View Full Version : Law: Going to war
I'm not quite sure why, but there seems to remain some lack of comprehension regarding the laws about going to war. Thus I supply again this information:
The Law
Under USA law, is the president allowed to take the nation to war? No. The US Constitution allows only for the Congress to make war.
US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8:
The Congress shall have power to...
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section8
There is of course the USA's War Powers Act, which further defines who can do what in times of war. However, the War Powers Act also states:
Nothing in this joint resolution--
(1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provision of existing treaties; or
(2) shall be construed as granting any authority to the President with respect to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances which authority he would not have had in the absence of this joint resolution.
What about internaional law? One law of particular interest which the USA signed on for is the United Nations Charter, which states:
United Nations Charter, Chapter 1, Article 2:
Part 1: "The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members."
Part 3: "All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered."
Part 4: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/
There is of course Chapter 7, but that is irrelevent since the SC did not make any such decision.
Lawyers Against The War
An interesting website: http://www.lawyersagainstthewar.org/ Obviously these people have a stated bias, but the law is written in black and white.
phatmonky
Apr7-04, 10:45 AM
There is of course Chapter 7, but that is irrelevent since the SC did not make any such decision.
Your opinion.
There is a thread already on this subject, and there is also rebuttal links and questions.
Um, no, not really just my opinion. The SC didn't make any such decision.
I thought it might be appropriate to have a thread specifically for the legal matter.
phatmonky
Apr7-04, 11:04 AM
Um, no, not really just my opinion. The SC didn't make any such decision.
I thought it might be appropriate to have a thread specifically for the legal matter.
You know legal matters and law are never cut and dry. Precidents are set, and the notion of preemptive strike is a grey area - otherwise if things were so clear you'd get your dream of seeing Bush charged with war crimes.
However, resolution 1441 was written in an open and ambiguous way that lends itself to exactly what happened.....an invasion of Iraq in response to failure to meet guidelines on a preset timeline.
russ_watters
Apr7-04, 01:19 PM
I'm not quite sure why, but there seems to remain some lack of comprehension regarding the laws about going to war. Thus I supply again this information: Adam, your understanding is erroneous. We've had this discussion before. No need to do it again.
The law has been provided, in black and white (or blue and white, in this case). Read and learn.
deja' vu..................
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/forum/t-11563
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/forum/t-3089
Yes, these laws have indeed been mentioned before. And they remain the same.
Yes, these laws have indeed been mentioned before. And they remain the same.
Oh yes the DO! You better believe it! and they also remain...as all law in the U.S. based oooooOOOOoon the magic words! Ya ready?! here they come?! Precedence and inter :eek: pretation!!
Do you not use precedence and interpretation in your legal system?
Nothing in this joint resolution--
(1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provision of existing treaties; or
(2) shall be construed as granting any authority to the President with respect to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances which authority he would not have had in the absence of this joint resolution.
Feel free to interpret it however you wish.
phatmonky
Apr7-04, 11:27 PM
Feel free to interpret it however you wish.
Glad you are starting to understand how LAW works.
Michael D. Sewell
Apr8-04, 02:26 AM
The Law
Are you a lawyer?
No, but I have this amazing, and apparently rare, ability called "reading". Not only that, but another magnificent ability called "copying". These rare and amazing abilities enabled me to post actual laws, agreed upon by actual nations, for the education of you lucky readers.
Now, as for the amazingly ridiculous "You're no lawyer", well, let me provide you with an analogy which, if we're all lucky, might make you realise how incredibly daft your previous post was. The Royal Australian Army infantry personnel ride glowing pink kangaroos into combat, to fight with fairy-floss powered slingshots capable of hurling handfuls of radioactive pudding up to five hundred yards, at around 5,000 rounds per minute. That may seem silly, but if you're not in the Australian military, you won't have any idea about it, so basically you must accept that it is true.
In other words, the law is the law, written in black and white, and you don't have to be a lawyer to read it. Scroll back up a little. Give it a go. Try to comprehend what it says.
I'm sure you can do it.
phatmonky
Apr8-04, 01:10 PM
In other words, the law is the law, written in black and white, and you don't have to be a lawyer to read it. Scroll back up a little. Give it a go. Try to comprehend what it says.
I'm sure you can do it.
WEll my goodness! that's the answer! we don't need to spend all this money on lawyers and court,because the law is so clear, and like you said black and white!
Michael D. Sewell
Apr8-04, 01:20 PM
No, but...
I was just wondering if you were qualified to interpret the law. You are not.
Cheers mate.
I guess that's a "No, I am incapable of reading what is says". Thanks. All clear now.
Michael D. Sewell
Apr9-04, 12:52 AM
No, but I have this amazing, and apparently rare, ability called "reading". Not only that, but another magnificent ability called "copying".
You are indeed rare. However, I have not seen anything from you that is indicative of your being amazing, or in any way magnificent. I think you're getting a little carried away with yourself.
Michael D. Sewell
Apr9-04, 12:55 AM
The Royal Australian Army infantry personnel ride glowing pink kangaroos into combat, to fight with fairy-floss powered slingshots capable of hurling handfuls of radioactive pudding up to five hundred yards, at around 5,000 rounds per minute. That may seem silly, but if you're not in the Australian military, you won't have any idea about it, so basically you must accept that it is true.
I say... bit round the bend ...
Bystander
Apr9-04, 01:15 AM
(snip)Lawyers Against The War
An interesting website: http://www.lawyersagainstthewar.org/ Obviously these people have a stated bias, but the law is written in black and white.
Any point to this thread beyond the obvious? That is, that lawyers are interested in taking over everything --- which is nothing new --- and, have no real case to argue --- again, nothing new.
Michael D. Sewell
Apr9-04, 01:22 AM
Any point to this thread beyond the obvious?
Yes, Adam is about to show us how amazing and magnificent he is. He is also lecturing us on the small unit tactics of the Australian Infantry.
Any point to this thread beyond the obvious? That is, that lawyers are interested in taking over everything --- which is nothing new --- and, have no real case to argue --- again, nothing new.
The point is clear: Although lawyers, and therefore inherently evil, they provide the law for your viewing pleasure.
Yes, Adam is about to show us how amazing and magnificent he is. He is also lecturing us on the small unit tactics of the Australian Infantry.
Okay, I'll make it simpler for you. Watch closely.
1) X shows the law.
2) Y says "You're not a lawyer, you must have no idea about that! Intelligence and sense have nothing to do with it, if you're not a lawyer, you can't read or comprehend it!"
1) X shows some other example of whacky kangaroo combat.
2) Y says "You're not an Australian soldier, you must have no idea about that! Intelligence and sense have nothing to do with it, if you're not an Australian soldier, you can't read or comprehend it!"
1) X shows something.
2) Y denies the possibility of anyone other than those directly involved with that thing knowing anything at all about it.
I hope that clears it up. The objection "You're no lawyer!" is pure nonsense. Go back, read the laws.
Well, I've supplied the laws, and pointed out the logical errors and follies made. Others have supplied personal opinions, not about those laws, but about users of this site. I would suggest that means they are incapable of commenting one way or another about the subject. Given that, there's really not much more one can do without a shovel.
Michael D. Sewell
Apr10-04, 01:07 AM
No, but I have this amazing, and apparently rare, ability called "reading". Not only that, but another magnificent ability called "copying". These rare and amazing abilities enabled me to post actual laws, agreed upon by actual nations, for the education of you lucky readers.
Give it a go. Try to comprehend what it says.
I'm sure you can do it.
How rude! Your arrogant and condescending tone only impedes your ability to further your radical left wing agenda. You are attempting, through rudeness, to draw attention away from the fact that you have no credentials in this field whatsoever.
Tiresome. How many times need I explain basic communication procedures to you?
Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Example of Ad Hominem:
Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
Michael D. Sewell
Apr10-04, 11:35 AM
Tiresome. How many times need I explain basic communication procedures to you?
See? This is exactly what I'm talking about. You seldom write a post that does not insult someone.
Everyone loses their cool once in a while, but of all of the posters on this forum, you are certainly the rudest and most condescending that I have seen. What is the matter with you? You show no respect for anyone, and seem to feel superior to the rest of the human race. I used to feel sorry for the people that you insulted on nearly every post, but now I am actually starting to feel sorry for you. Too bad...you seem rather bright really.
Michael D. Sewell
Apr10-04, 02:01 PM
Adam my friend,
I hope you are able to find yourself some inner peace in this sometimes difficult world. It will make your life, and the lives of the people around you, a lot more pleasant. Please at least think this over.
Best wishes,
Mike
Good grief. Mister Sewell, your last six posts in this thread have been ad hominems. And no, I do not respect those who don't deserve it. I at least partially respect those who can post on topic. Please do so, or Zero might as well lock this thread as well.
Michael D. Sewell, consider yourself on notice.
This thread is locked.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.