It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Does Congress have to approve a war with Iran?

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 07:49 PM
link   
What I consider most dangerous is that congress gave permission to the current administration to engage in a war on terror without defining the terrorists. Consequently whomever the current administration decides is a terrorist is a terrorist.




posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by passenger
Constitution of th United States, Article I, Section 8:
"The Congress shall have Power...To Declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captives on Land and Water."

The War in Iraq is completely UN-Constitutional. Any War with Iran or reprisal against said, must be ordained by Congress.

But, seeing as Bush already got away with it once and Congress seems to regard the Constitution as merely as set of guidelines-it will probably happen the same way.



[edit on 15-8-2007 by passenger]



Congress declared war on Iraq so it was Constitutional.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Congress declared war on Iraq so it was Constitutional.


I'm sorry, Xtrozero... this is not a declaration of war.

War was never officially declared on Iraq. The authorization to use military force in Iraq was a simple rewording of the War Powers Resolution of 1973... without the timetable to remove the troops.

Congress dropped the ball, badly.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 08:48 PM
link   
When Clinton bombed targets in Sudan[wich happened to be pharmaceutical factories] after the attack on the Cole, he got away with it.. And i thought he didnt asked for approval either, did he?
I know we got into war with Indonesia in 1948 after they "declared" their indepence, we also just called it "politional actions"..



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Infoholic

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Congress declared war on Iraq so it was Constitutional.


I'm sorry, Xtrozero... this is not a declaration of war.

War was never officially declared on Iraq. The authorization to use military force in Iraq was a simple rewording of the War Powers Resolution of 1973... without the timetable to remove the troops.

Congress dropped the ball, badly.


What was it that congess voted on that they all are now trying to say they would never had done it if they knew the nukes were not there?

If they did driop the ball then it is on them.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
What was it that congess voted on that they all are now trying to say they would never had done it if they knew the nukes were not there?

If they did driop the ball then it is on them.


It was a resolution, authorizing the President to use force in Iraq.
The interesting thing is they all call it a "War". Officially, it's not. Which just goes to prove that if you repeat a lie often enough people will start to believe it.

As, for dropping the ball, well, that's why they're all trying to cover their buts now.


DCP

posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 09:50 AM
link   
The President has/needs the power to attack anyone anytime the office thinks they need too. For the simple reason, as han solo said to princess leia "We don't have time to discuss this in a committee."



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 10:02 AM
link   
Yes it does get confusing.It USED to be congress had to approve military action(war).Yet korea was a police action(since word WAR was excluded it didnt apply?)Then the emergency powers act came along and pretty much circumvented congress.Hello Iraq!


DCP

posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 10:34 AM
link   
What Bush and Congress did in Iraq is what America has been doing since it's founding. The President has been sending troops all over the world to fight since Washington. Moreover, Congress has not always given its "Declaration" of war but a good pat on the back and some spending money for the military action. My proof...the marine hymn....come on you all know this one, bugs bunny sings in a couple of episodes...Still having problems placing the song, here is the first two lines: From the halls of Montezuma
To the shores of Tripoli....When did the USMC fight in Tripoli...Under Jefferson(1805 for those of you who like dates)

For some strange reason i believe Jefferson understood the Declaration of Independence better then all of us. If he thought a president could send troops wherever for whatever reason, i would say any president after him had the same right/power.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by DCP
To the shores of Tripoli....When did the USMC fight in Tripoli...Under Jefferson(1805 for those of you who like dates)

For some strange reason i believe Jefferson understood the Declaration of Independence better then all of us. If he thought a president could send troops wherever for whatever reason, i would say any president after him had the same right/power.


First: THe Bey of Tripoli Declared War against the U.S. and seized American sailors and ships. So, we had a de facto war at that point. Jefferson understood that and simply exercised his powers in a retalitory fashion. He admitted that it was a matter of expediency. He did however later address Congress to recieve their approval. By the time Congress got around to doing something the matter had pretty much by resolved by the Marines kicking the crap out of the Barbary Pirates and taking their main stronghold at Tripoli. We went home and it really became a moot point.
Jefferson did state that he was worried about what he had done, that he had gone too far beyond his powers. Further, he felt that if a future President used such powers in an abusive manner the Congress would have the right to call for impeachment.
So, yes Jefferson did set a precedent. But he did fully intend to resolve it in a Constitutional manner. And he hoped that future Presidents would not use his actions as a carte blanche for military excursions. In this hope he was wishfully thinking, as we have seen.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by DCP
The President has/needs the power to attack anyone anytime the office thinks they need too. For the simple reason, as han solo said to princess leia "We don't have time to discuss this in a committee."


The basic principle of the Constitution is the president is the commander and chief of the military, but Congress is who delares war etc and is also responsible to raise money and build/maintain the military.


DCP

posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 11:57 AM
link   
from wikipedia

In response, Jefferson sent a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress. Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify."

i know wikipedia is not the final say in stuff, but it is a good first quick reference...it sound like congress OKed whatever actions Jefferson wanted to take before he took them.

I like your point and i think it stresses this administrations main problem with Iraq
"Marines kicking the crap out of..." today you would have to write "Marines went over to win the hearts and minds..."

Jefferson was either a hypocrite, a very good politician, or both. this will be a fine debate. He also stressed over buying Louisiana Territory. So being worried about his powers really didn't stop him from acting on many major issues. Was he a hypocrite or did he say he had misgivings to appeal to his base...



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by DCP
Jefferson...being worried about his powers really didn't stop him from acting on many major issues. Was he a hypocrite or did he say he had misgivings to appeal to his base...


I doo't think he was a hypocrite at all. He did stress himself out over the problem of wanting to do what the Constitution said and what he felt he needed to do. He was, however, completely willing to put the issue forth to Congress and abide by their decision. They pretty much skated the issue by approving his actions but not bothering to go to the trouble of issuing a Declaration. Nothing much changed there, has it?

Remember too that, at the time, the Barbary Pirates were pretty much considered a nuisance, not a real direct threat to the survival of America.
Nobody, even Jefferson, ever envisioned that the President would have to get approval/declarations to do something every time a bunch of scruffy pirates or band of Native Americans went on the warpath. In that sense, the Forefathers would probably approve such actions as attacking Al-Queda in Afghanistan. The "war" in Iraq, however, was instigated against a sovereign nation and has gone on for years now. I don't think that's the kind of situation they would of approved of at all.

A good example is WWII. German U-Boats were prowling the Atlantic and we actually confronted them as early as Spring of 1941, way before any official Declaration of War. Nobody thought that Roosevelt should just sit behind his desk while our ships got sunk and then ask Congress if he could do something about it. American forces were allowed to respond to threats as needed. Then after Hitler declared war on us, we responded in kind.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by passenger
The "war" in Iraq, however, was instigated against a sovereign nation and has gone on for years now. I don't think that's the kind of situation they would of approved of at all.


The one statment I have is we are not at war with Iraq for the initial war with Iraq/Saddam was over very quickly.


DCP

posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 01:02 PM
link   
i agree with your assessment of founding fathers and war on terror, they would have told the president to go kick some butt and have fun storming the castle....

another WWII fact, America fired and sunk a Japanese mini sub in international waters before the attack on Pearl Harbor...like 20 minutes before the attack, as the sub was on it's way to attack Pearl Harbor, but i still find it interesting that in reality- America actually fired the first shot



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
The one statment I have is we are not at war with Iraq for the initial war with Iraq/Saddam was over very quickly.


OK, true.

So then, going back to the original theme of this thread: Are we going to end up in a similar situation in Iran?

Is our President and Congress going to continue to prosecute these Orwellian "wars" with no end in sight?
Are they going to continue to circumvent the Constitution and force the Amercian peoples hand without formally giving intent and justification?



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by princeofpeace
ENough of the full-blown war talk. Does he need approval to launch a strike on Iran as that is much more likely?


Do you consider a freezing the finances of the Iranian Guard Corp a "strike" on Iran?

www.cbsnews.com...

Google search: "freezing assets" "act of war"

Sri



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 04:38 PM
link   
No i dont consider that a strike on Iran LOL. I consider a strike on Iran as something more along the lines of a Naval and Air campaign targeting a limited amount but very specific and strategic sites.

I consider war as an all out campaign including an invasion with many divisions on the gorund with the aim of being overthrowing the leadership.

The question i posed earlier was can the president order a strike without congressional approval? Obviously in my latter scenario of war then congressional approval would be a given, but those are two different scenarios.

I dont consider labeling the Revolutionary Guard as terrorists a strike. I dont consider sanctions a strike.



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 04:41 PM
link   
I beleive that since GW is "The Decider", he does not have to seek anyones approval, but Dicks.

Given his position towards anything else that would be considerd illegal, it has not stopped him in the past from carrying out his wishes without anyones approval.

If he wants to go to war with Iran, he will do it. No if's and's or but's.

Quite shame really. I wonder if this has been his Skull & Bones plan from the beginning?



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 06:06 PM
link   
we

Originally posted by princeofpeace
No i dont consider that a strike on Iran LOL. I consider a strike on Iran as something more along the lines of a Naval and Air campaign targeting a limited amount but very specific and strategic sites.

I consider war as an all out campaign including an invasion with many divisions on the gorund with the aim of being overthrowing the leadership.

I dont consider labeling the Revolutionary Guard as terrorists a strike. I dont consider sanctions a strike.


That's a reasonable enough statement. The problem is your not dealing with people that may be reasonable. Don't make the mistake of projecting your values and reasoning upon another person (or country).

It's like you go into a bar and accidentally make someone spill their drink. Fine. You think all you have to do is apologize and buy them another. That doesn't mean that they won't think you need stabbed or hit over the head with a chair.

Actions like this can't be based on what we might think is a reasonable response, but what they think is a reasonable response. And that might just mean blowing up something in the U.S. or declaring war.

[edit on 17-8-2007 by passenger]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join