Obama Defends Just War in Afghanistan
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/12/10/2148249.aspx
Obama's Nobel Remarks text speecuh
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/11/world/europe/11prexy.text.html
Other coverage happy searching
http://blogs.ft.com/rachmanblog/2009/12/obamas-nobel-prize-acceptance-speech-defence-of-the-just-war/
http://modernmedieval.blogspot.com/2009/12/on-just-war-understanding-pres-barack.html
Uhhuh. OK. Then will somebody, anybody, please explain why the United States is engaged in a "just" war - or a war that can be justified on the grounds of "morality" as the President implied - when the Congress of the United States has yet to "declare" war specificially on Afghanistan or even an entity person or persons located in Afghanistan?
We're going to refrain from an attempt to settle concerns and arguments that U.S. involvement in Iraq is an illegal and unconstitutional war, and so too would be Afghanistan.
We're searching for a definitive answer, but have so far had no real success.
But we raise the question for those who slated George W. Bush for impeachment based upon taking the U.S. to war with Iraq and any number of reasons while not making the same effort now that President Barack Obama has committed a surge in U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
Meanwhile among the powers of Congress according to the wording of the United States Constitution:
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm
which this site further states:
The “war powers” are defined here and in Article 2, Section 2. Congress declares war, while the president wages war. However, presidents have committed U.S. forces leading to conflict without congressional declaration of war in Korea, Vietnam, and other places, provoking national argument over the meaning of these powers. Congress’ control of funding the military provides another check on the executive branch.
http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm
So whatever the debate about a just war in or on Afghanistan, an argument now presented by President Barack Obama, the Afghanistan war is a just war, how does President Obama repeat the same action as President George W. Bush commit U.S. troops somewhere (Iraq)(Afghanistan) and not get slammed by anybody and everybody who raised any objections to Bush's 'illegal' and 'unconstitutional' war in Iraq?
And, Chuck Todd of MSNBC noted he's not hearing from conservatives or Republicans the Obama philosophical speech was a bunch of well bunk.
related
Caselaw site
THE WAR POWER
Source and Scope
Three Theories
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/41.html#2
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/
War and Treaty Powers
The issue: How have the war and treaty powers in the Constitution been interpreted?
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/warandtreaty.htm
The Power to Declare War — Who Speaks for the Constitution? Part 1
by Doug Bandow, June 1995
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3
When presidents lose domestic support, they invariably look overseas for crises to solve. President Clinton is no different. After the Republicans swept Congress, he immediately flew off to the Pacific for a series of meetings with foreign leaders. Aides predict that he will continue to pay greater attention to foreign policy, where he is able to operate with fewer restrictions from a hostile Congress.
But foreign policy means more than just international summits. It also means war, as is evident from the Clinton administration's continuing attempt to push America, through the NATO alliance, into a larger role in the Balkans imbroglio. So far, President Bill Clinton has undertaken or considered military action in Bosnia, Haiti, Korea, and Somalia. At no point has he indicated a willingness to involve Congress in the decision-making process. To the contrary, in late 1993 he stated: "I would strenuously oppose attempts to encroach on the President's foreign policy powers."
In this way, at least, he is acting like many of his predecessors. Bill Clinton emphasizes that he is the commander-in-chief, and, he claims, "The Constitution leaves the President, for good and sufficient reasons, the ultimate decision-making authority." As such, he argues, he is entitled to do whatever he pleases with the military: "The President must make the ultimate decision."
In fact, such an attitude has been broadly held by chief executives around the world.
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0695e.asp
No comments:
Post a Comment