declaration of war

[hvac ak47]

He has answered it, over and over again.
In his writings and before congress.
In several speeches before many audiences.

He answered why he voted this one time to give the president the power to declare war and why congress didnt have to this time??

His letters and speeches to congress was a proposal of his idea on how to handle the situation. But he voted to give the power of war to the president!

 

[pcosmar]

He answered why he voted this one time to give the president the power to declare war and why congress didnt have to this time??

His letters and speeches to congress was a proposal of his idea on how to handle the situation. But he voted to give the power of war to the president!

No He did not.
You are deliberately twisting the facts.

THERE WAS NEVER ANY DECLARATION OF WAR

The president CANNOT declare War!!!!

That is why this is ILLEGAL.

Ron Paul opposes this Illegal war.

 

[johngr]

QUOTE=hvac ak47;387020]He answered why he voted this one time to give the president the power to declare war and why congress didnt have to this time??[/QUOTE]

No He did not [give the president the power to declare war].
You are deliberately twisting the facts.

Language from the resolution: "...use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations..." If that is not carte blanche to make war then neither was the Iraq resolution!

 

[pcosmar]

So what YOU are saying is
If someone calls the police,and reports a break robbery and assault, and the Police go and kill the suspects family shoot the neighbors and burn down the whole block.
It is YOUR fault, because you called the Police.

This is Twisted logic.

Ron Paul voted to go after the criminals. After an attack by a criminal group.
The Administration Attacked a country. Never went after the criminals. And then attacked another country.
This was not what was voted for.

 

[johngr]

"Going after criminals (of whose crimes no one's seen any evidence)" was the excuse for the Afghan war. "Weapons of Mass Destruction" was the excuse for the Iraq War. They're both bullshit excuses.

 

[pcosmar]

"Going after criminals (of whose crimes no one's seen any evidence)" was the excuse for the Afghan war. "Weapons of Mass Destruction" was the excuse for the Iraq War. They're both bullshit excuses.

And it is NOT going to stop, unless Ron Paul is elected. He is the only one who has been in opposition from the very beginning.
He was speaking out against the war before 9/11.

 

[nickcoons]

Ron Paul voted to go after the criminals.

No, he voted to go after suspects. Under our legal system, they aren't considered criminals until after they are proven guilty in a court of law.

He voted to go into another country (to go after Bin Laden) without a declaration of war. Isn't that supposed to be unconstitutional? I understand that he pushed for Letters of Marque and Reprisal, but that's not what he voted for. He voted for military force in Afghanistan to capture Bin Laden, without a declaration of war.

As I understand it, Afghanistan was going to hand him over, if only we had given them evidence that Bin Laden was being the attacks. Why didn't we just do that?

What is being discussed here is Ron Paul's vote to go after Bin Laden without a declaration of war (whether that's what we did or not is irrelevant, it's what he voted for). Unless I'm missing something, that sounds like an unconstitutional move.

But I'm with the others on this. This issue is not going to make me change my mind about Ron Paul, and he still has my full support. It's just grasping at straws, and only an academic conversation. But I would be curious if someone could explain how his vote on this was constitutional.

 

[BigFatRock]

Afghanistan was a legitimate response to the attacks of Sept 11. That was the HQ of the attackers. The problem is when the mission drifted from capturing or killing the perpetrators of 9/11 to nation-building in Afghanistan. That is where we got off course. This was a direct response to an attack on the United States. So the vote was just telling the president what he already knew and had authorization to do: get the ones who hit us.

Think back to the now infamous debate where Mitt said he would have to consult his lawyers about how to act against an imminent attack. Ron even agreed there that the president has certain lee-way in a time when we are under attack. Another attack could have come at any time, and we weren't at war with all of Afghanistan, even though that's what it turned into.

Iraq was different in that there was a planned action with no previous instigation. We just plunged in. This vote to authorize force was the best thing Ron could've hoped for to get the attackers. They weren't going to declare war.

Again, the president was technically already authorized to get the ones who hit us because they had just attacked us.

 

[Artemus]

A few points
This isn't meant to be a declaration or war, nor a replacement as it instructs Bush to go after anyone responsible in anyway not just official governments.

It is the job of Congress to approve of Presidential military action after 3 days of deployment by the President as instructed in the War Powers Act.

Congress is not the commander in chief nor can they dictate the president's every action and they are not meant to. It is the president's job to defend this country, Congress is meant to supervise and act as a check through powers of financing military action and impeachment.

Constitutionally, Congress should declare war if we are in a conflict against another nation, but today's gov't sees very little point in that as it limits the President in how far he can go as listed in the Declaration and who he is suppose to attack.

This is very different from the Iraq Resolution in that it instructs Bush to attack the people that attacked us already as well as the wide variety of people that are involved rather than one nation where a declaration of war is more appropriate.

In all of this, Congress has little power in containing the President from attacking another country and completely wrecking it short of impeachment, even without this resolution, Bush could have attacked all of Afghanistan and impeachment would have been very unlikely with the amount of popular support he had.

 

[johngr]

Afghanistan was a legitimate response to the attacks of Sept 11.

According to whom?

That was the HQ of the attackers.

Your evidence for that statement? The sovereign leaders of Afghanistan asked for evidence, said they would hand over bin laden and were rebuked. Why if they had evidence did they not and present it to the Afghanis (I think the reason had to do with near zero Afghani opium production at the time (which exponentially increased after the invasion and occupation) and not having any evidence, among other things)?

 

[barcop]

How do you constitutionally declare war against a terror organization?

As per the constitution... you declare war against a nation and we were not going to war against a nation.... Afganistan.

No?