Did Congress actually declare war? I ask this because as I understand it, there are different laws in effect when the nation is at war. With that in mind, would it be possible to prosecute the Congress critters who ran to the media after their classified briefings. If at war, that sounds like treason to me.
Are we at war?
- Thread starter griz
- Start date
WAR
All semantics and legalities aside, if our troops are in harm's way and we be droppin' iron on folks, we're at war.
As to blabbermouths in the Congress, the news media, no one will initiate treason proceedings against them due to an intense desire to appear united. The leftist "peace now, America is at fault" crowd will also enjoy the continued blessings of free speech because they remain a small side show and it would be a waste of resources to give them more attention than they truly warrant.
In a perfect world we would crate them all up and drop them out of the a$$ end of a C-17 over Afghanistan.
The taliban have little tolerance for free speech and wold, no doubt, instruct them accordingly. Just a thought!
All semantics and legalities aside, if our troops are in harm's way and we be droppin' iron on folks, we're at war.
As to blabbermouths in the Congress, the news media, no one will initiate treason proceedings against them due to an intense desire to appear united. The leftist "peace now, America is at fault" crowd will also enjoy the continued blessings of free speech because they remain a small side show and it would be a waste of resources to give them more attention than they truly warrant.
In a perfect world we would crate them all up and drop them out of the a$$ end of a C-17 over Afghanistan.
The taliban have little tolerance for free speech and wold, no doubt, instruct them accordingly. Just a thought!
Informed Citizen
New member
Congress should declare war if it supports waging a war. It's kind of dishonorable to be sending over B-52's and bombing cities and Congress won't even declare war. They all agree with the Administration's response. So then, why don't they do the manly thing and declare war? I think it's all part of that "Ugly American" image that seems to need some kind of revival.
Informed Citizen
Informed Citizen
Fred Hansen
New member
Technically no. Our president had the guts to call 9/11 what it was, an act of war. The filth that inhabits our legislature on the other hand have no ba**s. Be that as it may, it does not alter the deadly effectiveness of our military. Allahu"BLAM"
"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men."
- Plato -
"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men."
- Plato -
David Park
New member
Correct me if I'm wrong, but here goes...
From the Constitution:
It seems to me that Congress has a variety of powers beyond just declaring War. I haven't read the declaration they passed shortly after the attack, but it would seem they have power to "define and punish" groups who commit attacks on the USA without actually declaring war. The 9/11 attack was not waged by a foreign country, and the goal was not to invade or take over the USA. I don't believe we ever declared war on the pirates of the high seas, and that's why some Congressmen have been arguing in favor of modern Letters fo Marque.
True, we are dropping bombs on Afghanistan. But if I'm correct, the US (like nearly every other country in the world) never recognized the Taliban as the true Afghan gov't. Why should we declare war on a country we don't recognize, especially when that gov't has not attacked us directly, but only supported those who have? If the attack had been committed by the Provisional IRA, would we declare war on the UK? Ireland?
Now, if we decide Phase 2 should be to eliminate Saddam, I think we should declare war on Iraq first. Regardless, that's going to be much harder to sell to the int'l community.
From the Constitution:
...and it continues with powers to support the Army, Navy and Militia.
It seems to me that Congress has a variety of powers beyond just declaring War. I haven't read the declaration they passed shortly after the attack, but it would seem they have power to "define and punish" groups who commit attacks on the USA without actually declaring war. The 9/11 attack was not waged by a foreign country, and the goal was not to invade or take over the USA. I don't believe we ever declared war on the pirates of the high seas, and that's why some Congressmen have been arguing in favor of modern Letters fo Marque.
True, we are dropping bombs on Afghanistan. But if I'm correct, the US (like nearly every other country in the world) never recognized the Taliban as the true Afghan gov't. Why should we declare war on a country we don't recognize, especially when that gov't has not attacked us directly, but only supported those who have? If the attack had been committed by the Provisional IRA, would we declare war on the UK? Ireland?
Now, if we decide Phase 2 should be to eliminate Saddam, I think we should declare war on Iraq first. Regardless, that's going to be much harder to sell to the int'l community.
David Park
New member
In response to the original post:
It sounds like treason to me too, whether we're at war or not. I think if we started holding the Congress critters strictly accountable for actions like the above, they'd start acting more like the public servants they are supposed to be.
curiosity and the dead cat
Question:
Under the U.S. Constitution, which is paramount;
a). freedom of speech.
b). the prosecution of those citizens, politicians, academics, etc. who by the exercise of that right of speech appear to give 'aid and comfort' to the enemy.
It seems to me that when you begin limiting some speech, you begin limiting all speech. Are there 'environmental' controls and consequences for speech deemed inappropriate to the circumstance?
You bet. Getting one's ass kicked for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time, being shunned by society for one's views, having sponsorship pulled and getting voted out of office are all appropriate to the circumstance because they do not limit speech per se, but channel it to more appropriate forums by allowing communities to accept or reject its' content. This forum itself has monitors to make such decsions and a population of participants who are exceptionally
gifted in representing their own points of view. My point is that the only laws involved here are those which protect speech, all speech, regardless of how inappropriate one thinks it is. It is up to the community at large to decide whether they accept or reject the content of that speech. Having said that, I will don my asbestos suit and await the flame thrower squad.
BTW.....I like mine extra crispy.
Question:
Under the U.S. Constitution, which is paramount;
a). freedom of speech.
b). the prosecution of those citizens, politicians, academics, etc. who by the exercise of that right of speech appear to give 'aid and comfort' to the enemy.
It seems to me that when you begin limiting some speech, you begin limiting all speech. Are there 'environmental' controls and consequences for speech deemed inappropriate to the circumstance?
You bet. Getting one's ass kicked for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time, being shunned by society for one's views, having sponsorship pulled and getting voted out of office are all appropriate to the circumstance because they do not limit speech per se, but channel it to more appropriate forums by allowing communities to accept or reject its' content. This forum itself has monitors to make such decsions and a population of participants who are exceptionally
gifted in representing their own points of view. My point is that the only laws involved here are those which protect speech, all speech, regardless of how inappropriate one thinks it is. It is up to the community at large to decide whether they accept or reject the content of that speech. Having said that, I will don my asbestos suit and await the flame thrower squad.
BTW.....I like mine extra crispy.
Are we at war? Let's see: 'round the clock bombing, cruise missiles, cluster bombs, aircraft carriers, submarines, AC-130's, F-15's, 16's and 18's, special forces...sure sounds like we are.
IIRC, the reason congress didn't vote on an act of war is that it would have limited us in the scope of our activities, the targetting of bin Laden being one of them.
IIRC, the reason congress didn't vote on an act of war is that it would have limited us in the scope of our activities, the targetting of bin Laden being one of them.
Gburner:
I hope this doesn’t come across as flaming but I don’t think it’s a free speech issue at all. If they had come out and openly criticized the official US policy, encouraged restraint or any thing else a citizen, even a congressman, has the right to do, that would be free speech. But they went to a briefing about national security, then went straight to the press to leak classified information. Unless congress is run much differently than other parts of the government, you even sign a statement saying you will not tell anybody about the material. I just don’t see any excuse for that behavior.
FWIW, maybe they are not saying which representatives blabbed because they don’t want to answer questions about which material was sensitive, but if they had named names I would lean toward what you are saying, IE vote them out of office.
I hope this doesn’t come across as flaming but I don’t think it’s a free speech issue at all. If they had come out and openly criticized the official US policy, encouraged restraint or any thing else a citizen, even a congressman, has the right to do, that would be free speech. But they went to a briefing about national security, then went straight to the press to leak classified information. Unless congress is run much differently than other parts of the government, you even sign a statement saying you will not tell anybody about the material. I just don’t see any excuse for that behavior.
FWIW, maybe they are not saying which representatives blabbed because they don’t want to answer questions about which material was sensitive, but if they had named names I would lean toward what you are saying, IE vote them out of office.
more speech
griz,
Thanks for the reply. I didn't associate it with a flame at all. I expected much worse. As someone of Libertarian persuation, I will always take the will of the people over the whims of government to set the tone where our rights are concerned. Perhaps the President should have been more discerning in whom he invited to security briefings. We know the Congress for what they are and I wouldn't give you a nickle for 3/4 of them. To me, it's like the old saying, "you knew I was a snake when you took me in." Maybe one of the blessings of this bloody mess will be some electoral reform.
ps. now that the media is hyping the anthrax thing, the Congress wants to hurry up and get out of town for fear they will be the next target. Glad they weren't in the air liner that went down in PA. That big crater there would be where the White House is instead.....what a bunch of gutless pukes!
griz,
Thanks for the reply. I didn't associate it with a flame at all. I expected much worse. As someone of Libertarian persuation, I will always take the will of the people over the whims of government to set the tone where our rights are concerned. Perhaps the President should have been more discerning in whom he invited to security briefings. We know the Congress for what they are and I wouldn't give you a nickle for 3/4 of them. To me, it's like the old saying, "you knew I was a snake when you took me in." Maybe one of the blessings of this bloody mess will be some electoral reform.
ps. now that the media is hyping the anthrax thing, the Congress wants to hurry up and get out of town for fear they will be the next target. Glad they weren't in the air liner that went down in PA. That big crater there would be where the White House is instead.....what a bunch of gutless pukes!