[Rhodes22-list] What constitutes War; and quick shout out.

[TN Rhodey]

Herb, I don't know why I try. I did not comment further on the name calling
because it wasn't your post and like I said it is silly. I thought Brad's
"chickenshit" comments were a little over the top. No biggie I guess we are
all adults and no I am not trying to make any changes to the list.

What is muddy? A quick review.....Rummy said we did not declare war. Ed said
that the resolution was the same thing. I sided with Rummy, and President
Bush.....a War Resolution is different from a Declaration. Honestly from
your post i can not make out your position. Are you saying they are the same
thing? For some reason you are making this more complex than it really is.

Care to comment on our formers AG's quote?  Congress did not vote to declare
war. Congress did pass War Resolution. No value judgement here...just a
fact. There is a difference. Do you disagree? If so why?

Because we did not declare war treaties and agreements concerning times of
war are not in play.Do you disagree? Why?

It is not like you to disagree with current administration so maybe I am
missing something.

Well I will go back into troll mode. I really do hope some of you are
sailing.

Wally


On 6/29/08, Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com> wrote:

> Actually, the war powers act muddied the waters. As I stated previously,
> there is nothing that says what is a declaration of war. In days of old,
> and act of war was considered a de-facto resolution. of war. Then little
> skirmishes came up. A blockade here, taking of a vessel there, incursion
> on sovereign ground here and there. These types of actions are what
> caused the case mentioned to be taken to the SC in the 1800's. Those
> bringing the case, and cases similar to hit, said "this is war, and the
> constitution clearly says that congress must declare war". The war
> powers act acted on the SC decision, and actions involving "limited
> hostility" (most notably Vietnam), by saying that they, Congress, were
> going to be the ones to decide what constitutes "limited hostility".
>
> The problem is that "that side" had already said that these actions are
> war. So now we have Congress voting for "these actions" which were
> considered war. If/when Congress votes to allow something that they, and
> others, consider to be war, and Congress must vote to DECLARE war, well,
> I think any right thinking person can see how folks will say - you just
> declared war with that vote.
>
> Muddy the waters a little more with the idea that most of the Presidents
> since the voting of the war powers act view it as an unconstitutional
> incursion on the powers of the executive branch, and basically don't
> acknowledge its validity. Because of that, you will regularly find
> wording similar to Mr Gonzales.
>
> I you are mistaken on the current administration's stance on the Geneva
> convention. The stand is that the enemy combatants are members of
> terrorist groups, not members of a recognized army, and thus are not
> party to the GC.
>
> I noticed that you asserted I "missed" the name calling, but didn't give
> an example. I don't think any exist, care to enlighten me? There were
> some pretty silly accusations made, such as calling other posts
> "polluting"; but I didn't see the name calling.
>
> TN Rhodey wrote:
> > Herb, Relax....Please re-read my post. I stated that war resolutions are
> not
> > the same as a War Declaration. I was agreeing with Rummy's post. Please
> note
> > I didn't claim the many past and current "War" Resolutions were illegal.
> I
> > really don't know how you got that from my post. I claim they are not the
> > same....do you disagree? Former AG Gonzales and the current
> administration
> > agree with me.
> >
> > To quote Gonazales before Senate Hearing 2/6/06...:GONZALES: "There was
> not
> > a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It was
> an
> > authorization to use military force. I only want to clarify that, because
> > there are implications. Obviously, when you talk about a war declaration,
> > you're possibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic relations.
> And
> > so there is a distinction in law and in practice. And we're not talking
> > about a war declaration. This is an authorization only to use military
> > force."
> >
> > I do have a problem with the US holding people in prisons for years with
> no
> > trial. I did mention the recent SC ruling...do your own research
> regarding
> > this ruling. The recent ruling did not involve the legality of the
> > Resolution and neither did my post. This is the ruling I mentioned. I
> don't
> > think War Resolutions are illegal. Got it?
> >
> > I do think that (in most cases) if we decide to attack a country we
> should
> > go "all in" and have Congress vote to Declare War. If past perforamance
> is
> > any indication of future results....well it just seems we have better
> > results when we declare war verses "resolutions".
> >
> > Regarding childish names I don't doubt you missed them.
> >
> > Been sailing lately? Fair Winds!
> >
> > TN Rhodey - Wally
> >
> >
> > On 6/29/08, Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com> wrote:
> >
> >> TN,
> >>
> >> Maybe you could be so kind as to reference where the "official"
> >> declaration of war wording for the US can be located. In the Bas v.
> >> Tingy case in 1800, the Supreme Court clearly ruled that the executive
> >> branch had the power for limited action (action that would normally be
> >> called "an act of war") without declaration, or approval, of Congress.
> >> Since that ruling, there have been various instrument to attempt to
> >> quantify just how limited that limited action can be. The war powers act
> >> of 1973 was probably the best known of those attempts. No matter if you
> >> agree with Congress constitutional "right" to pass such a restriction on
> >> the executive branch, one thing is clear.
> >>
> >> The President acted within the restraint of that act.
> >>
> >> In 1992 Congress overwhelmingly passed a joint resolution authorizing
> >> the President's action.
> >>
> >> SC Precedent says this war is allowed, both sides of Congress authorized
> >> it, and the President acted.
> >>
> >> In what way do you think something was done improperly? Maybe they
> >> forgot to check with you first?
> >>
> >> What childish names were called, I must have missed that one.
> >>
> >> TN Rhodey wrote:
> >>
> >>> I still get list emails but seldom have time to read and even less to
> >>> respond. I will say all is well and we just paid off our home. Sweet!
> >>>
> >>> Some of the subjects catch my interest but I delete most withourt
> >>>
> >> reading.
> >>
> >>> This is going to be quite an election. Brad was talking about voting
> for
> >>>
> >> a
> >>
> >>> Clinton, Bill E supporting a republican! Well I am sure Ed still thinks
> >>> everyone who disagrees with him is a Socialist or commie .....
> >>>
> >>> No Ed the resolution is not the same as an actual declaration and that
> is
> >>> why there is a fuss.  We need to step up and declare war when we want
> to
> >>> attack a country. However not doing so (declaring war) allows us to
> >>>
> >> ignore
> >>
> >>> Geneva Convention and according to current admin the constitution.
> >>>
> >> Luckily
> >>
> >>> the Supreme Court corrected some of this in recent decision.
> >>>
> >>> Yes Brad it is true that thousands of POWs died in hell hole prison
> camps
> >>> during Civil War. This has nothing to do with today's issues but it is
> >>> no excuse for our current behavior. We also allowed slavery back then
> >>>
> >> right?
> >>
> >>> By the same logic ....should we bring slavery back. No sir we have come
> a
> >>> long way as a country. There is much to like and admire about McCain.
> But
> >>>
> >> it
> >>
> >>> is hard to believe he has flip flopped so much on the issue of torture
> >>>
> >> and
> >>
> >>> treatment of detainees. Using the argument that they do worse to us is
> >>>
> >> not
> >>
> >>> relevant. I don't use terrorists behavior as our standard. We are
> better
> >>> than that.
> >>>
> >>> My thoughts on the election...Do folks really think the Hillary's women
> >>> supporters will not fall in line and vote for Obama? Once they figure
> out
> >>> that Supreme Court judges and Roe Vs. Wade may be at stake  they will
> >>>
> >> vote
> >>
> >>> Democrat. The polls all show Obama ahead but there is plenty of time
> for
> >>> either candidate to implode. Despite what they say both sides are in
> bed
> >>> with the usual tacky lobbyist groups. Money and politics always go hand
> >>>
> >> in
> >>
> >>> hand.
> >>>
> >>> I tried hard to pick one of the big two but it looks like Bob Barr is
> >>>
> >> going
> >>
> >>> to get my vote.
> >>>
> >>> Oh yeah.....Why did you guys jump so hard on Ron? He figured out what I
> >>> figured out over a year ago.  Do any of you guys even go sailing
> anymore?
> >>> Calling a guy childish names for deciding not get drawn into silly
> >>>
> >> arguments
> >>
> >>> with people who have already made up their minds....well it just seems
> >>> silly.
> >>>
> >>> Fair winds....I will go back into troll mode.
> >>>
> >>> TN Rhodey
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 6/23/08, Tootle <ekroposki at charter.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Rummy said, "Question? I don't believe that the United States has
> >>>> officially
> >>>> declared  war
> >>>> on Iraq, have we? The Vietnam war wasn't a declared war either, it was
> a
> >>>> "police action". Same holds true with Korea. The last declared war was
> >>>> WWII.
> >>>> Correct me if I'm wrong.
> >>>>
> >>>> I believe that the Congressional authorization against Iraq is legally
> >>>> considered a declaration of war.  I do not believe that you find the
> >>>>
> >> word
> >>
> >>>> 'declaration of war' in the subject line, but the language is legally
> >>>> conclusive.
> >>>>
> >>>> That is why we still have all the fuss over that resolution.
> >>>>
> >>>> For what it is worth department.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ed K
> >>>> Greenville, SC, USA
> >>>> "One of the challenges we have is to be able to read the fine print
> >>>>
> >> indoors
> >>
> >>>> without any sunlight."  Kai Abelkis
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> View this message in context:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> http://www.nabble.com/What-constitutes-War--reply-to-Captain-Rummy-tp18067074p18067074.html
> >>
> >>>> Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> __________________________________________________
> >>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
> >>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> >>>> __________________________________________________
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> __________________________________________________
> >>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
> >>>
> >> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> >>
> >>> __________________________________________________
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> __________________________________________________
> >> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
> >> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> >> __________________________________________________
> >>
> >>
> > __________________________________________________
> > To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> > __________________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> >
> __________________________________________________
> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> __________________________________________________
>