John Kerry the Betrayer: Unfit to Command, part 3

[Ramo]

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

No, it's not. The Constitution gives Congress exclusive power to declare war.

[SpencerH]

Hmmm, yes I had forgotten that specific law which (in effect) reinstates congresses constitutional right to declare war that was thrown into imbalance by the actions of Kennedy and Johnson. Note, however, that it required presidential acquiescence (Nixon) to be law.

[Ramo]

Actually, it was passed over the veto of Nixon.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ramo

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

No, it's not. The Constitution gives Congress exclusive power to declare war.

The word "exclusive" does not appear in the grant of power to the Congress.

The president is the commander in chief. He is required to protect and defend the United States regardless of what Congress "declares."

[Ramo]

The Constitution doesn't give the President (or anything else) the power to declare war, thus Congress' power is exclusive. If you really are a Constitutional lawyer, there are some serious problems with our law schools.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ramo
The Constitution doesn't give the President (or anything else) the power to declare war, thus Congress' power is exclusive. If you really are a Constitutional lawyer, there are some serious problems with our law schools.

Sure, sure.

The president is going to consult Congress if Russia launches a nuclear strike?

Think.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned


The word "exclusive" does not appear in the grant of power to the Congress.

The president is the commander in chief. He is required to protect and defend the United States regardless of what Congress "declares."

Bombing a sovereign country when it is a declared neutral party (even if its autocratic rulers don't seem to care) is an act of war- specially when we are speaking about a policy of bombings, and not just hot pursuits.

That is Congress' are of control-NOT the Presidents.

[Ned]

Think also of everything that Lincoln did at the start of the Civil War. He did all that, including arresting rebels in the North, without consulting Congress. Congress later ratified his actions though. But still, Lincoln was required to ACT in order to save the Union.

[Ramo]

Sure, sure.

The president is going to consult Congress if Russia launches a nuclear strike?

Think.

The War Powers Act has a provision in case of national emergencies.

Read.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap


Bombing a sovereign country when it is a declared neutral party (even if its autocratic rulers don't seem to care) is an act of war- specially when we are speaking about a policy of bombings, and not just hot pursuits.

That is Congress' are of control-NOT the Presidents.

No one bombed a neutral country. Nixon bombed communist bases inside Cambodia with the "tacit" consent of Sihanouk.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


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.

I begin to think you're losing the plot, in your bid to canonize St. Richard of the Water Gate and his acolyte, the Blessed Henry of the Foreign Coup.

'In Nixon's memoir, 'No More Vietnams', his justifications for having Operation Menu remain in total secrecy included avoiding any American uproar that might have resulted from a publicized strike and the desire to avoid antagonizing Prince Sihanouk. "My administration was only two months old and I wanted to provoke as little public outcry as possible at the outset."

Nixon also argued that his actions should not be considered unconstitutional since Johnson had never formally declared war and that the North Vietnamese had already violated Cambodia's neutrality by maintaining bases on its eastern borders. Kissinger's biography, written by Marvin and Bernard Kalb, with Kissinger's full cooperation, makes it known that the Secretary of State had no trouble justifying the deception. If the widenining war was exposed, the national uproar would undermine the plans for peace laid out by the Nixon Administration. 7


Nixon and Kissinger clearly overstepped their boundaries by acting without decent restraint in their respective offices. They were more worried about the public's reaction to violating a country's neutrality, than about the constitutional requirement that required them to obtain permission from Congress to make war on other countries. Nixon obviously realized that if he asked for this permission, much of the public would be angry. He would also have had to call off subsequent bombings, thus undermining his purpose, which was to display that he would not be constrained by domestic opposition. Kissinger appeared to feel that the whole operation and its total secrecy was legitimate. '


'1969: Served as Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs under President Richard Nixon and became the head of the National Security Council. In his role, Kissinger helped engineer the U.S. bombing of Cambodia and opened detente with Soviet Union. '

http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2001/aug/kissinger/010808.kissinger.html

Invading a neutral, Ned?

'President Eisenhower exerted economic and diplomatic pressure at a high level to bring an end to the invasion of Egypt by Britain, France, and Israel in October 1956.

During the Algerian war of independence, the United States had also repudiated France's claimed right to attack a town in neighboring Tunisia that succored Algerian guerrillas, and in 1964, at the United Nations, Ambassador Adlai Stevenson had condemned the United Kingdom for attacking a town in Yemen that allegedly provided a rear guard for rebels operating in its then colony of Aden.'


Clearly, do as I say, not do as I do.


'General Taylor described the practice of air strikes against hamlets suspected of "harboring" Vietnamese guerrillas as "flagrant violations of the Geneva Convention on Civilian Protection, which prohibits `collective penalties,' and `reprisals against protected persons,' and equally in violation of the Rules of Land Warfare." He was writing before this atrocious precedent had been extended to reprisal raids that treated two whole countries--Laos and Cambodia--as if they were disposable hamlets.'

http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/hitchens_on_kissinger.html

You'll note- Kissinger has not sued Mr Hitchens on the grounds that he has been misrepresented or misquoted by him.

[Ramo]

Think also of everything that Lincoln did at the start of the Civil War. He did all that, including arresting rebels in the North, without consulting Congress. Congress later ratified his actions though. But still, Lincoln was required to ACT in order to save the Union.

In Ex Parte Merryman, SCOTUS ruled that only Congress has authority to suspend habeas corpus.

[Ned]

Sihanouk made it clear in a press conference in early '69 that he did not consider US bombing of the communist bases to be bombing of Cambodia because there were no Cambodians in these bases.

[Ned]

Molly, the primary reason for keeping the bombing secret was so to allow many governments to not have to take a public stand on anything. Kissinger had concerns that the commies would once again call of the peace talks. China and Russia would have to take a public position. Sihanouk, who was privately supportive, might have to take a public stand against.

There of course was concern about feeding the antiwar movement new fodder, but that was not a major concern.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ramo

Think also of everything that Lincoln did at the start of the Civil War. He did all that, including arresting rebels in the North, without consulting Congress. Congress later ratified his actions though. But still, Lincoln was required to ACT in order to save the Union.

In Ex Parte Merryman, SCOTUS ruled that only Congress has authority to suspend habeas corpus.

Perhaps. But that was after the Civil War had ended.

Even in the most recent case, the Supreme Court does not dispute the presidents authority to detail combatants for a time necessary to quell the battlefield. Habeas corpus comes into play only when the president decides to "continue" to detain combatants.