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

[TN Rhodey]

Herb, I agree that the Constitution is some what vague and muddy....Section
8 provides Congress the Power to Declare War with little specifics. So I
do agree the Constitution is vague. OK? However our current administration
is maintaining there is a  difference. between Declaration of War and a War
Resolution.  It is duly noted that you disagree. with Bush ,Cheny and the
ex-AG and think the two are one in the same. I actually agree with current
administration on this one....there is a difference.

Just for the record we have  officially Declared War. I will provide you an
example.  See link for our official declaration of war (WW II) -
http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/germwar.shtml

I am sure you can find copies of other US Declarations of War. I think we
have officially declared war 5 times give or take.   Our War resolutions
have subtle and not so subtle differences from Declarations. Often there are
funding and/or time limits involved.. If you read a couple of Resolutions
verses Declarations of War the differences become obvious..

Wally





On 6/29/08, Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com> wrote:
>
> I disagree. Since there is no formal wording to a declaration of war,
> how can one say this is or isn't with any certainty? The waters have
> ALWAYS been muddied, whether you acknowledge it or not, which is the
> reason that the supreme court had to chime in on the matter a mere 24
> years after our country was founded.
>
> Since there is no "official" declaration of war, how is war declared? By
> an overt action? By a response to an action? Are the words "We declare
> war" required? Maybe we can do a Steve Martin thing and say "I make war
> with thee, I make war with thee, I make war with thee" and then throw
> dog poopie on their shoe.
>
> My point is that certain actions are recognized by most countries as
> "acts of war", and those actions are considered, or can be considered,
> by most countries as a declaration merely by their actions.
>
> Incursion into another country is considered an act of war. If that
> action is considered a declaration, then one could reasonably say that
> when congress approved that action, they were declaring war.
>
> It would be interesting, again keeping in mind that we have no official
> language for "declaring" war, to do a study and find how many of the
> congresscritters who voted for the resolution have called the results of
> that resolution "the Iraqi war".
>
> On the other issue, I put saying the post of said poster were
> "chickenshit" (though I DID miss that one) to be no more offensive than
> said poster referring to the posts of others to be "polluting". Sorry
> you missed that point.
>
>
> TN Rhodey wrote:
> > 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
> >> __________________________________________________
> >>
> >>
> > __________________________________________________
> > 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
> __________________________________________________
>