'International Permission’ Trumps Congressional Permission For Military Actions

[jimnyc]

I've read the entire text... We've seen the same arguments here, and even better here IMO, so I see why it was largely ignored, like such attempts previously. Full of wild accusations and supplies very little proof. And no, I'm not debating the text, we've done that here a billion times. This is why the usual nutters are involved in the bill, and they couldn't even sway their own party leaders let alone other parties. Let's face it, if it was factual in nature, there would be little alternative but to move forward, have investigations, and perhaps impeach. Instead, it gets shelved. Not because of a cover up, but because a lack of evidence and a mountain of rhetoric. You expect our Congress to be like so many internet nutters, that they'll listen to rhetoric, or a youtube video, and impeach the president. I wouldn't have moved forward with Paul's rhetoric on Clinton either, on the same basis, so it's not that I'm a hack for either side.

And talk about a hall of fame lineup, look at Kucinich and the sponsors of the bill. Lifelong nutters, facts aside, or lack of.

[revelarts]

... wild accusations .. the usual nutters ... like so many internet nutters,... , or a youtube video ... Lifelong nutters, facts aside....

[jimnyc]

Don't like the fact that they couldn't even get their own party to believe what they were trying to pass off as truth and facts? Sorry!

[revelarts]

ahhh.

not for you Jim but others that are interested here's a bit more

....In October 1983, President Ronald Reagan announced that he had ordered a pre-dawn invasion of Grenada by nearly 1,900 Marines and armed airborne troops under the code name “Urgent Fury.” The fighting was heavier than expected and by the end of the month, the United States military presence had reached more than 5,600 troops. After a few days of heavy fighting and a number of deaths, the shooting ended.

The invasion and occupation constituted, within the meaning of the War Powers Clause of the U.S. Constitution, a war against the people of Grenada. The president, however, at no time sought the required congressional approval. He justified the invasion by claiming falsely that the lives of U.S. medical students were in danger. The same pretext was given to justify the U.S. invasion of the Dominican Republic in 1965."


In 1983, however, calls for impeaching Reagan in the Democratically controlled House went nowhere, at least in part because Speaker Tip O’Neill refused to pursue them. On a practical level, he knew the matter would likely fail in the Senate, where Republicans were in the majority. Politically, he surmised impeaching Reagan, whose Gallup approval rating was 49 percent, would not sit well with the public.

After Speaker O’Neill took impeachment off the table, a group of civil libertarians brought a lawsuit against the government for violating the War Powers clause on behalf of Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich. In fact, during Reagan’s two terms in office, Democratic members of Congress sued him four times for War Powers Clause violations, including the Conyers action, as well suits related to his sending military advisers to El Salvador and his activities in Nicaragua and the Middle East. All four cases were dismissed.

In the 1990s, Pres. George H.W. Bush was sued by Rep. Ron Dellums, D-Calif., for not consulting Congress before sending troops overseas to prepare for the Gulf War. A few years later, 26 members of Congress, led by GOP Rep. Tom Campbell of California, sued Pres. Clinton for not consulting Congress before he invaded Yugoslavia. These cases were dismissed, too.

In general, courts dismissed these lawsuits on the grounds that the Constitution established impeachment as the preferred method for adjudicating criminal charges against the Executive Branch by Congress.

While some liberals view congressional notification as a constitutional, rather than a partisan issue — just this week Rep. Dennis Kucinich, an Ohio Democrat, called for impeachment hearings on Pres. Obama’s actions in Libya — Republicans don’t give a damn about violations of the War Powers Clause when GOP presidents do it. ....

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2011/03...ting-congress/

but hey Jim this is for you.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ejvyDn1TPr8?version=3&feature=player_detailpage">< param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ejvyDn1TPr8?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

"... but when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal..."

[jimnyc]

Rev, just bringing forth charges of impeachment doesn't mean it carries any weight. Many, many, presidents have had this done to them. It's almost a matter of practice to try and impeach, but very, very few times has it truly been taken seriously.

Now, you referred to "war crimes" initially, and I just don't see it anywhere, so let's shelve the talk of war crimes, at least until you produce legislation charging them with such. I think there's a big difference between impeachment and war crimes, a very big difference.

This is Kucinich trying to push forward "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" on President Bush based on the buildup and entrance into the Iraq war. It reads very similar to the hundreds of debates that have been on this very board, and lacks the proof that exists on the posts here too. As one who sides with Paul, Kucinich & the anti-war folks, it's of very little surprise that you think it's all factual and should have resulted in a conviction of sorts. But those that would actually take the time and read the text and accompanying proof, there's just not enough there. Lots of rhetoric and pointing to shitty decisions, policies and other things - but not enough proof to push it forward and convict the POTUS. You're going to need a hell of a lot more than what is posted on this board to impeach the leader of the free world.

Do I think the President is above impeachment, or charges of war crimes? Nope, not at all. I just think the proof needed would need to be dead on and irrefutable.

[DragonStryk72]

I've read the entire text... We've seen the same arguments here, and even better here IMO, so I see why it was largely ignored, like such attempts previously. Full of wild accusations and supplies very little proof. And no, I'm not debating the text, we've done that here a billion times. This is why the usual nutters are involved in the bill, and they couldn't even sway their own party leaders let alone other parties. Let's face it, if it was factual in nature, there would be little alternative but to move forward, have investigations, and perhaps impeach. Instead, it gets shelved. Not because of a cover up, but because a lack of evidence and a mountain of rhetoric. You expect our Congress to be like so many internet nutters, that they'll listen to rhetoric, or a youtube video, and impeach the president. I wouldn't have moved forward with Paul's rhetoric on Clinton either, on the same basis, so it's not that I'm a hack for either side.

And talk about a hall of fame lineup, look at Kucinich and the sponsors of the bill. Lifelong nutters, facts aside, or lack of.

Well, honestly, few countries call their own war fouls. that's sort of the whole problem, is that people don't take action that they feel is wrong and unjustified, they just don't. We all feel like we're doing the right thing, or are at least justified in what we are doing.

As to the point in the video, yes, we ask for international permissions, and usually before we ask for congressional approval, but I think the reason it's being sought first is that we're trying to be polite about it. Asking the country we're going to after we've already decided that we're going to take action is sort of problematic. Honestly, we're basically trying to be polite, but I do see where the problem is with it. We can't be sitting around beholden to other countries, while checking with our own country as an afterthought.

As for the military's end of things, honestly? We pretty much go wherever the higher ups tell us, so our end of that is extremely limited in its role, and it's supposed to be. The whole thing of 90 days is there specifically to make it so we don't have to stop by Congress every time something requires a military action, but yeah, that's gonna get abused at times. It's not carte blanche to do a series of 90 day wars to keep getting around Congress, either.

[jimnyc]

Well, honestly, few countries call their own war fouls. that's sort of the whole problem, is that people don't take action that they feel is wrong and unjustified, they just don't. We all feel like we're doing the right thing, or are at least justified in what we are doing.

As to the point in the video, yes, we ask for international permissions, and usually before we ask for congressional approval, but I think the reason it's being sought first is that we're trying to be polite about it. Asking the country we're going to after we've already decided that we're going to take action is sort of problematic. Honestly, we're basically trying to be polite, but I do see where the problem is with it. We can't be sitting around beholden to other countries, while checking with our own country as an afterthought.

As for the military's end of things, honestly? We pretty much go wherever the higher ups tell us, so our end of that is extremely limited in its role, and it's supposed to be. The whole thing of 90 days is there specifically to make it so we don't have to stop by Congress every time something requires a military action, but yeah, that's gonna get abused at times. It's not carte blanche to do a series of 90 day wars to keep getting around Congress, either.

I've got little argument with what you wrote. I agree that most countries won't police themselves concerning war matters. Nonetheless, we do have guidelines set forth that must be followed and guidelines set forth to keep things in check if things run afoul. But whether you leave it to congress, a committee, judges or the people themselves - you're always going to have differences and some are always going to say that the system in place is no good and someone got away with crimes, or someone was wrongly convicted/impeached/censured.

But this is the system we have, which is sure as shit better than every other country in the world, IMO. Our congress people have the ability to bring charges forth and congress can debate/vote on the matters and take appropriate actions. Some will bellyache no matter which way they go.

But like I stated earlier, I think the proof would need to be 100% irrefutable to impeach or lay charges on the POTUS. I don't see the Kucinich bill having enough strength to convict a sitting president.

[revelarts]

they are just coming out and saying it.
"The Prez will attack anyone we want and we'll let you congress folks know about it later."
"LIKE in Lybia", were we were an Aggressor. never attacked but joined a foreign civil war.

the international permission he's looking for is to Attack, not defend. he needs it becuase Attacking another nation is A war crime. plan and simple.
they have to collect enough other nations to gang up on a Non-aggressive nation, float an excuse and get a permission slip as legal cover from international prosecution and possible legitimate counter attack.

where Eisenhower when you need him:
Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.
~Dwight D. Eisenhower

... Why has no one from congress or past administrations been charged with crimes for going to war? According to you, the USA has committed "war crimes" nearly 200 times.
.

how many will it take for you to agree with the point Jim?
hmm?
Bush Had a bill of impeachment against him for war Crimes while he was in office put up by Dennis Kucinch, He read each Count out on the floor but your good buddy Pelosi and other democrats said they didn't think it was a good idea at the time.
Ron Paul On impeaching Clinton over Sudan Bombing 1998

I post more detail you siad you didn't see it. i posted the quotes, you called it nutters, I posted info about how REAGAN, BUSH I, CLINTON, BUSH II and now OBAMA have been charged by members of congress for violations of war powers.
NOW, As I guessed, Jim just raises the bar again or switches his tacit, NOW Jim says what sounds like to me.

"well, Just Because impeachment charges and lawsuits were brought it doesn't really mean anything, Unless I agree it is a valid case. Politics you site don't matter, it's just all bad cases. You can't just accuse the king of the free world of anything he the president that's why."

did i predict that response? in my "rant". not to put words in your mouth though.

Rev, just bringing forth charges of impeachment doesn't mean it carries any weight. Many, many, presidents have had this done to them. It's almost a matter of practice to try and impeach, but very, very few times has it truly been taken seriously.

Now, you referred to "war crimes" initially, and I just don't see it anywhere, so let's shelve the talk of war crimes, at least until you produce legislation charging them with such. I think there's a big difference between impeachment and war crimes, a very big difference.

..
Do I think the President is above impeachment, or charges of war crimes? Nope, not at all. I just think the proof needed would need to be dead on and irrefutable.

I thought it was "beyond reasonable doubt", even for leaders of the free world , unless there's separate standards for those in gov't hmm. but You didn't read all of the articles of impeachment Jim , you didn't or you just see what you want to buddy. War crimes are mentioned there and as I stated at the start. For a nation to attack another nation that has not attacked it, is a war crime. That's treaty the U.S. signed since ww2. It was 1 of the crimes Germany's leadership was charged with at the Nuremberg Trails.

UN Charter, 1945, Art. 2.<.em> (4). All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. Art. 39. The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken . . . to maintain or restore international peace and security. . . . Art. 51. Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense 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. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security....

Preemptive war is a war crime.

the General and SODefense state in the video that they want to get "permission" from the international community becuase if there is no attack on the U.S. we have committed a war crime.

Most war crimes fall into one of three categories: crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and traditional war crimes. Crimes against peace include the planning, commencement, and waging of aggressive war, or war in violation of international agreements. Aggressive war is broadly defined to include any hostile military act that disregards the territorial boundaries of another country, disrespects the political independence of another regime, or otherwise interferes with the sovereignty of an internationally recognized state. Wars fought in self-defense are not aggressive wars.

Following World War II, for example, the Allies prosecuted a number of leading Nazi officials at the Nuremberg Trials for crimes against peace. During the war, the Nazis had invaded and occupied a series of sovereign states, including France, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Austria. Because those invasions were made in an effort to accumulate wealth, power, and territory for the Third Reich, Nazi officials could not claim to be acting in self-defense. Thus, those officials who participated in the planning, initiation, or execution of those invasions were guilty of crimes against peace.

Hermann Göring, chief of the Luftwaffe (the German Air Force), was one Nazi official who was convicted of crimes against peace at the Nuremberg trials. The international military tribunal presiding at Nuremberg, composed of judges selected from the four Allied powers (France, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and the United States), found that Göring had helped plan and carry out the invasions of Poland and Austria and had ordered the destruction of Rotterdam, Holland, after the city had effectively surrendered....

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...com/War+Crimes

Statement by Justice Jackson on War Trials Agreement; August 12, 1945

There are some things I would like to say, particularly to the American people, about the agreement we have just signed.
For the first time, four of the most powerful nations have agreed not only upon the principles of liability for war crimes of persecution, but also upon the principle of individual responsibility for the crime of attacking the international peace.

Repeatedly, nations have united in abstract declarations that the launching of aggressive war is illegal. They have condemned it by treaty. But now we have the concrete application of these abstractions in a way which ought to make clear to the world that those who lead their nations into aggressive war face individual accountability for such acts.
The definitions under which we will try the Germans are general definitions. They impose liability upon war-making statesmen of all countries alike. If we can cultivate in the world the idea that aggressive war-making is the way to the prisoner's dock rather than the way to honors, we will have accomplished something toward making the peace more secure.

This, too, is the first time that four nations with such different legal systems have tried to knit their ideas of just criminal procedure into a cooperative trial. That task is far more difficult than those unfamiliar with the differences between continental and Anglo-American methods would expect. It has involved frank and critical examination by the representatives of each country of the other's methods of administering justice. Our discussions have been candid and open-minded....

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/imt_jack02.asp

All of the dodging and excuse making not reasonable, it's petty flag waving not justice not law not treaty and not constitutional.

[jimnyc]

Going to act like a raving lunatic again when someone disagrees with you?

These were lame attempts to get a bill through for a vote, where they couldn't even get there, not even with their own parties. This isn't raising the bar, this is stating that there is nothing to raise, as there's no reason to. Kucinich's bill was lame, hence it ended coming up lame. Knowing that the bill lacked facts doesn't mean I am raising the bar. Just because this crap CAN be introduced into congress, doesn't automatically mean the accused is guilty. Kucinich stood in front of congress as an anti-war anti-Iraq advocate more than anyone else in congress. He's entitled to sponsor a bill and seek co-sponsors. Not a lick of it means Bush was guilty. I can't help you that congress didn't see enough evidence at the time to move the bill forward, but I also don't think that automatically screams conspiracy. But then again, you see a conspiracy in almost everything our government is involved in.

[jimnyc]

"well, Just Because impeachment charges and lawsuits were brought it doesn't really mean anything, Unless I agree it is a valid case. Politics you site don't matter, it's just all bad cases. You can't just accuse the king of the free world of anything he the president that's why."

did i predict that response? in my "rant". not to put words in your mouth though.

Wouldn't it be a lot easier if you just didn't place words in others mouths right from the beginning, then you wouldn't have to make a half assed attempt at making it clear that you wrote the stupid shit yourself? Dead serious, Rev, that's got to be NO LESS than like 30 times that I have seen you attribute quotes to me falsely. This one you made a lame attempt to clear up, but still attributed a quote to me that is asinine. It's a cheap tactic when debating, as someone reading a thread out of order, could potentially read your crap and think I really did write it. I see little difference between that, and actually quoting someone and then altering within the quote tags. Lame is lame. Whether you agree with them or not, let MY words do my talking.

[logroller]

Wouldn't it be a lot easier if you just didn't place words in others mouths right from the beginning, then you wouldn't have to make a half assed attempt at making it clear that you wrote the stupid shit yourself? Dead serious, Rev, that's got to be NO LESS than like 30 times that I have seen you attribute quotes to me falsely. This one you made a lame attempt to clear up, but still attributed a quote to me that is asinine. It's a cheap tactic when debating, as someone reading a thread out of order, could potentially read your crap and think I really did write it. I see little difference between that, and actually quoting someone and then altering within the quote tags. Lame is lame. Whether you agree with them or not, let MY words do my talking.

Fair enough. Lame is lame and Facts are facts--if you ask me the main reason Congress didn't go forward with Bush's impeachment was because they failed their due diligence to actually read the intelligence memos themselves, relying instead on the Bush Administration's assessment.

For the record Jim, do you believe that the reasoning in the Iraq War Resolution was the sole consideration that Bush used in justifying the action, and that securing oil interests in the region, to the unparalleled benefit of companies affiliated with the administration, was nothing more than serendipity?

[jimnyc]

Fair enough. Lame is lame and Facts are facts--if you ask me the main reason Congress didn't go forward with Bush's impeachment was because they failed their due diligence to actually read the intelligence memos themselves, relying instead on the Bush Administration's assessment.

For the record Jim, do you believe that the reasoning in the Iraq War Resolution was the sole consideration that Bush used in justifying the action, and that securing oil interests in the region, to the unparalleled benefit of companies affiliated with the administration, was nothing more than serendipity?

Well, the senate intelligence committee, lead by Democrats in the lead up to the war, were likely privy to much more than that, as they were continually briefed by the intel agencies, and they came to the same conclusions. As did intel agencies from around the world. If someone took advantage of this, it wouldn't surprise me. But do I think the intel was "cooked" so that this could happen? No. It would have had to have been cooked around the world, and involve every domestic and international intel agency, and quite a bit of bi-partisan committees.

But if I found out tomorrow that someone took advantage of the intel, or invasion, and made money from it - it wouldn't be surprising in the least.

[DragonStryk72]

I've got little argument with what you wrote. I agree that most countries won't police themselves concerning war matters. Nonetheless, we do have guidelines set forth that must be followed and guidelines set forth to keep things in check if things run afoul. But whether you leave it to congress, a committee, judges or the people themselves - you're always going to have differences and some are always going to say that the system in place is no good and someone got away with crimes, or someone was wrongly convicted/impeached/censured.

But this is the system we have, which is sure as shit better than every other country in the world, IMO. Our congress people have the ability to bring charges forth and congress can debate/vote on the matters and take appropriate actions. Some will bellyache no matter which way they go.

But like I stated earlier, I think the proof would need to be 100% irrefutable to impeach or lay charges on the POTUS. I don't see the Kucinich bill having enough strength to convict a sitting president.

Really, how many other country's systems have you looked at Jim? Blindly spouting that the US is the best is no help to the system. Rome was pretty proud of itself, as was every other great fallen empire that's come before us. If we are not calling into question whether our system is properly holding up its standards, then no one will. This idea that the government will just call its own fouls is entirely against the way we set things up. Our Constitution specifically distrusts government, hence why it puts stricture on them as opposed to the people.

By the standard you're espousing here, it seems like you're saying we shouldn't prosecute any crimes, anywhere, because of course some guilty will go free, and some innocents will get wrongfully convicted, and some will bellyache regardless. I mean better that, than to question and seek to improve things.

[jimnyc]

Really, how many other country's systems have you looked at Jim? Blindly spouting that the US is the best is no help to the system. Rome was pretty proud of itself, as was every other great fallen empire that's come before us. If we are not calling into question whether our system is properly holding up its standards, then no one will. This idea that the government will just call its own fouls is entirely against the way we set things up. Our Constitution specifically distrusts government, hence why it puts stricture on them as opposed to the people.

By the standard you're espousing here, it seems like you're saying we shouldn't prosecute any crimes, anywhere, because of course some guilty will go free, and some innocents will get wrongfully convicted, and some will bellyache regardless. I mean better that, than to question and seek to improve things.

I'm quite familiar with the governments and how they operate in many countries throughout the world, so I'm not tossing things out there blindly. Can you name a handful of governments that have better checks and balances in place, and a Constitution, than we have here in the US?

I have no idea at all why you would think I stated ANYTHING even REMOTELY to not prosecuting crimes. I simply said that no matter where/how the decision is made, some will always bellyache. But that doesn't mean at all that I would expect them to simply ignore it because of the bellyachers. I think ALL crimes should be prosecuted and ALL evidence looked at. And the same with ANY district attorneys office throughout the nation, if they don't feel there is enough evidence to move forward, they don't. But if there's enough, prosecute away.

[revelarts]

Walter Jones, Republican,

wants to clear up the matter for those that have a problem reading the Constitution honestly.

proposed bill/resoltion

Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.
Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress's exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress violates Congress's exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.

Continue reading on Examiner.com Congressman Walter Jones moves to impeach Obama - Charlotte Libertarian | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/libertarian-...#ixzz1paUu3dQK

will the willy nilly congress have the fortitude to go through with it? I doubt it.