Why I am embarrassed to say I went to UMass.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't agree that there is no contradiction. Does this mean that in a country where the commander in chief of the army is a military figure, he should be able to start wars at whim? The army is in charge of conducting the fighting of wars, not of starting or declaring them, so being commander in chief in itself does not give one that right.


[/ QUOTE ]

Mr G, why do you insist on only reading a small portion of a post when further reading of the same post will refute your rebuttal of said post. No matter whether or not you (a foreigner to boot) would like to imagine that our President cannot begin a war without the consent of Congress this does not make it so. See my explanation of the War Powers Act of 1973 for any further explanation.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
According to Article 51 of the UN Charter. See Chrs Algers Imaginary Legal Statute

[/ QUOTE ]

You might be the only American living radical enough to believe we needed "permission" of the UN Security council to defend our country. Besides that your link went to a left wing newspaper article not to any known statute under which the US is obligated to comply.

I ask you again, please link to a legal (LOL I know how much you like that term) statute under which we are required by the US constitution to comply with that we violated. (Not a newspaper editorial)

Here is the real Article 51:

"Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security. "

You will notice it reads entirely differently than the leftist interpretation provided by your link. I know you never completred your legal training but even you should understand this simple article.

[daryn]

as far as i know, no d-head profs and other students supported gonzalez.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
When I say "deserve to die" I mean according to the logic of "deserving" as defined by the soldiers themselves. According to them, presumably, those they shoot "deserve to die."

[/ QUOTE ]

If I were a soldier, I would not think the enemy soldiers necessarily "deserved to die", although it might be my duty to kill them. However, an enemy tyrannical leader--a Saddam, or a Hitler--would in my view "deserve to die".

[Chris Alger]

The UN Charter is a high treaty that supercedes Congressional statutes as a matter of law.

1. The war against Afghanistan was not "self-defence" against an "armed attack" by Afghanistan or the Taliban any more than the Russian invasion of Afghanistan was "self-defense" against the threat of a hostile regime in Kabul. It's stated purpose was to capture suspected al Qaeda criminals and to overthrow the Taliban. The former was attempted in violation of the laws and principles of extradition, which we demand that others comply with to the letter. For example, if Castro started bombing Miami on the grounds that it harbored anti-Cuban terrorists (which it does), you'd be the first to scream bloody murder. When we do the same thing, you call it heroism.

As for overthrowing the Taliban, military efforts toward this end were outright aggression and worse than terrorism.

2. Article 51 authorizes collective self-defence only "until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security." The security council took such action in accordance with various resolutions on international terrorism, therefore any right of the U.S. to bomb Kabul in "self-defense," a laughable proposition by itself, had expired.

3. U.S. forces are not in Afgahanistan presently "defending the U.S." against "armed attack." There are exterminating the political and military opposition to a regime our government favors.

[nicky g]

"Mr G"
I like it [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img].

"foreigner to boot"

Call the police!

"No matter whether or not you (a foreigner to boot) would like to imagine that our President cannot begin a war without the consent of Congress this does not make it so. See my explanation of the War Powers Act of 1973 for any further explanation. "

See the bit in my post where I said "by itself." I wasn't arguing against your entire post, and nowhere in mine did I state that the President could never go to war without the consent of congress. But your argument that the President could start wars simply by dint of being commander in chief of the armed forces does not stand, IMO. The war powers act does indeed give him limited powers to go to war in limited circumstances; the fact that he is commander in chief does not. Nor does your argument about the UN stand up, but we've had that discussion before.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
But your argument that the President could start wars simply by dint of being commander in chief of the armed forces does not stand, IMO. The war powers act does indeed give him limited powers to go to war in limited circumstances; the fact that he is commander in chief does not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mr G., again you are incorrect. The Presidents' powers as Commander in Chief to utilize troops has already passed constuitutional muster. Perhaps the news on your side of the pond is several decades old. Check for Supreme Court decisions regarding this subject.