Thread Closed
Page 1 of 2 1 2

Law: Going to war

 
Share Thread
Apr7-04, 10:15 AM   #1
 

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/constitut....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.
PhysOrg.com science news on PhysOrg.com

>> New language discovery reveals linguistic insights
>> US official: Solar plane to help ground energy use (Update)
>> Four microphones, computer algorithm enough to produce 3-D model of simple, convex room
Apr7-04, 10:45 AM   #2
 
Quote by Adam

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.
Apr7-04, 10:57 AM   #3
 
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.
Apr7-04, 11:04 AM   #4
 

Law: Going to war

Quote by Adam
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.
Apr7-04, 01:19 PM   #5
 
Mentor
Quote by Adam
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.
Apr7-04, 09:03 PM   #6
 
The law has been provided, in black and white (or blue and white, in this case). Read and learn.
Apr7-04, 10:34 PM   #8
 
Yes, these laws have indeed been mentioned before. And they remain the same.
Apr7-04, 10:52 PM   #9
kat
 
Quote by Adam
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 pretation!!

Do you not use precedence and interpretation in your legal system?
Apr7-04, 11:23 PM   #10
 
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.
Apr7-04, 11:27 PM   #11
 
Quote by Adam
Feel free to interpret it however you wish.
Glad you are starting to understand how LAW works.
Apr8-04, 02:26 AM   #12
 
Quote by Adam
The Law
Are you a lawyer?
Apr8-04, 12:22 PM   #13
 
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.
Apr8-04, 01:10 PM   #14
 
Quote by Adam
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!
Apr8-04, 01:20 PM   #15
 
Quote by Adam
No, but...
I was just wondering if you were qualified to interpret the law. You are not.
Cheers mate.
Apr8-04, 01:34 PM   #16
 
I guess that's a "No, I am incapable of reading what is says". Thanks. All clear now.
Apr9-04, 12:52 AM   #17
 
Quote by Adam
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.
Thread Closed
Page 1 of 2 1 2