| Jul 7 @ 2:06 PM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America?
|
|
nah12
Posts: 3,973
|
When is a Formal Declaration Necessary?
These cases settled the issue whether a state of war could exist without formal declaration by Congress. When hostile action is taken against the Nation, or against its citizens or commerce, the appropriate response by order of the President may be resort to force. But the issue [that has been] so much a source of controversy in the era of the Cold War and so divisive politically in the context of United States involvement in the Vietnamese War has been whether the President is empowered to commit troops abroad to further national interests in the absence of a declaration of war or specific congressional authorization short of such a declaration.\1431\ The Supreme Court studiously refused to consider the issue in any of the forms in which it was presented,\1432\ and the lower courts generally refused, on ``political question'' grounds, to adjudicate the matter.\1433\ In the absence of judicial elucidation, the Congress and the President have been required to accommodate themselves in the controversy to accept from each other less than each has been willing to accept but more than either has been willing to grant.\1434\ Declaration of War
|
|
  |
|
| Jul 7 @ 2:13 PM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America? |
|
lacyvsq
Posts: 4,304
|
Thanks nah.
|
| |
|
| Jul 7 @ 4:24 PM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America?
|
|
onoudn
Posts: 4,266
|
I watched an interview with Douglas Feith, who was under secretary of defense and intimately involved with the pre-war planning before the attack on Iraq, last night. Feith seemed to admit that Bush knew that Saddam Hussein didn't have anything to do with 9-11 and claims that it was a mistake for the Bush Administration to use that arguement as a motivation to go to war, as it wasn't an arguement that was needed. According to Feith, Bush took a broader approach than just focusing on the people responsible for the 9-11 attack and instead focused on the entire terrorist netwwork with the idea of preventing any further terrorist attacks on America at all.
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 7 @ 5:00 PM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America? |
|
lacyvsq
Posts: 4,304
|
This thread should have been called 'Things That Make You Go "Huh?"'
Check out Daniel Hopsicker's video about the hijackers' flight school in Florida and the hijackers -- and their many governmental connections...
The Venice Flying Circus 1
The Venice Flying Circus 2
The Venice Flying Circus 3
The Venice Flying Circus 4
The Venice Flying Circus 5
The Venice Flying Circus 6
The Venice Flying Circus 7
The poster of the Flying Circus videos had this to say:As a Venice resident, I approve of this message. Daniel seems to miss the drug connection and the Atta connection that worked thru black op govt means. Also Atta was spotted on Sun Cruz Lines with Abramoff one week or so before the 9/11 killing of several birds with one stone and starting a world war on Terror. I do not know why Daniel Hopsicker drops the ball when it comes to drugs and Atta when it was apparent that THAT was the operation. But I do not find much fault with this video . For more on this man's investigation you can find a full catalogue of his stuff at www.madcowprod.comWhile he has come under attack and even though I do not agree with him on some things. This is a MUST see and contemplate the implications of what is said here. I can attest to the fact that the properties run by "them" that were vacated on Sept 11 have been torn down as if they never existed. Even Huffman Aviation did a overhaul.
What Motivated The Hijackings
Bush took a broader approach than just focusing on the people responsible for the 9-11 attack and instead focused on the entire terrorist network with the idea of preventing any further terrorist attacks on America at all.
He should have started then with the CIA. How can we reasonably prevent further terrorist attacks without properly investigating those that were already perpetrated -- and investigating the governmental coverups around those terrorist attacks!
|
| |
|
| Jul 7 @ 5:42 PM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America?
|
|
Paralegal_at_Law
Posts: 5,068
|
...one of our allies is attacked by the country in question, or in the alternative, should the country in question commit crimes against humanity, or be the target of a coup de' etat by elements that the USA finds intolerable to have control of such country like was the catalyst for the American invasion of the Island of Grenada, the USA will already have well-reasoned prior military plans for the best invasion route and a priority of what targets should be taken out in what sequential order. The Constitution does not provide power to the federal government to invade and/or take out targets for any of the reasons you listed except for defense against USA attacks. Powers not specifically granted by the Constitution are reserved to the States and the people.
Lacy, I am sorry that is necessary to dispute your posting but you really are quite naive. For instance, the US Constitution does authorize the making of treaties. The US Senate has ratified treaties entered into with both foreign powers and also international organizations, including, but not limited to the United Nations, NATO, SEATO, the Organization of American States, etc.
Those international organization charters do provide for military intervention with regard to the purview of each such international organization, as well as the Nuremberg Doctrine, which broadens war powers to include humanitarian violations or the protection of foreign states from insurrection or coup de' etat.
Your assertion that the states may make war or enter into alliances under the pretense that the national government cannot do certain things is a synapse of logic for which there is no bridge.
Accordingly, we have a warehouse of established war plans against a host of nations, should events require their implementation.
Shouldn't you be more concerned about lip gloss matters than weighty federal and international affairs that are beyond your capacity?
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 7 @ 5:47 PM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America? |
|
nah12
Posts: 3,973
|
The latest manifestation of this is the juicy quote by Gen. Tommy Franks in Bob Woodward's Plan of Attack, in which Franks calls Feith "the f***ing stupidest guy on the face of the earth." What has the Pentagon's third man done wrong? Everything.
One might want to do a little research on Douglas Keith and what role he did play in going to war .... there have been many accounts of his intelligence being less than honest during his stint as the pentagon's #3 civilian after Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz.....
|
| |
|
| Jul 7 @ 6:34 PM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America?
|
|
lacyvsq
Posts: 4,304
|
For instance, the US Constitution does authorize the making of treaties.
Yes, but in so doing cannot grant or assume more power than given under the Constitution.
Accordingly, we have a warehouse of established war plans against a host of nations, should events require their implementation.
You mean in the event that we aggravate, facilitate, insulate? Yes, I know. We should fire/replace those treasonous governmental servants who have become our tyrants. Actually we should hang them, but the American people should take some responsibility for 'falling asleep at the wheel' and allowing the rampant pervasion of this treason.
Shouldn't you be more concerned about lip gloss matters than weighty federal and international affairs that are beyond your capacity?
I have no weight problems. *insert glossy-lipped, condescending smile* Why don't you fix yourself a bucket of buttered (real butter with Monsanto bovine growth hormone) popcorn (genetically modified to cure herpes and kill sperm) and sit back and watch a few videos. Wash it down with a big bottle of Diet Pepsi (sweetened with aspartame, proven to increase your risk of brain tumors). That stuff will kill you, yanno...but before you die you will be fat and sassy... Wait a minute...  ...nevermind... 
Thanks again Nah.
Our marvelous CIA at work on the next war...
[Edited on 7/7/2008 6:41 PM]
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 7 @ 7:21 PM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America? |
|
nah12
Posts: 3,973
|
it has been stated and shown more than once how Feith has his own agenda and would and will do anything to get what he wants .... if you listen to him it was everyone else but him ...
|
| |
|
| Jul 7 @ 7:34 PM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America?
|
|
onoudn
Posts: 4,266
|
From Lacy's link:
The informant provided secret evidence that Tehran had halted its research into designing and building a nuclear weapon. Yet, when the operative sought to file reports on the findings, his attempts were "thwarted by CIA employees," according to court papers. Later he was told to "remove himself from any further handling" of the informant, the documents say.
.....just shakes his head
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 7 @ 7:40 PM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America? |
|
Paralegal_at_Law
Posts: 5,068
|
When is a Formal Declaration Necessary?
These cases settled the issue whether a state of war could exist without formal declaration by Congress.
The law recognizes wars that are "declared" and "undeclared." Further, what do you suppose the relations are between the USA and a belligerent that has declared war on the United States, with military hostilities resulting, but the US Congress has not yet formally declared war in response?
The US Constitution permits state governors to utilize National Guard and State Defense Forces to prevent an invasion, which could get the USA in a shooting war, say with Cuba, if a Southern Governor simply concocted an excuse to 'splash" some Cuban Migs with his Air National Guard Units.
Also, our existing treaty obligations, duly ratified by the Senate, may require a military response on the part of the United States, without Congress ever formally declaring a state of war.
[Edited on 7/7/2008 7:49 PM]
|
| |
|
| Jul 7 @ 7:50 PM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America?
|
|
onoudn
Posts: 4,266
|
..... a de facto state of war without.....
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 7 @ 7:51 PM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America? |
|
Nightowl001
Posts: 4,134
|
An "undeclared" war is a lot of disingenuous crap used so someone can escape what would otherwise be their responsbility by blaming it on someone else they can identify as an "enemy."
|
| |
|
| Jul 7 @ 8:02 PM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America?
|
|
onoudn
Posts: 4,266
|
Under the War Power Act I think the President can send troops abroad if the US is threatened so long as it's a credible threat and we are in imminent danger of being attack or have already been attacked.
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 7 @ 11:52 PM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America? |
|
Paralegal_at_Law
Posts: 5,068
|
An "undeclared" war is a lot of disingenuous crap
But it is a fact that "wars declared and wars undeclared" are recognized by virtue of law, and such language, or similar parallel language is seen in both you automobile collision and comprehensive insurance policy, as well as in your homeowners insurance policy, as being instances in which the underwriter assumes no liability for your damages, the current payment of your premiums to the contrary notwithstanding.
And when an enemy declares war on the United States, even if the Congress fails to enact a war resolution, it would seem that a state of hostilities does in fact exist between the power that has declared war and the state or international compact against whom war has been declared.
States have even declared war on an individual, not against a nation.
|
| |
|
| Jul 8 @ 12:01 AM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America?
|
|
Angel54214
Posts: 14,056
|
States have even declared war on an individual, not against a nation.
Including the President? 
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 8 @ 12:02 AM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America? |
|
lacyvsq
Posts: 4,304
|
by virtue of law
Virtue of what law?
|
| |
|
| Jul 8 @ 12:04 AM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America?
|
|
Paralegal_at_Law
Posts: 5,068
|
Virtue of what law?
Insurance law.
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 8 @ 12:10 AM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America? |
|
Nightowl001
Posts: 4,134
|
But it is a fact that "wars declared and wars undeclared" are recognized by virtue of law, and such language, or similar parallel language is seen in both you automobile collision and comprehensive insurance policy, as well as in your homeowners insurance policy, as being instances in which the underwriter assumes no liability for your damages, the current payment of your premiums to the contrary notwithstanding. Yes, and it's also seen in life insurance policies. As I say, when people are trying to weasel their way out of their responsibilities. If the Japanese blew up YOUR car on Wheeler Air Base on December 7, 1941, your insurance could claim it was an act of war (despite the fact it wasn't declared yet) and tell you they didn't have to pay, that you would have to seek redress from the "enemy" (if and when they were conqured and submitted to US authority to make such reparations). God alone knows how many insurance company execs sighed with relief when Shrub announced the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon and United Flight 93 were acts of "the (undeclared) war on terrorism."
|
| |
|
| Jul 8 @ 12:26 AM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America?
|
|
lefthandedluckie
Posts: 5,081
|
Nightowl001.....Bush also said all lawsuits that had been filed and were going to trial, against Iraq, and any judgments were null and void! He claimed at that time the people of Iraq needed it to rebuild! 
Bush/Cheney just stole that money!
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 8 @ 12:26 AM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America? |
|
lacyvsq
Posts: 4,304
|
God alone knows how many insurance company execs sighed with relief when Shrub announced the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon and United Flight 93 were acts of "the (undeclared) war on terrorism."
...and yet Silverstein collected $7 billion on the WTC complex...even if he did call for WTC 7 to be 'pulled'...
Insurance law.
Thank you. That makes so much sense.
|
| |
|
|