Iraqi Athletes Shot and Killed "For Wearing Shorts"

[jamesrwright3]

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html

I didn't ask for a copy of the Constitution.
Show me the specific wording if you say it's in there.

 

[k]

I didn't ask for a copy of the Constitution.
Show me the specific wording if you say it's in there.

Specific language was requested and the actual words of the Con. seem sufficient.

Beyond that, I know better. God Bless

 

[jamesrwright3]

Specific language was requested and the actual words of the Con. seem sufficient.

Beyond that, I know better. God Bless

It's not in there. Checkmate

 

[Machjo]

I pray for the people in Iraq all the time, and this makes even more desperate.
Now they're not only caught between the Americans trying to liberate them from themselves, the insurgents trying to liberate them from the Americans, but now they have terrorists fighting to libertate them from their er...shorts?

Liberate them from themselves?

Oh wow, now I've read it all.

 

[Machjo]

Iraqis don't appreciate our help it seems
And only views us at the enemy!

Well, you know what Bush said to that:

Either you're with us or you're against us. So it's pretty asic. If the Iraqis chose to resist, blow 'em up!

 

[applepowerpc]

Man, some people have to be hand-held around here.


Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution:


The Congress shall have the power...To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

 

[jamesrwright3]

Man, some people have to be hand-held around here.


Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution:


The Congress shall have the power...To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

And Congress did.
So the war is not Unconstitutional

 

[applepowerpc]

The question was where in the Constitution does it say you cannot arbitrarily attack a country except in self-defense. This is it. Congress is responsible for declaring war and defining RULES for capture. The latter, of course, neither the Leglslative nor the Executive branch did a good job of at all.


There is another clause forbidding states from engaging in war except in self-defense, but that's not entirely relevant.

 

[jamesrwright3]

The question was where in the Constitution does it say you cannot arbitrarily attack a country except in self-defense. This is it.

It does not say that

Congress is responsible for declaring war and defining RULES for capture.

And Congress gave the Executive full power to do as it sees fit. It was an authorization to use force aka declaration of war.


To say the war is unconstitutional is absolutely ludicrous.

 

[reverend B]

a declaration of war is a specific act of congress. this was not a declaration of war. you were doing fine, and then you get nervous and overstate your case and sound completely ridiculous. there has been no declaration of war. please, it's your turn to document. show me the document that declares war against the sovereign state of iraq.
i will wait here.

 

[KarateCowboy]

I quote Cindy Sheehan one more time:

"For what noble cause did my son die for?"

To keep terrorists from blowing off Cindy Sheehan's huge freakin' nose. Of course, she'd still have a ton left if they did.

 

[jamesrwright3]

a declaration of war is a specific act of congress. this was not a declaration of war.

An authorization to use force by the legislative branch is a declaration of war. To say that Congress DID NOT give approval for force to be used is an untenable position. To say it's unconstituional is even more ludicrous since the action had appoval of the legislative branch.

 

[reverend B]

we have not been in a declared war since wwii. those words actually have a legal meaning. they don't mean whatever you like. it is a very specific act of congress. i think you know this. i'm sure you know this.

 

[Doctrine1st]

To keep terrorists from blowing off Cindy Sheehan's huge freakin' nose. Of course, she'd still have a ton left if they did.

First, we have created more of those terrorists, and not made one dent. Second, we have created another Islamic fundamentalistic ally for Iran, and third, how about a response without the childhood regresssion?

 

[jamesrwright3]

we have not been in a declared war since wwii. those words actually have a legal meaning. they don't mean whatever you like. it is a very specific act of congress. i think you know this. i'm sure you know this.

I am sure you know that the purpose of such a provision is to ensure the support of the Legislature. The legislature authorized use of force. Hence, nothing was violated.

 

[KarateCowboy]

First, we have created more of those terrorists, and not made one dent. Second, we have created another Islamic fundamentalistic ally for Iran, and third, how about a response without the childhood regresssion?

How about a sense of humor? I wasn't making a serious comment. Maybe if you weren't so busy screaming about how the enemy is us you'd see that.
You really need to learn how to relax a little and stop spending all your time condemning everyone.

 

[Doctrine1st]

How about a sense of humor?

I have one heck of a sense of humor, but mocking someone who makes a valid point when it comes to the death of their son doesn't strike me as humorous.

 

[SallyNow]

What happens when the concept of "modesty" is perverted?

This.

Tragic. Simply tragic. There are so many tragic deaths every day, and this one is no different. It's terrible what is happening around the world.

But I wonder what people would be saying if it were women that had been shot for wearing shorts?

I don't even want to think about it. May they rest in peace.

 

[JPPT1974]

That is the most ridculous thing that I have ever heard!
So dumb to get shot and killed over wearing shorts!

 

[k]

we have not been in a declared war since wwii. those words actually have a legal meaning. they don't mean whatever you like. it is a very specific act of congress. i think you know this. i'm sure you know this.

Good point and the other fallout of WWII is the US having a Permanent War Economy. Thus, the way to get around an official Declaration of War is to...ta da!!! (use creative language!) Enter the War Powers Act>>> known today as the War Powers Resolution.

However, Iraq is unConstitutional because of the specific opening language of HR 114 as we can see here...

SUMMARY AS OF:
10/11/2002--Passed Senate, without amendment. (There are 2 other summaries)
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 - Expresses support for the President's efforts to: (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HJ00114@@L&summ2=m&

Now, is it just me or does that first line CLEARLY state that the Bush admin MUST go through UNSC? It does NOT say the US has the Authorization to act unilaterally. Furthermore, we know the Bush admin did KNOW that or they would not have spent their one good card trying to sell a load of fertilizer to the UNSC.