Army Officer Refuses Deployment to Iraq

[KBCraig]

there are lots of little things in the constitution that a lot of folks miss. i believe that the conflict in iraq is unconstitutional for a few reasons, one of which being that there was no declaration of war -

(dec?la?ra?tion Pronunciation Key  (dkl-rshn)
n.

   1. An explicit, formal announcement, either oral or written.

Congress explicitly and formally authorized military action in Iraq.

Kevin

[Christopher King]

Well they subsequently ratified something, but if the foundation wasn't proper in the first place does that make it any less Un-Constitutional?

In other words, let's say I conduct a real estate closing, and the HUD Statement's not right. I don't care if the buyer and seller agree, the transaction may be held invalid.

It is a cop out on Congress' part/President's part to fail to declare war, and just because WW1 and WWII are anaomalies doesn't make it right.

-c

[zrated]

the good thing about pointing out technicalities is that there are endless technicalities for either side of the arguement.

if "declaring war" can be authorizing a budget allowing for funding of the military to carry out certain operations, it still doesn't work. the fact is that congress passed "H.J.Res. 114" - the authorization of the use of force in iraq. the constitution makes no reference to the ability of congress to do this. congress unconstitutionaly passed H.J.Res. 114, then equally unconstitutionaly funded it. ridiculous how technicality in arguement works, isn't it.

there is precedent in what constitutes declaring war in 11 instances from 1812 to 1941.

authorization and funding of military action - unconstitutional
decaration of and funding of war - constitutional

[tracysaboe]

there are lots of little things in the constitution that a lot of folks miss. i believe that the conflict in iraq is unconstitutional for a few reasons, one of which being that there was no declaration of war -

(dec?la?ra?tion Pronunciation Key  (dkl-rshn)
n.

   1. An explicit, formal announcement, either oral or written.

Congress explicitly and formally authorized military action in Iraq.

Kevin

No they didn't. They delegated that power eto the Executive stating he can basically do whatever he wants in a "resolution" which is not legally binding.

Which is worse. Using a non-legally binding resolution as proof of a declaration of war. Or the fact that they used this resolution the unconstitutionally adbicate their war making powers and unconstitutionally delagating them to the executive. 

Congress doesn't have the authority to give the war making decisions to the excecutive. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that Congress has the right to delegate it's functions to another branch of government. Such a thing would completely undermine the seperation of powers.

So the resolution wasn't legally binding and

Even if it was, Congress has no Constitutional power to delegate it's war-making powers to the executive.

Tracy

[zrated]

that's a good point. i guess the authorization was unconstitutional in more than one way.

i used that "delegation of powers" arguement against the someone defending the war powers act a few months ago - i had forgotten about it.

[Christopher King]

Thanks, Tracy I find your comment compelling.

-c

[tracysaboe]

Thanks, Tracy I find your comment compelling.

-c

Tracy

[Caleb]

I find Kevin's comment compelling.   

NOT!!!!! 

[TackleTheWorld]

Thanks, Tracy I find your comment compelling.

-c

Tracy usually has the most compelling arguments.
I consider his opinions very highly.
or as YTSVU would say:
I conzider ihs opines vry hiley.

[KBCraig]

Tracy usually has the most compelling arguments.
I consider his opinions very highly.
or as YTSVU would say:
I conzider ihs opines vry hiley.

[KBCraig]

I find Kevin's comment compelling.   

NOT!!!!! 

I find Caleb's refutation... MISSING! 

[tracysaboe]

Thanks, Tracy I find your comment compelling.

-c

Tracy usually has the most compelling arguments.
I consider his opinions very highly.
or as YTSVU would say:
I conzider ihs opines vry hiley.

LOL

[Russell Kanning]

 SEATTLE, WA 2006-07-11 The defense team for first Lieutenant Ehren Watada is laying out its legal strategy in his case.

Last month, Fort Lewis-based Watada became the first commissioned officer to publicly refuse orders to deploy to Iraq. The army has charged him with missing movement, contempt towards official, and conduct unbecoming an officer.

Lawyer Eric Seitz says he will argue that the Iraq war is illegal under US and international law, and that Watada is justified in refusing to go.

Eric Seitz: "This is a case of someone who is engaging in civil disobedience, in essence. And while typically civil disobedience in the military is not something that people anticipate will be respected by the military, there is, however, a level at which, under applicable international norms, the military ought to be obligated to respect that."

Watada is expected to appear before a military court for a preliminary hearing next month. His commanders will then decide whether to pursue a court martial against him.

Attorney Seitz says the chances of winning an acquittal for Watada are slim in the military court system. He hopes Watada can avoid lengthy jail time.

[Demolama]

A Declaration of War is needed in order to create an army... since the Constitution states that money can go to an army for no more than 2 years... this keeps the USA from having a standing army.

Many try and prove wars without a declaration... see Barbary Wars or naval battle with France.  The battle against pirates are not wars. Since keeping a navy in times of peace and war doesnt need a declaration of war to operate... the navy going after pirates attacking their ships is legal... whether they are state sponsored privateers or not.

"The United States sent naval squadrons into the Mediterranean under the slogan of "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute!" Under the leadership of Commodores Richard Dale and Edward Preble, the Navy blockaded the enemy coast, bombarded his shore fortresses, and engaged in close, bitterly contested gunboat actions."

There were no regular Army involved in the Barbary "war". At the time of our founding fathers seperation of naval and army was widely accepted.

Our founding fathers were fearful of standing armies.. they were used against them at Lexington and Concord during the run on the arms... they were used during the blockade of Boston... see Declaration of Independence ...The founding fathers viewed them as tools of Tyranny because the Kings of England had full control over them and did whatever he wanted with them.

To fix the power of the executive having both the power to create and control...the Constitution stripped the executive the right to create an Army and gave it to Congress, with appropriations to last no more than 2 years. This was done to ensure the regular army was a temporary thing. In times of peace the defense of the states resided with the militias. Militias did have their weaknesses... they couldnt be shipped overseas and they were not bound to stay and fight and they could not mix with the regular army.

These united States were not mirrored on English government... lot of the right of the king were stripped and given to the legislature where the voice of the states and the people held the power....Ignore the standing army regulation in the Constitution and you ignore the use of the Declaration of War... because only Congress can create an Army with a Declaration of War... Since we currently have millions of men and women in the standing army... Reserves, National Guard, and Active Duty....there isnt a need in the eyes of the government to declare war.... so in essence Congress gave another one of their delegated powers back to an executive... just another step closer to a complete elected monarch.... and possible unelected one.

[KBCraig]

"The United States sent naval squadrons into the Mediterranean under the slogan of "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute!" Under the leadership of Commodores Richard Dale and Edward Preble, the Navy blockaded the enemy coast, bombarded his shore fortresses, and engaged in close, bitterly contested gunboat actions."

There were no regular Army involved in the Barbary "war". At the time of our founding fathers seperation of naval and army was widely accepted.

These actions also included invasion of the Barbary Coast by U.S. Marines. (" ...to the shores of Tripoli.")

The separation of navy and army may have been accepted, but the line between army and naval infantry was less clear.