John Kerry the Betrayer: Unfit to Command, part 3

[Ramo]

No, Ned. Congress had Constitutional authority to specifically prohibit involvement in Cambodia. In fact, they passed legislation doing just that in 1970.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Was it not the Vietnamese (we were gone by then) that actually went into Cambodia and ousted the KR? Albiet late, but they did.

Yes.


And then the United States supported the Khmer Rouge.

Really puts the seal on the whole sorry involvement in Cambodia.


'The Vietnamese themselves don't even claim this, let alone over a four year period.'

Patroklos


I believe the figures you are partially quoting refer to civilians in South and North Viet Nam, Laos and Cambodia.


Note, it says 'Indo China' in the following sentence, which ain't just Cambodia.



Oh, Neddy?

I'm beginning to think what you know about the Khmer Rouge doesn't amount to much.

'1953: Cambodia receives independence from France. Pol Pot works on setting up a communist party.

1960-63: Pol Pot becomes party's general secretary. Flees into jungle to escape repression by Cambodia's ruler, Prince Norodom Sihanouk.

1967: Khmer Rouge take up arms against the government.

1970: Right-wing coup topples Sihanouk. U.S. invades Cambodia to dislodge Vietnamese from border sanctuaries, but drives them deeper into Cambodia where they join with Khmer Rouge. '

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/asiapcf/9804/16/pol.pot.timeline/

'Sept 30, 1960 - Pol Pot and other communists hold secret congress at Phnom Penh railway station and elect future Khmer Rouge leaders to top party posts. '

http://www.embassy.org/cambodia/press/chronology.html

'1960: Emergence of the Khmer Rouge organization, led by Pol Pot.

1970: Coup d’état by prime minister Lon Nol and proclamation of a republic. Sihanouk aligns with a faction of the Khmer Rouge. In the ensuing civil war he is supported by China and North Viet Nam, while the United States and South Viet Nam back Lon Nol.'

http://www.unesco.org/courier/1999_12/uk/dossier/txt07.htm

[Ned]

Molly, I just reviewed my copy of White House years. Your statements concerning Kissinger and keeping the bombing secret from the president are a

LIE!

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
Molly, I just reviewed my copy of White House years. Your statements concerning Kissinger and keeping the bombing secret from the president are a

LIE!

Ned, classic troll.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ramo
No, Ned. Congress had Constitutional authority to specifically prohibit involvement in Cambodia. In fact, they passed legislation doing just that in 1970.

Interesting. Give me a cite to the legislation.

Regardless, I still think a president has authority to conduct military operations against an enemy whereever he finds them.

[GePap]

NO, not if congress specifically forbid a certain action.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap


Ned, classic troll.

[Jack Nicholson intonation] You can't handle the truth! [/Jack Nicholson intonation]

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap
NO, not if congress specifically forbid a certain action.

Congress cannot pass legislation on its own.

It needs the signature of the president or it has to override his veto.

As a constitutional lawyer, though, I STILL think that Congress cannot interfere with combat operations the president deems necessary to conduct an authorized war.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by GePap
NO, not if congress specifically forbid a certain action.

Just how would congress do that? Congress controls the purse but has no authority over the executive branch except through impeachment.

[Ramo]

Interesting. Give me a cite to the legislation.

It's called the War Powers Act.

http://www.luminet.net/~tgort/wpa.htm

It was originally passed after Nixon's invasion of Cambodia in 1970 - then vetoed - then passed again and signed in 1973.

[GePap]

Originally posted by SpencerH


Just how would congress do that? Congress controls the purse but has no authority over the executive branch except through impeachment.

Look bellow your post.

[Ned]

Molly, strictly from memory, the Khmer were funded by China and supplied by the North Vietnam. They got very little in the way of supplies while Sihanouk was in power because he was officially neutral. When he was overthrown, the kids gloves came off and the North Vietnamese began to give the Khmer ample supplies in an effort to overthrow the government of Cambodia.

[Arrian]

[crosspost. To Ned:]

Even if that is the case (which I'll concede since I am not a constitutional lawyer), there was another group to keep the bombing secret from: the general population of the United States, who could have reacted by voting Nixon out.

Oh, here's a question: could the Nixon administration's bombing of Cambodia have been basis for impeachment? I mean, after all, lying about a blowjob was...

-Arrian

Damn, poly's being slow again

[Ned]

Ramo, not even Clinton abided by the War Powers Act. It's constitutionality is suspect.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Arrian
[crosspost. To Ned:]

Even if that is the case (which I'll concede since I am not a constitutional lawyer), there was another group to keep the bombing secret from: the general population of the United States, who could have reacted by voting Nixon out.

Oh, here's a question: could the Nixon administration's bombing of Cambodia have been basis for impeachment? I mean, after all, lying about a blowjob was...

-Arrian

Damn, poly's being slow again

Well, the Demoncrats certainly tried to make it article of Impeachment.

The problem of keeping such things secret lead to the formation of select committees to receive top secret information in order that Congress be officially informed as required by the Constitution. This happened after the war was over.