According to international law, there is no justified reason for a pre-emptive war. Of course this makes Bush a war criminal. Carry on.
I agree completely and will add that every day that goes by without discovering the WMD motherload Bush loses more credibility. I think Bush's handlers realize this and thus the flood of WMD inspectors (1300-1400) that are being to Iraq as we speak.
I think congress gave Bush the authority for pre-emptive war. I may be wrong, but if not, then congress did this in spite of international law. I still don't get why they gave that power to the Presidency anyway.
You are not. Because he's the friggen Commander in Chief of this nation's armed forces, and his primary duty to this nation is to defend it against any and all threats as he sees fit. Appointing judges, proposing spending packages - all of those duties are secondary to his military function. Congress has checks on his power, yet they chose to support him in this case. Why?
I have just as many problems with Bush as the next person, but public international law in this area and the ramifications for breach thereof don't really get you anywhere, mostly cause nobody knows what it actually is.
These must not be from the Shah's side, huh rezdawg? You seem to keep forgetting that the mullahs purged Iran of its royalty over two decades ago. As for this thread - it still stands that if/when WMD are found, the antiwar crowd will no longer be able to scream "Bush lied!", which is effectively the last argument they have. Personally, I think it's kind of silly and pointless to protest and whine about a war that has already happened and been won, but... that's just me, I guess.
The very first sentence of Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 of the US Constitution, the section dealing with the Executiver's duties reads: Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States It was put there first for a reason - it is the primary duty of the Executive. No one else has that power, either. So no, it is not just my fu*king opinion, and yes, it is in the fu*king Constitution.
Treeman, you think because it was put first that the framers were stating that it is the most important? What footnote of the constitution says that? Or is there an appendix I am unaware of? It's funny because, with all I've read about constitutional interpretation, nobody had informed me that it was numerically prioritized in order of importance. What does this numerical priority rule of yours mean for Article 1? As I recall, congress' power to establish post offices and post roads is listed before Congress' power to establish and maintain and army and navy. So I guess that means it's more important to make sure that the mail makes it through rain or sleet or snow than to make sure we have an army or navy so that the President can fulfill his primary responsibility. Silly framers! Don't get all mad and use a bunch of profanity, I'm simply pointing out what is and what isn't in the constitution. And among one of the things that is not there is a prioritization of the executives duties as C-in-C, head of state, enforcer of the laws, etc.
It is a moot point since war criminals in the world's only super power will never get prosecuted. Certainly, any world court verdict against the USA will be ignored by the USA, if it ever got that far. BTW, Blair is currently suffering through the whole international law issue, which is why I mentioned it. BTW2, suppose that PRC felt imminently threatened by Taiwan and pre-emptively struck. PRC could claim their intel is irrefutable. ...
Easy...I think Sam was just pointing out that is certainly not an imperative in the Counstitution for the president to wage war as he sees fit--decleration of "war" is in the hands of the legislature. And if we are to delve into the historic intentions of the framers of the Consitution then you might want to modify your stance. One of the biggest gripes of our Revolutionary leaders was "King George's wars" and the fact that he could wage them when he chose to as King. While our Forefathers wanted the President to be a "kingly" figure head; his mandate was never to wage war on his own accord.
Absolutely, I was speaking to the "strict" definition of a decleration of war--something we haven't done since WWII.
Nahh, what I was pointing out is that there is nothing in the Con about the C-in-C powers being "primary" and head of state, chief executive powers being "secondary", as treeboy claims.
