it's US law: Enemy Combatants - Council on Foreign Relations

No foreign treaty has greater authority than our own Constitution, and doesn't automatically make something constitutional.

 

[George Costanza]

Gitmo detainee acquitted of all but 1 charge in NY - Yahoo! News

All but one charge not guilty. And the sole guilty charge to be appealed. Yup some victory.

Hey - perhaps he WASN'T guilty. Ever think of that? Ever think that "the authorities," in their zeal to crank suspects through the system, might sometimes make a MISTAKE? And then be too ARROGANT to admit it?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Gitmo detainee acquitted of all but 1 charge in NY - Yahoo! News

All but one charge not guilty. And the sole guilty charge to be appealed. Yup some victory.

Hey - perhaps he WASN'T guilty. Ever think of that? Ever think that "the authorities," in their zeal to crank suspects through the system, might sometimes make a MISTAKE? And then be too ARROGANT to admit it?

Might want to read what happened, His defense was not that he did not do what he was accused of but rather that he did not KNOW what all the things he did meant.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The whole enemy combatant thing is unconstitutional.

As I say be careful for what you wish you may get it.
Strict constitutional intrepretation will have many unliked consequences for many/most.

No, it's not. It's part of the Geneva Conventions, which we signed and ratified; therefore, it's US law: Enemy Combatants - Council on Foreign Relations

No foreign treaty has greater authority than our own Constitution, and doesn't automatically make something constitutional.

True, KevinKennedy, and it is good to read your postings, though we disagree so often. Yes, the Constitution makes it clear that treaties that are ratified are part of American law. Only the Supreme Court can opine what is constitutional, so we are committed to the treaty.

 

[daveman]

The whole enemy combatant thing is unconstitutional.

As I say be careful for what you wish you may get it.
Strict constitutional intrepretation will have many unliked consequences for many/most.

No, it's not. It's part of the Geneva Conventions, which we signed and ratified; therefore, it's US law: Enemy Combatants - Council on Foreign Relations

Dont bother them with facts.

It's funny -- they all screech "International law!!!" when it supports their position, but ignore the bits that authorize us to do what they do.

 

[daveman]

No, it's not. It's part of the Geneva Conventions, which we signed and ratified; therefore, it's US law: Enemy Combatants - Council on Foreign Relations

Dont bother them with facts.

Yes, it's legal, as long as (1) the Supreme Court retains the doctrine of judicial review, and (2) no one thinks ratifying a treaty supplants the Constitution. Yes, authorization of force is constitutional. However, constitutional does not exempt any American, including the President or RGS or daveman, of personal and culpable responsibility for war crimes.

We prosecute those who have committed war crimes. Note I'm talking about real war crimes, not the definition you on the left use.

By the by, daveman, when did you start trusting the CFR?

Why would I not? They're right in the article I linked.

 

[daveman]

The whole enemy combatant thing is unconstitutional.

As I say be careful for what you wish you may get it.
Strict constitutional intrepretation will have many unliked consequences for many/most.

No, it's not. It's part of the Geneva Conventions, which we signed and ratified; therefore, it's US law: Enemy Combatants - Council on Foreign Relations

No foreign treaty has greater authority than our own Constitution, and doesn't automatically make something constitutional.

Let me guess: You're one of those people who wanted to have Bush tried at the Hague under "international law", aren't you?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No, it's not. It's part of the Geneva Conventions, which we signed and ratified; therefore, it's US law: Enemy Combatants - Council on Foreign Relations

Dont bother them with facts.

It's funny -- they all screech "International law!!!" when it supports their position, but ignore the bits that authorize us to do what they do.

It's funny -- you all screech "Constitution!!!!!" when it comes to Obamacare, but ignore the bits that have to do with foreign policy.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No, it's not. It's part of the Geneva Conventions, which we signed and ratified; therefore, it's US law: Enemy Combatants - Council on Foreign Relations

No foreign treaty has greater authority than our own Constitution, and doesn't automatically make something constitutional.

Let me guess: You're one of those people who wanted to have Bush tried at the Hague under "international law", aren't you?

Wrong.