The Black Vault Message Forums

Discover the Truth!        

The War on Terrorism & Homeland Security

Iraq war `unlawful`

Discuss the War on Terrorism, Homeland Security, Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea and other global terrorist concerns.

Postby vulcan6gun » Wed Jan 27, 2010 4:55 pm

Hey, lash, those of us that did not vote for him are not responsible for our President acting like a Queen and stamping rubber things. :lol:
Vulcan6gun

"Would you like your scientific research grilled, or roasted?"--Unknown Japanese whaler
User avatar
vulcan6gun
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 7:29 pm
Location: Grid DB82, 4 kts, -12 meters

Postby greeney2 » Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:33 pm

And do you think that's a good thing?


Yes!
greeney2
 
Posts: 9645
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby Lashmar » Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:44 pm

On which grounds?
Read between the lies
User avatar
Lashmar
 
Posts: 5795
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am
Location: UK

Postby vulcan6gun » Wed Jan 27, 2010 6:50 pm

Lash wrote:On which grounds?


Maybe on the grounds of balance of power? That is how our government is supposed to work, though we rarely notice it.

The assignment of War Powers to our President is intended to keep us from getting our asses kicked while awaiting a "timely decision" from Congress.

As for US cases of treason: There's been about 40 so far, and I have no idea how many received the death penalty.

18 U.S.C. § 2381: "Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

And the winners are: Benedict Arnold, Aaron Burr, Thomas Dorr, John Brown, Anthony Cramer, and about thirty-four others leading to Adam Gadahn's conviction in 2006.
Vulcan6gun

"Would you like your scientific research grilled, or roasted?"--Unknown Japanese whaler
User avatar
vulcan6gun
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 7:29 pm
Location: Grid DB82, 4 kts, -12 meters

Postby greeney2 » Wed Jan 27, 2010 8:59 pm

3 branches of government, Legislative, Judicial, and Executive Branches, all defined in the Constitution.
greeney2
 
Posts: 9645
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby Lashmar » Thu Jan 28, 2010 7:30 am

vulcan6gun wrote:The assignment of War Powers to our President is intended to keep us from getting our asses kicked while awaiting a "timely decision" from Congress.


Right so you think we'll sit there while we wait for them to give us the `Okay` yes? :?


Can I have a real answer to my question rather than this please? :? I'll try wording it differently, maybe it was my fault at the start.

Why do you think it is a good thing that the President can just pass laws without approval from Congress?


Both of you must have gone out of your way in order not to give me an answer to my question. It was a sensible question in the first place and the answers I get back are (Vulcan) a ridiculous possibility (given that countries sense when war is going to happen in the first place) combined with the idea that the rest of the world need to ask permission in order to defend itself and (G2) didn’t even give me an answer. I asked what you thought of the law…I didn’t expect the law parroted back to me.

The fact that it says it in the Constitution doesn’t make an answer to a question that asks if it’s a good idea does it now? Unless I’ve woke up on the wrong planet that isn’t answer that’s just bollocks. That is like saying this:

Q: Do you think this is a good law and why do you think your answer?
A: Yes I do. Reason…because it law.

Yes I understand the difference between constitutional law and normal law but that is what your answer was like. You must have gone out of you way to give me that answer! :lol: :lol: :lol: It’s unnatural to give your answer as you did. By human nature you want to explain your reasoning in order to avoid conflict.


I will ask one more time and hope for an answer that is somewhat decent and something that would constitute and answer on planet earth, which is hopefully where I am. :lol:

Why do you, personally, think it is a good thing that the President can just pass laws without approval from Congress? To me I think it is very odd that that is allowed.





Edit: looking back I'm not even sure G2 was talkig to me, that's just how vauge it was! :? :lol: :lol:
Read between the lies
User avatar
Lashmar
 
Posts: 5795
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am
Location: UK

Postby greeney2 » Thu Jan 28, 2010 11:00 am

Why do you think it is a good thing that the President can just pass laws without approval from Congress?


Yes I was talking to you in my answer. First, I don't have a full understanding of how your Parliment system works, and the role of PM. Your Queen is purly a sybolic position as far as official governement, or am I wrong about that? I'm sure the royal family has considerable influence, but do they have actual goverment powers? Such as passing laws or control of any departments, etc.

The reason I stated Legislative, Judicial, and Executive Branches are becasue each is a separate entity in our Governement, and have a system of checks and balances. The President can not pass laws by himself. Laws are introduced in the Legislature, and have to pass the votes of the 2 houses,(The house of Representatives and Senate). Each state is allowed 2 Senators, and each state is allowed Congressmen according to population. After a bill is passed it goes to the President where he can sign it into law, or Veto the Bill. If it is Vetod, it returns to the Congress, and they can either ammend it for the reasons given, or just override the veto and pass it. A President can only Veto an entire bill as it is written. There has been a suggested law that the President be given powers to "line item veto", which many states allow Governers to do. Also remember each individual state has it own right to govern, so they all have similar systems within each state, passing certain state laws.

The duties and powers of each branch of Governement is defined in the Constitution, as to what the limits of each are. The President has a Cabinet which he assigns, like the Department Secretary, Secretary of State, Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of Defence, + others. These things all come under the powers of the Executive Branch of Government, and within that are powers of the President over the Military, becasue he is the Commander in Chief.

I think the President should be have complete power over the military, which is the chain of command to the top general, who is the President. If the President is fallen, the VP is next to assume the position, but 3rd in line would be the Speaker of the House, Nancy Polosi, and not the most logical to control the military which would be Secretary of Defence (who is not elected).

We have an amazing system, that is both simple, but also extremly complicated, with complicated laws, expecially inturpeting the Powers of the President. The Gulf of Tonkin resolution gave LBJ the Presidental power to commit 550,000 troops to Viet Nam without the permission of Congress. The President would need the approval of Congress for an official Declaration of War.
greeney2
 
Posts: 9645
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby Lashmar » Thu Jan 28, 2010 12:51 pm

greeney2 wrote:
Why do you think it is a good thing that the President can just pass laws without approval from Congress?


Yes I was talking to you in my answer. First, I don't have a full understanding of how your Parliment system works, and the role of PM. Your Queen is purly a sybolic position as far as official governement, or am I wrong about that? I'm sure the royal family has considerable influence, but do they have actual goverment powers? Such as passing laws or control of any departments, etc.


We’ll be getting into mercy water there mate. The queen does have some power, I can’t remember what off the top of my head, but she does still have some. Most people think she is symbolic but I know she does still have power. The Royals aren’t allowed to run any non-military department, they’re allowed to run the RAF but not Royal Mail or something like that. They do a lot actually but that’s never reported because it isn’t what the news what’s to show. They have a lot of background power though.

The PM is just the head of the Cabinet and he basically acts as the president but he has no Official Power in the military without the Queens permission. In the case of the UK being bombed or attacked the head of the Armed Forces is the one who responds first and then the PM takes over. We just changed the Head of the Armed Forces, I have no idea who the new one is.

I’m not sure about what happens is both the PM and the Vice PM die. I think then the office above PM takes over (in this case it’s Jack Straw who is also the Justice Minister). It’s an interesting question and one I’ll look into. There are a lot of odd laws in this country. Most people here wouldn’t know the PM had a boss who wasn’t the queen; most people here wouldn’t know about our constitution, if they did they would know this government is illegal.


The answer you gave me was a real answer by the way, much better than what you said originally. :)
Read between the lies
User avatar
Lashmar
 
Posts: 5795
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am
Location: UK

Postby vulcan6gun » Fri Jan 29, 2010 8:22 am

Lash-- no intent to confuse you. The second line of my previous answer is the most important.

Congress was undecided on the subject of entering WW2 until Japan attacked us (one reason we were unprepared was they wouldn't approve funding for more Radio Aircraft Detection And Ranging installations). It was Roosevelt, not Congress, that sent the USN into the North Atlantic on convoy escort missions, and created the AVG to fight for Nationalist China. 8-)
Image

Congress could not decide whether we should (militarily) help South Korea, but Truman did.
Image

Congress failed to decide the issue of military aid for Vietnam, so Johnson did.
Image

Congress made no decision concerning military aid for Kuwait, so 'Bush Sr' did.
Image
(heh... without the tanks, this would look like the parts of vegas you don't see unless you live there)

In fact, the only issue Congress seems able to determine in a timely manner is their salary. :roll:

Basically, if the President didn't have the capability to make war, we and a large portion of the free world would be, in a word, screwed.

In my eyes, all Tony Blair is guilty of is taking action against an oppressive foreign power at the request of Britain's strongest ally.
Vulcan6gun

"Would you like your scientific research grilled, or roasted?"--Unknown Japanese whaler
User avatar
vulcan6gun
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 7:29 pm
Location: Grid DB82, 4 kts, -12 meters

Postby Lashmar » Fri Jan 29, 2010 8:34 am

vulcan6gun wrote:In my eyes, all Tony Blair is guilty of is taking action against an oppressive foreign power at the request of Britain's strongest ally.


And treason. He's been up in front of the inquiry today, the forth hour just started (like two minuets ago), and from the little bit I watched this morning he's been grilled from here to hell and back. :lol: :lol: :lol:

If that was `oppressive` why have we not done something about Rhodesia? Why didn't we do anything with the old S.A's? I'm sorry but Iraq was like heaven when you take Rhodesia into account.

The `oppressive` BS doesn't wash with me one bit mate.
Read between the lies
User avatar
Lashmar
 
Posts: 5795
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am
Location: UK

PreviousNext

Return to The War on Terrorism & Homeland Security

  • View new posts
  • View unanswered posts
  • Who is online
  • In total there are 2 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 2 guests (based on users active over the past 10 minutes)
  • Most users ever online was 292 on Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:19 pm
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests