CIA: Iraq not a threat to U.S. unless provoked.

[Ned]

On the main point, I think Bush is fully aware that if Saddam is backed into corner he is is more likely than not to order the use of weapons of mass destruction. This is why he bluntly stated in his speech that if Saddam were to give any such order to his generals that the general should pause and consider that United States would prosecute all war criminals.

But the concern about Saddam using weapons of mass destruction in one final bid to maintain power or to cause as must destruction as he could before the end does give one pause. I would be in favor of a back-channel offers to Saddam to guaranty is safety in exile if the war is concluded without the use of weapons of mass destruction.

[Ned]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Just because Congress is complicit in violating the Constitution doesn't make those violations Constitutional.

David, was watching the debate last night. One Republican congressmen stood up and made same argument that you do that it would be unconstitutional even for Congress to declare war on Iraq under these circumstances.

[David Floyd]

One Republican congressmen stood up and made same argument that you do that it would be unconstitutional even for Congress to declare war on Iraq under these circumstances.

Really? Which one, was it Ron Paul?

If he said that, though, I'd have to disagree - a Congressional declaration of war, by definition, cannot be unconstitutional. It is an exclusive Constitutional power of Congress, and can be done anytime for any reason.

[Saint Marcus]

Chris, Your turn on responding to Marcus. I don't have the energy.

I'm waiting patiently

[Saint Marcus]

btw Chris, do you honestly think the US won't launch nukes against Iraq, if Saddam strikes first with WoMDs? Warcrime or not, the current US governement won't think twice about firing a nuke right back aimed at Baghdad (or whereever the Iraqi weapon was fired from).

[SlowwHand]

Don't get goofy(ier) on us Markus.
The only thing that would cause the U.S. to launch nukes, would be a response.
Guaranteed.

[Saint Marcus]

I agree, but Chris thinks the US won't fire one in return cause it's a warcrime.

[Amadan]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
you're talking like the US cares about commiting warcrimes or not.

Of course we care about war crimes -- as long as we can't be charged with any. That is the Bush admin's main concern with the World Court: we would only endorse it if American peacekeepers were given a blanket exemption from charges being brought against them.

(Edit: apologies - I misread the quote above. First time I read it I didn't catch the word 'commiting')

[Saint Marcus]

that's basically what I said.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
I agree, but Chris thinks the US won't fire one in return cause it's a warcrime.

In response to the United States being launched on.
Otherwise, he's probably right.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Furthermore, Chris, we were never legally at war, since we never legally declared war.

Can you show me, in the Constitution, the official format a DoW is supposed to take?

[Ned]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Really? Which one, was it Ron Paul?

If he said that, though, I'd have to disagree - a Congressional declaration of war, by definition, cannot be unconstitutional. It is an exclusive Constitutional power of Congress, and can be done anytime for any reason.

I don't remember his name. Be he wove "common defense" from the preamble into his argument.

[David Floyd]

Can you show me, in the Constitution, the official format a DoW is supposed to take?

Nope. All it says is that Congress must declare war. Yes, Congress can declare war using whatever words they want to, as long as they inform everyone that what they are doing is declaring war. It's nonsensical to assume that the Constitution was written in a manner to allow Congress to declare war while avoiding responsibility for that action.

Yes, that's the beginnings of an Original Intentist argument, and is impossible to prove, but don't you think it's fairly reasonable that the writers of the Constitution didn't intend for the US to fight many wars, and thus made it fairly difficult to do so?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Can you show me, in the Constitution, the official format a DoW is supposed to take?

If you want original intentist arguments, I'd say the manner in which war was declared in the declaration of independence.

[SlowwHand]

The President's Message
To the Congress of the United States:
On the morning of Dec. 11 the Government of Germany, pursuing its course of world conquest, declared war against the United States. The long-known and the long-expected has thus taken place. The forces endeavoring to enslave the entire world now are moving toward this hemisphere. Never before has there been a greater challenge to life, liberty and civilization. Delay invites great danger. Rapid and united effort by all of the peoples of the world who are determined to remain free will insure a world victory of the forces of justice and of righteousness over the forces of savagery and of barbarism. Italy also has declared war against the United States.

I therefore request the Congress to recognize a state of war between the United States and Germany, and between the United States and Italy.

Franklin D. Roosevelt



The War Resolution
Declaring that a state of war exists between the Government of Germany and the government and the people of the United States and making provision to prosecute the same.

Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war against the government and the people of the United States of America:

Therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the government to carry on war against the Government of Germany; and to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.

----------------------------------------------------------------


JOINT RESOLUTION Declaring that a state of war exists between the Imperial Government of Japan and the Government and the people of the United States and making provisions to prosecute the same.
Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of was between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on was against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.

Approved, December 8, 1941, 4:10 p.m. E.S.T.