posted
Here are a few quotes from the most recent story about Iraq on CNN(here).
quote:U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Mark Hertling said "foreign fighters" appear to be behind the wave of bombings...
"It looks like a coordinated terror campaign to coincide with the first day of the holy month of Ramadan to create a sense of panic and a sense of a complete lack of security," said Samir Sumaidy of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council.
An attempt on a fourth police station, al Jaleeda, was thwarted. In that attempt, Iraqi police said they wounded a man with a Syrian passport and took him into custody.
These stories have become so frequent that most people don't even think about them any more. I have been against the "intervention" in Iraq since it was first mentioned, so my opinions here are going to be biased, but I can't help but feel that we've taken a really bad situation and made it a lot worse.
As regards the people of Iraq; they may not have an opressive dictator, but they don't have law and order either. I don't have statistics to back this up, but it would seem that the quality of life for the average Iraqi has declined sharply since we began bombing their country.
As regards the "war on terror", while it can be argued that Saddam posed a threat to the US because he could supply terrorists with WMD's (and ignoring the fact that we haven't found any), the situation in Iraq has not only further inflamed the arab world, it has given them a stage on which the various terrorist groups which exist can lash out at us. US soldiers are being killed at a rate of almost 1 per day, and now it appears that non-Iraqis are taking part in this...
In the months following the "end of hostilities" the argument was often made that it was inevitable that things would get worse before they got better, however this claim is looking less and less viable. The oil which was intended to finance the country's reconstruction is flowing at half the pre-war rate, and from what I've read we shouldn't expect any rapid or cheap increase in this production rate. The countries we pissed off by ignoring in invading the country are now looking very hesitant to provide any real assistance, either financial or military, and meanwhile the iraqi internal political situation seems to be degrading every day.
Where is the light at the end of the tunnel, what is our exit strategy? Many Iraqis seem to want us to pack up and leave today, an option Washington seems quite hesitant to choose, yet there doesn't seem to be any real plan for stabilizing the country either. Obviously international politics are slow, but do we really have the time to spare? More importantly can we really afford this? Our deficit is at record highs, while at the same time the economy is only slowly starting to look better than it was a year ago. We have an election coming up which is seriously impeding the ability of politicians to act in any way other than according to the whims of public sentiment.
How should we proceed? Do we stick it out and hope that we'll be able to stabilize things before the animosity against us reaches the point that Iraq becomes the next Iran (in that they hate our guts more than the devil himself), do we hand over control to the UN in hopes that releasing control of the country will encourage other countries to join in, do we pull out and let the Iraqis figure out the mess themselves. what are the other options?
Now that we are in, we HAVE TO stick it out. If we leave, things are only going to get more dangerous in Iraq, for everyone. Getting U.N. help would definite alleviate things, if the Bush administration were ever willing to give up the control needed for that.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
i feel the same way. my only concern is that while i agree we have a responsibility to fix things, i'm not sure how we can best do that. i just feel like our presence in the country (without anyone else) seems to be making things worse.
Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, we can always begin dropping nukes. Reduce the whole region to fused glass. There'll be peace there then, and no more terrorists. Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mmm. Careful there, Bob. If you keep dirty-talking me like that, I'm gonna get long in the tooth.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lalo, it's hardly Dubya's fault that a bunch of angry Iraqis would rather live under a dictator than have anyone help them out.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
You can't be serious. See, that's why I'm laughing. Because you're not serious.
Heh. Jesus. The whole point of these angry protests is because the US is blatantly engaging in empiricism. Bush invaded Iraq against the wishes of the world (without any substantial reason why, with forged evidence, and with an intentional undercutting of the UN's authority), whilst urging Iraqis not to save their priceless museums or families, but not to burn the oil. After bombing the crap out of Iraq and killing thousands of their people, he seized the oil and declares it will be controlled by the US alone -- no UN involvement allowed with that, though they're welcome to clean up after him. (Has the UN been able to get Bush's grubby little paws off the oil yet? I know they were pushing for it in the past few weeks (months), but I haven't paid much attention to the news.)
Then, Bush goes ahead and screws YOU over, Mr. Taxpayer, by awarding huge, unnecessarily expensive contracts to Halliburton -- without allowing competition from other corporations. Time, surprisingly enough for an American media source, reported how corrupt the US is in a tiny "numbers" blurb; a US company reported that it needed $15 million to build a building, and when it had to meet other obligations, an Iraqi company did the job for $80,000.
Ugh. I just deleted a long rant I wrote after that last paragraph. I'm so sick of this -- thank you, Mac, for proving that hope in the American public is wasted. Let me guess, you also believe there's a link between the blood enemies Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein? Or better yet, that we've found weapons of mass destruction?
Jesus. People are cattle.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
And if we just up and leave Iraq... what do you see happening there? Please, inform me, I'd like to know.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just watched a PBS video about the Spanish American War. The parallels are intriguing. It is much more instructive than Vietnam. I guess I should check and see if it was produced before or since Iraqi Freedom was undertaken. I guess it must be after, since I do see Iraqi Freedom as a continuation of the Gulf War.
We don't have a choice about whether to fight terrorists. It's a shame we can't do it where they actually come from, but at least it isn't here. Should we not do for ourselves what you accuse us of not doing for the Iraqis (keep harm from our families).
Sure Hussein and Bin Laden were enemies. Hussein killed everyone he could reach who didn't do exactly what he said.
Anyway, if Bush can't produce the corpses of both, he shouldn't expect to get re-elected.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lalo, as a matter of fact I do not trust Bush as far as I can throw him, I do not think Osama and Saddam had anything more to do with each other than they could avoid, and I'm fairly certain there have been no (ready-to-use) WMDs found in Iraq. (Due to a nasty head cold it's been a little while since I checked the news, but I doubt any have turned up.)
I'm just being cynical. I don't believe there's the faintest hope of peace in the Middle East before somebody starts using weapons of mass destruction. They can't get along with anyone, even each other, and I really don't care that much what Bush does to them. If they all die, well, they're not a very large proportion of the world population anyway, and then we can move in and have all the oil we want.
Only I don't really mean that either. I'm just tired of having to deal with them and wish they would just leave us and each other alone.
Oh, and I think you mean "imperialism", not "empiricism".
OK, so no attempt at rational dialog with Lalo, since no matter what I'd say all he'd hear is "Moo."
Dagonee * Who’s still trying to decide what animal to call those who disagree with me on foreign policy. Maybe woodchuck. How does, “Jesus. People are woodchucks” sound?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: The whole point of these angry protests is because the US is blatantly engaging in empiricism.
Empiricism or Imperialism? And are you calling guerilla attacks angry protests? The war is not over, but the majority of the people of Iraq are happy that the US is there, and hope the US stays however long it takes to establish a viable government.
quote: (Has the UN been able to get Bush's grubby little paws off the oil yet?
I ask you, how has Bush or the USA gained by taking control of the oil in Iraq? Is the US not about to spend $87 Billion dollars? How much is the oil worth? How much of it has been sold? Where is the money going? Don't know the answers? I suggest you find out before making accusations.
quote: unnecessarily expensive contracts to Halliburton
Sorry, I didn't realize you were an expert in the field of building massive oil infrastructure. What percentage of the price of these contract would you say is the over-payment?
quote: an Iraqi company did the job for $80,000.
Yes, things can be done a lot cheaper when you don't have to move bulldozers, people, and supplies around the world. Also, Iraqi labor is MUCH cheaper than American labor.
quote: Jesus. People are cattle.
Absolutely. People seem to trust the US media to give them objective reporting.
Let me state for the record that I am not a fan of Bush. His religious agenda sickens me, and his blatant appeasment of socialists with the RX Drug benefit is going to sink the budget eventually.
posted
Stoats are funnier than woodchucks, but the word seems too forceful to be properly insulting. How about aardvark?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know...I'm still partial to "stoat". It has a nice, monosyllabic punch. If I were going to go with a multisyllabic animal, though, aardvark wouldn't be a bad choice. Echidna would be a good one too.
Hmmm...
::tests it out::
Sniveling echidnas!
That does have a nice ring to it, I'd say.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
“Echidna” isn’t bad. Has a “kid” sound, suggesting a childlike understanding and still has the whole “You eat bugs” aspect to it. But I think I prefer “capybara.”
quote:Noemon said: Miserable stoats.
Just what I’d expect from such a confirmed capybara!
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Farmgirl, I was thinking "lemmings" as well. But I like "ostriches" because they stick their heads in the sand.
Robespierre:
quote: I ask you, how has Bush or the USA gained by taking control of the oil in Iraq? Is the US not about to spend $87 Billion dollars?
That's a very good question--why don't you answer it, as you seem to be an apologist for Bush inspite of your protestations to the contrary. What exactly have we won in Iraq II that is worth the cost to Americans??
quote:Sorry, I didn't realize you were an expert in the field of building massive oil infrastructure. What percentage of the price of these contract would you say is the over-payment?
And of course, you're no expert either. So what? As far as what percentage of the Halliburton no-bid contracts is over payment, that remains to be seen. But in the example Lalo cited, Halliburton wanted to charge 187 times as much as a local contractor got the job done for. That's insane even by regular DoD contract feather-bedding practices. And it's not the first time Halliburton has been guilty of extreme price-gouging, as my link and quotes from it show. Halliburton's odd ways to turn a profit at taxpayers' expense
quote:Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., accused the Houston firm of gouging the U.S. public by charging far more than industry experts deemed reasonable to transport fuel 400 miles from a Kuwaiti refinery to Baghdad. [...] But in a letter to Joshua Bolten, director of the Office of Management and Budget, Waxman and Dingell pointed to assessments from industry experts who described the fees as "outrageously high," potentially "a huge rip-off" and "highway robbery." The cost of the Iraqi gas imports is being borne, largely, by the United States. Iraqi motorists are paying only 4 cents to 15 cents a gallon. "We are paying -- taxpayers are paying -- $1.70 a gallon for gas [delivered from Kuwait to Iraq]," Waxman said. "Iraqis are paying a nickel."
Later in the article, a review of Halliburton's work for the Army in the Balkans, which has come under attack for price-gouging--Morbo: Reviewing Halliburton's fees for work after the war in the Balkans, the General Accounting Office blasted Halliburton for charging $85.98 a sheet for 4-foot-by-8-foot sheets of plywood that investigators said could have been acquired for $14.06 per sheet. Halliburton's bill included the cost of flying the plywood to the Balkans from the United States. Army officials deemed that an unnecessarily expensive way to transport the materials.
quote:• Seven in 10 told us that Iraq would be a better country and that they themselves would be better off in five years.
• Only two in five (39%) said that "democracy can work in Iraq," while a majority (51%) agreed that "democracy is a Western way of doing things and will not work here." Shiites — who suffered the most under Hussein and who make up the majority in Iraq — are more evenly split about democracy (45%-46%), while Sunnis are far less favorable.
• Asked about the kind of government that would be best for Iraq, half of all respondents (49%) said they preferred "a democracy with elected representatives guided by Sharia (Islamic law)." Twenty-four percent prefer an "Islamic state ruled by clerics based on Sharia." Only one in five (21%) preferred a "secular democracy with elected representatives."
• Three out of five made it clear that they wanted Iraqis left alone to work out a government for themselves, while only one in three want the United States and Britain to "help make sure a fair government is set up." Two out of three Iraqis — and seven in 10 Sunnis — want U.S. and British forces out of Iraq in a year.
• Three out of four Iraqis want the leaders of Hussein's Baath Party punished. Osama bin Laden is viewed favorably by 36% and unfavorably by 47%.
• Half of all Iraqis interviewed say the United States will hurt Iraq over the next five years. Only 36% say the U.S. will help.
quote:Morbo said Farmgirl, I was thinking "lemmings" as well. But I like "ostriches" because they stick their heads in the sand.
Good lord! I was trying to make the point that calling the other side animals is a sure way to kill meaningful dialog, which is why I picked animals that would be ridiculous to actually use.
My point is, there are very few people (and even fewer on this board than in general, I would suspect) that believe what they believe because they have been duped, are following the crowd, or are purposefully blind.
Declaring right at the beginning of the debate that anyone who disagrees with you (I realize this was someone else) are cattle is a perfect way to ensure that you will never change their minds.
Believe it or not, there are a lot of moral people who know that Iraq wasn’t involved w/ 9/11 (a claim the Bush administration has never made) who supported the war in Iraq.
There are a lot of people who did not think Iraq was an imminent threat (another claim the Bush administration has never made) that supported the war in Iraq.
There are a lot of people who know that we haven’t found any WMDs yet that still support the war in Iraq.
posted
Oh, lighten up, Dag, doggonit. Who gave you the monopoly on farm animal caricatures anyway? I was using ostriches as a metaphor for American ignorance of foreign affairs. And when more than 50% of Americans believe or have believed that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks, despite a complete lack of evidence to support this (even according to the Bush administration), ostriches is a good descrption of us. Numerous polls have shown this ignorant majority. I wasn't disparaging any debate opponents or people who disagree with me, nor do I think Lalo was--that's your beef. Moo.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A day after Bush's ultimatum (18th March) to Saddam Hussein, forty five countries backed the war. Were all these countries sucking up to the US, after oil, seriously sure that Iraq had WMDs or were they all in accord that Saddam Hussein was a corrupt and self-centred dictator and decided it was time to get rid of him? Was it a combination of reasons for every single one of those countries?
On the 21st of March, George Bush, in a speech mentioned both weapons of mass destruction and freeing the oppressed Iraqis:
quote: "...rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and free the Iraqi people so they can live in a society that is hopeful, democratic, and at peace in its neighbourhood."
This clearly demonstrates that there was no doubt that whatever Bush actually knew, the ultimate official goal was to get rid of WMD as well as get rid of S.H.
We all knew, from the very start, that if weapons off mass destruction couldn't be found, the US would be ruined, as they are now. Therefore, the US must have been fairly certain that they could pull this off with reasonable finesse. Does this show a complete lack of judgement or a certainty that there was WMDs?
On the 4th of April, Blair, in his letter to the Iraqi people, also mentioned WMDs, closely tied to ending a dictator's rule:
quote: This is a campaign that will end dictatorship, remove the weapons of mass destruction and liberate the Iraqi people...
Was he hedging his bet here? It certainly sounds like he and Bush didn't want to mention the WMD's without saying something with it, although I would have to read every speech and statement to find out.
It is possible S.H. engineered and perpetuated the myth that WMD existed, knowing that the US would lose the propaganda war when the WMDs couldn't be found. It is also possible that the pentagon invented them as an excuse, a brave move, considering the negative reaction from a large number of people.
This is a war of propaganda, and we will never know exactly what was going on unless tha actual intelligence that the US and the UK had is reviewed and publicly displayed.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:There are a lot of people who did not think Iraq was an imminent threat (another claim the Bush administration has never made) that supported the war in Iraq.
Curiously, unless Iraq was am imminent threat to the US, our attack was expressly forbidden by the UN Charter. The UN charter is a ratified treaty and therefore under the US constitution is the highest law of our land. If Bush never claimed that Iraq was an imminent threat to the US, then he is a traitor to the US constitution and should be impeached.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Rabbit said If Bush never claimed that Iraq was an imminent threat to the US, then he is a traitor to the US constitution and should be impeached.
Well, since 296 representatives and 77 senators voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq without waiting for UN approval, I doubt you’d get the votes.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, since 296 representatives and 77 senators voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq without waiting for UN approval, I doubt you’d get the votes.
Last time I knew, the constitution could not be overturned by a vote of congress.
Or are you simply pointing out the obvious flaw in our system -- as long as congress supports the presidents crimes the constitution holds no force.
[ October 28, 2003, 09:12 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: • Asked about the kind of government that would be best for Iraq, half of all respondents (49%) said they preferred "a democracy with elected representatives guided by Sharia (Islamic law)." Twenty-four percent prefer an "Islamic state ruled by clerics based on Sharia." Only one in five (21%) preferred a "secular democracy with elected representatives."
Only now are any of those paths open to them, and if we pull out too quickly those paths will be closed again.
As for your Constitutional argument, perhaps you are right. But even the Constitution ultimately derives from the will of the people. Without my making any concessions--if Congress doesn't care what Bush did, and a majority of the people don't care enough to do anything about it, then quite literally, who cares whether the action is technically legal or not?
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since you ask who cares, I do. I firmly believe in the rule of law. It's part of the social contract that makes living in a community tolerable. If today we say its OK for the President to violate the constitution by attacking Iraq, what happens tomorrow when the majority of the public and congress think its OK to eliminate freedom of religion, the right to bare arms, the writ of habeus corpus, or the right to vote?
There are also alot of other people out there who care that the Pres. was allowed to violate the constitution and we will keep talking about it until other Americans start seeing whats going on.
This country is founded on the idea of a supreme law which even the President must follow. I believe this is one of the things which has made this country great and I am unwilling to surrender that ideal with out a fight.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Only now are any of those paths open to them, and if we pull out too quickly those paths will be closed again.
I agree that if we simply pull out now things will get worse in Iraq. Unfortunately, I can't see that any of those paths are open to them as long as US troops remain in Iraq. Our presence their is fundamentally destabilizing.
As I indicated in the other thread, I am not suggesting that the US should simply leave. We need to stay long enough to turn the job of rebuilding Iraq over to the UN and the Arab league.
[ October 29, 2003, 11:34 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, I'm not--exactly--saying that it doesn't matter if the Constitution is violated. If I were convinced that were the case (which at the moment I'm not), I would be concerned. Even so, there is a difference between a broad move to ignore or outmaneuver some important Constitutional guarantee and an isolated violation for a specific and immediate purpose. Certainly a slippery slope is possible, but it is not guaranteed.
Moreover, I find it difficult to personally give treaties the weight of law in my own mind. That's not an argument against your position--I just mean I have trouble making myself be concerned about them. Other countries, and especially the UN, seem about as dependable as the wind these days (and perhaps we seem that way to other countries).
Lastly, thanks for the clarification (though I think you left a "not" out of the last sentence). I'm glad you're not one of those who thinks we should bolt right out of Iraq and let come what may. (Ironically, I hear that from a fair number of conservatives lately.) All I wanted to say was, all those Iraqis who wanted a different form of government were out of luck so long as Hussein was in power, and the UN was set to let him stay that way for another couple of decades at least. To me, that makes it odd that they trust the UN and not us.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, don't worry about it. I was just pointing out that I don't automatically label debate opponents as animals, dupes, suckers, etc. Not right off the bat, anyway. And usually not ever, unless they write or say something stunningly ignorant. But the fact that most Americans still believe Saddam was behind 9/11 is amazing. I haven't seen any polls this month but the last polls I saw showed more than 50% believed this. Bah. Saddam had plenty of heinous, murderous, perhaps even genocidal crimes to answer for, but no credible evidence has linked him to 9/11. Indeed, only the most tenous ties exist betweeen Iraq and al-Queda, despite frantic US intelligence efforts to uncover any significent evidence of partnership.
Rabbit, I have to quote Shakespeare on that, I hope memory serves. "Why does treason never prosper? Because if it doth prosper none dare call it treason!" Macbeth? Or Hamlet?
It's true that signed and ratified treaties become part of the laws of the United States, and even perhaps part of the extended constitution. But no US president has ever been prosecuted for treaty violations, to the best of my knowledge, certainly none was ever sucessfully prosecuted. And plenty of treaties have been violated, as you probably know better than I. It's a total grey area and a push to prosecute Bush for treason, while perhaps having some technical legal and idealistic merit (at this point I don't believe it has any merit), is a total political non-starter. The authorization of force by Congress makes the President's legal position unassailable. Unless some major leaks about doctored up intelligence, or other undisclosed motives for war, or something dramatic like that surfaces. That could change the picture.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Even so, there is a difference between a broad move to ignore or outmaneuver some important Constitutional guarantee and an isolated violation for a specific and immediate purpose.
So we can arrest you without charges or a warrant, deny you a trial, torture you in cruel and unusual ways, and then kill you, provided it's for a specific and immediate purpose and will not lead to a slippery slope where we start doing it to everyone?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"but it would seem that the quality of life for the average Iraqi has declined sharply"
The production of electricity for consumption by the Iraqi people far exceeds what was available under Saddam's governing, exponentially more school age children have access to education than under Saddam's regime, and healthcare and vaccinations have been provided for millions of Iraqis who have NEVER had it available before.
Yeah we've made there's lives really blow. All this power and education and vaccinations and a hope for a better future. We should be ashamed of ourselves, helping a perfectly miserable people like that.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That would not be a pleasant experience by any means, Tresopax, and under the vast majority of circumstances I would be extremly ticked off. I doubt I could actually keep my cool (not that anyone would know if I didn't), but theoretically, no, I don't think a single violation like that would be appropriate grounds for impeachment. In fact, it's not hard to imagine situations in which it's the only possible way to get a very dangerous criminal off the street. You may be aware that the courts and police in many places have a tacit agreement to let the police push the envelope when it comes to evidence, just so long as they don't push it too far, in order to convict anyone at all.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If we all get once off violations of any law we want because we consider it important for the good of the country, I've got a few ideas of things to do.
Or perhaps the President is special because he's the President? But if so, isn't that a violation of one major problem the Constitution tackled: stop the King from trampling the rights of other people?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Rabbit said: Last time I knew, the constitution could not be overturned by a vote of congress.
Or are you simply pointing out the obvious flaw in our system -- as long as congress supports the presidents crimes the constitution holds no force.
Funny, I didn’t know treaties became part of the Constitution. Oh, wait, they don’t. They become part of the supreme law of the land, just as Federal laws do:
quote:U.S. Constitution, Article VI ... This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land...
And they’re all placed on equal footing, which would suggest that those with the power to make laws (Congress) can override treaties.
Of course, all this logic is needed only if it is conceded that the action in Iraq violated the charter. You seem to be taking that for granted. There are lots of international law theorists who disagree with you:
Of course there are lots of international law theorists who do agree with you. The point is not to prove which interpretation is correct, but to demonstrate that this is a topic on which reasonable persons can disagree.
That being said, the fact that both elected branches of the government chose the former interpretation would suggest that the invasion was considered to conform to the requirements of Article 51 of the UN Charter. When an interpretation of law must be made, who else would you have make it? I’m pretty sure the Supreme Court would have refused to hear the case, and the U.S. does not acknowledge any extra-sovereign authority, even the UN. Remember, Article 51 does not require UN permission to wave self-defensive war.
quote:fugu13 said: Or perhaps the President is special because he's the President? But if so, isn't that a violation of one major problem the Constitution tackled: stop the King from trampling the rights of other people?
Yes, the Constitution set up a system of checks and balances to protect the rights of the people. You know, like the legislative branch making laws (or authorizing the use of force) and the president executing them. In other words, exactly what happened in this case.
posted
You missed a few key clauses in your glossing.
Note: "in pursuance thereof" and "under the authority of the United States". The Constitution is the only entity given unmitigated authority, both laws and treaties are only valid insofar as they are consistent with the Constitution (which is what both those clauses boil down to).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:fugu13 said:You missed a few key clauses in your glossing.[/b]
Note: "in pursuance thereof" and "under the authority of the United States". The Constitution is the only entity given unmitigated authority, both laws and treaties are only valid insofar as they are consistent with the Constitution (which is what both those clauses boil down to).
Right. According to the Constitution (or “in pursuance thereof”) Congress has the authority to declare war. The President has the power to carry it out. Congress authorized force; the President used it. How is this unconstitutional?
I can understand how arguments exist over whether the invasion of Iraq was in violation of Article 51 of the UN charter, but where in the Constitution does it say we can’t use military force without outside approval?
posted
First, it should be noted that the phrase "in pursuance thereof" modifies "laws" and not treaties. I have been assured by several legal scholars that this phrase places the constitution and treaties co-equal as the highest law of the land. Laws passed by congress are on a lower plane because they must be deemed to be in pursuance of the constitution (and usually treaties).
I would also like to note that my original statement has been taken somewhat out of context. I said that if Bush did not believe that Iraq poised an imminent threat to the United States, the invasion was in violation of the UN charter.
Article 51
quote:Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.
This article has typically been interpreted to allow for self defense non only in the case of an armed attack but also in the case of the immediate threat of armed attack. Preventative strikes have uniformly been denounced as acts of defense. The legal scholars I have read disagree on whether or not the US had reason to believe their was immediate threat of attack. They all agree that without an immediate threat, the US invasion of Iraq cannot be justified as self-defense under this article.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Rabbit said: if Bush did not believe that Iraq poised an imminent threat to the United States, the invasion was in violation of the UN charter.
The memos from the Australian and British Attorneys General do not rely on the imminent threat doctrine. They rely on the existence of a state of conflict w/ Iraq left over from the 1991 conflict.
quote:The Rabbit said: This article has typically been interpreted to allow for self defense non only in the case of an armed attack but also in the case of the immediate threat of armed attack. Preventative strikes have uniformly been denounced as acts of defense. emphasis added
This is not true – witness the Cuban missile crisis and the Israeli bombing of Hussein’s nuclear reactor in 1984. See the links in my prior post. I’m not saying these are clear-cut acceptable uses of force nor that valid arguments to the content of the links cannot be made. I’m saying that legal scholars disagree on this issue, so there is no uniformity.
quote: witness the Cuban missile crisis and the Israeli bombing of Hussein’s nuclear reactor in 1984.
Exactly my point. The 1984 Israli bombing of Hussein's nuclear reactor was condemned by the UN Security Council and the US as an unacceptable use of force.
The Cuban Missile crisis was ultimately resolved diplomatically without military intervension.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, the treaty question is more vague, though "under the authority of the United States" could be interpreted to mean treaties must fall under things the US is allowed to do. But yes, laws are definitely subject to any limitations preexisting in constitution or treaty.
Dagonee: You said they were all placed on equal footing, which I disagree with, because it is untrue. The phrasing you quote does not put laws on equal footing with the constitution and treaties, it places them subject to both.
I'm not entering into a debate on the Constitutionality of the Iraqi action, I'm pointing out a factual innacuracy in your interpretation of the Constitution.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: fugu13 said: Dagonee: You said they were all placed on equal footing, which I disagree with, because it is untrue. The phrasing you quote does not put laws on equal footing with the constitution and treaties, it places them subject to both.
I can see why you thought I said laws were not subject to the Constitution based on my use of “They’re all…” I was referring to the whole phrase “laws passed in pursuance” of the Constitution (i.e., constitutional laws). What I meant was they are on equal footing with respect to being the supreme law of the land (i.e., each must be obeyed with equal force), especially with respect to superceding state laws. This presupposes that there is no conflict between the law and the Constitution. Of course an unconstitutional law is not part of the supreme law of the land.
Treaties are absolutely subject to the Constitution: “In 1956, the U.S. Supreme Court in Reid v. Covert observed that the Court has ‘regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution [U.S.] over a treaty.’” See http://users.snowcrest.net/siskfarm/treaty1.html. The difference in language is due to the fact that the Founders wanted to preserve the force of treaties made prior to the Constitution, which could not have been made “in pursuance” of it.
quote: fugu13 said: I'm not entering into a debate on the Constitutionality of the Iraqi action, I'm pointing out a factual innacuracy in your interpretation of the Constitution.
Except I responded to a post calling for the impeachment of Bush being a “traitor to the US Constitution.” So the Constitutionality was the point of my post. Plus, my statement was not inaccurate (see above).
posted
My impression was that you were calling all laws the supreme law of the land, vis "And they’re all placed on equal footing, which would suggest that those with the power to make laws (Congress) can override treaties."
Which is not true, only laws made in pursuance thereof are the supreme law. I think I was just reading that as a broad statement when you meant it narrowly.
But as per congressional laws made that are consistent with the Constitution, yes, those are the supreme law of the land. Meaning, pretty much, that no other law gets to override them, unless it is also a federal law (in which case interpretation gets thrown to the judges, usually with the later law winning out) or it is a treaty term, in which case interpretation gets thrown to Congress/the President (where it is usually interpreted however the President finds politically expedient, unless Congress decides to make an issue over it and make their intention explicit in a bill).
That later laws/treaties override earlier ones is a matter of contention, particularly as (as Rabbit has pointed out) treaties can theoretically override the Constitution, while laws cannot.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:fugu13 said That later laws/treaties override earlier ones is a matter of contention, particularly as (as Rabbit has pointed out) treaties can theoretically override the Constitution, while laws cannot.
But he’s wrong on treaties overriding the Constitution. The language in the Constitution suggests it, but the Supreme Court has consistently ruled the other way. See Justice Daniel’s remarks in the License Cases, 46 U.S. 504 (1847):
quote:"Laws of the United States, in order to be binding, must be within the legitimate powers vested by the constitution. Treaties, to be valid, must be made within the scope of the same powers; for there can be no 'authority of the United States,' save what is derived mediately or immediately, and regularly and legitimately, from the constitution. A treaty, no more than an ordinary statute, can arbitrarily cede away any one right of a State or of any citizen of a State...."
There are a host of other cases. The first link in my post above has more; you need to copy and paste it into your browser to get it to work though. Not sure why.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
Saddam had plenty of heinous, murderous, perhaps even genocidal crimes to answer for, but no credible evidence has linked him to 9/11. Indeed, only the most tenous ties exist betweeen Iraq and al-Queda, despite frantic US intelligence efforts to uncover any significent evidence of partnership.
