I don’t disagree with that. For every logical argument, one need merely deny the premise to topple the whole thing. If a man accepts coercion as ethical, then my argument will make no sense to him. But noncoercion goes both ways. Dictators ought not to oppress their people, and governments ought not to interfere in the affairs of people they don’t govern. If you are like most people, I think, you exercise this brittle, fragile rationale yourself. If you knew your neighbor was severley abusing his daughter and the authorities refused to do anything about it, you might feel compelled to rescue her yourself or to arrange it to be done. But just because your neighbor is a monster doesn’t mean that Mexico should send its authorities.
Why don’t we have formal “declaration of war” anymore? Seems the whole Iraqi invasion was illegal from the start-and Congress should have insisted that there be a vote on a formal declaration of war. but, hey Vietnam wasn’t a war either! :smack:
The idea that the AUMF wasn’t a declaration of war is a semantic quibble. Congress told Bush that they did their part, and it was up to him to invade or not.
It does get tiresome pointing this out, but after all, after 5 years we have yet to see a cogent retort to it, so one more unto the breach it is:
You have just justified the attack on Pearl Harbor.
John Mace: “Semantic quibble”??? :dubious: :dubious: Words mean what you want them to mean, is that it? Or is it that the GOP-controlled MSM’s preferred meaning matters more to you than what Congress itself said? Come one now.
If a robber tells the bank clerk that he’s only borrowing the money, he’ll still be convicted in court for theft. The AUMF does not contain the words “declaration of war”, but it authorized the president to wage war. It’s functionally the same. If you think I’m mistaken, can you point out the functional difference between this AUMF and a Declaration of War? Sure, it says Bush needs to try diplomacy first, but Bush is the sole judge of whether that diplomacy works or not. Had Congress reserved the right to judge whether the diplomatic efforts were sufficient, then I’d say there was a functional difference.
But it wasn’t just ERRORS in intelligence. That Nigerian yellowcake scheme was cooked up by SOMEBODY, it wasn’t something the Italian secret service did as a goof. And the Bush Admin. IGNORED Joe Wilson’s report that the yellowcake claims were bullshit. Heck, the Bush Admin. set up a special office specifically for distorting intelligence on the Iraq war.
The Bush Admin. didn’t make MISTAKES on intelligence: they LIED to deliberately mislead Congress and the American people into supporting their longed-for war. This makes them TOTALLY and SOLELY responsible for Iraq.
AFTER exhausting all diplomatic options. Have you actually read the thing? Do you actually remember the discussion at the time about that exact topic? No?
IOW, words mean what you want them to mean. Gotcha.
There you go.
Please. Can you point out where he ever even pretended to mean he’d try it? Or admit that this authorization was obtained under false pretenses and is therefore null?
You’re just a step away from Rove here, friend. It isn’t a “lie”, it’s a “semantic quibble”. :rolleyes:
Can you quote the section where it says “all diplomatic” options? I’ll help you out. Here’s the relevant part: " In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and…"
No, it means what it says. It gives the president sole authority to determine if he wants to wage war. If that’s not functionally equivalent, then I don’t what it is. I can name my cat “dog”, but it’s still a cat.
IOW, you can’t.
I never said he did.
Wow. Talk about reading something into it that isn’t there…
You’re being funny again, Elvis. I thought you have stopped doing that!!
Apparently you haven’t actually read it, as I suspected. *Here * is the relevant part:
I do trust you can acknowledge that Bush never actually intended to do any of that in anything resembling good faith? :rolleyes:
For pity’s sake … do you *really * contend that Bush acted according to the meaning of the authorization he was granted? :rolleyes: Really?
“There you go” is the “functional equivalent” here of “you already did it your ownself”. :rolleyes:
Yet that is the heart of the question, innit? Try *addressing * it, if you wish to convince anyone else of your position, that is.
To repeat, that is the *heart * of the issue. You can either *address * it, or let it remain clear that you have nothing to say of any substance on this topic.
Ho-hum. That’s the same tired ad hominem you normally revert to every time you get caught out. Time for a new act, pal.
Oh, all right, it’s true that Bush interprets anything Congress does as authorizing him to do whatever the hell he wants (ref. his “signing statements”), and perhaps that does constitute “functional equivalencY” as you seem to define it - but only by diving into the rabbit hole into the same Wonderland in which he resides, with the Queen of Hearts telling him what to do.
Is *that * as “functionally equivalent” to what you assert as it appears to those of us hampered by a mere surface-world understanding of language?
You are either lying or your memory is faulty. Since you have access to the same thread I do, I’m going to go with lying. in post 20 of the thread in question, SentientMeat says this:
to which you reply
In post 13, part of which I have already quoted, cuauhtemoc says:
If you weren’t on one of your little hiatuses, why was everyone welcoming you back?
On to your lies about the Neville Chamberlain comparison:
You never heard the “appeasement” canard? The endless comparisons to Neville Chamberlain? That’s a lie. You’re lying. They were everywhere. YOU USED THEM YOURSELF!
And here you are, still trying to say that we are Saddam lovers, after American actions have destroyed a country and resulted in a million deaths. How despicable. Have you no shame? What does your god think about all the lies you tell?
A million people have died during this war, which was sold to the American people on lies and launched in violation of the United Nations charter. My money and your money paid for those deaths. That’s what’s fucking wrong with it. When Saddam was being a tyrant, at least I wasn’t paying for it. Yes, the Iraqi people suffered under Saddam. They have suffered worse under us.
This is typical libertarian bullshit. You think private entities should have the power to wage war? That’s madness. That’s feudalism. You’re trying to have it both ways. You want to feel all manly by getting your war on, yet you want to wash your hands of the suffering your war has caused. In fact, you though that the war might go badly, and you knew that there would be lots of civilian casualties, so you posted this:
You are cearly arguing that the invasion would be a good thing. You call the idea that negotiations would kill fewer civilians than invasion “myopic, jejune and Neanderthal”. You were wrong, and laughably so. Well, it would be laughable if so many people weren’t dead. “I’m not to blame, because I’m a libertarian,” you say. And then you spew the most vile warmongering insults, trying to paint your opponents, who actually were against the war, as “Saddam lovers”. It was a despicable act of moral cowardice. And here, in this thread, you’re trying to do it again:
You wish I was arguing that. That is a despicable warmongering smear, and I demand an immediate apology.
You know damn well what the war opponents were arguing: We shouldn’t go to war because Saddam, while being a bad guy, didn’t attack us. We have other fish to fry elsewhere. Saddam is contained.
And now, years, hundreds of thousands of deaths, and hundreds of millions of dollars later, Iraq is in shambles and Osama bin Laden is still at large.
More typical libertarian waffling. Was the tooth fairy supposed to liberate them? No, the US military was going to “liberate” them. You knew that when you insulted and smeared war opponents in 2003. And you also knew that you were creating plausible deniability for yourself.
I just want to leave that out there so people can see again what your attitude at the time was. “Brain dead liberals”, you smeared, were “defending the monster.” But hey, you weren’t for the invasion. You were just against liberals. Who were rightfully against the invasion.
Now, murders are taking place that are a direct result of our actions. Actions that you supported. Except that you didn’t support them, because you’re a libertarian. But you jumped in—returning to the board with the express intent of doing so—and insulted and demeaned war opponents at the time rather than standing with them, because when it comes to insulting liberals, you just can’t help yourself!
The rage is right here on the page, and it comes from reading the insults, waffling and displays of moral cowardice you wrote in 2003. You tried to misrepresent your position by selectively quoting your own despicable words, and I called you on it.
Well, at least you didn’t call me a traitor. You spent many, many words demeaning, strawmanning and insulting war opponents and then spent about a paragraph hedging your bets, saying that because you’re a libertarian who doesn’t like government, that you’re not responsible for what the government does. Even though you make the warmongering argument yourself.
Moral. Cowardice.
Elvis, you’re pretty much entirely wrong on every interpretation you’ve made of the authorization for force against Iraq.
-
An authorization for the use of military force is equally valid as a declaration of war. Use of force authorizations have been passed by Congress going back to the 18th century. The main difference between the two is that there are a load of US laws that only activate when a declaration of war is passed, but not an authorization for the use of military force. (Some of those laws include FISA, unlimited callups of National Guard and Reserves for unlimited time, greater executive control over various parts of the economy, etc.)
-
The authorization did not contain any requirement to exhaust all diplomatic efforts to depose Saddam. The part you cited merely says that Congress supports the President’s efforts to have the UN Security Council get tough on Iraq. That’s all.
What’s more, the Congress gave the President sole discretion when to use military force, AND it required a report from the President that “reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.”
That resolution made the President the sole judge, jury and executioner WRT how much diplomatic effort to put in, when those efforts could no longer bear fruit, and when to invade. That’s why it was a bad resolution.
And this has nothing to do with signing statements. Congress handed over its war powers lock, stock and barrel to the President, and by a pretty substantial vote, too. And yes, Bush acted precisely to the meaning of a dangerous law passed by a Congress more concerned with the 2002 elections than the separation of powers. Again, that’s why it was a bad resolution.
- There’s no precedent whatsoever for a law “obtained under false pretenses” being somehow rendered “null.” That takes a court case (no court would ever rule on, BTW) or a new law (which can’t pass till Bush is gone). I can hardly believe you’d say something so preposterous.
You’re ignoring the conditionality of the “authorization” on exhausting the UN approach first. I did not quote the entire thing, of course, but the list of Whereases (which I trust you’ll admit defines intent) is focused primarily on that.
You’re also ignoring the false pretenses problem, which, as I reminded John, is at the heart of the validity of any authorization based upon it. That’s *moral * validity we’re referring to.
This isn’t about finding some technical loophole that can be interpreted as justifying whatever one wants to do, it’s about war. In short, you too are reading it in a narrow, lawyerly way, not as a citizen or statesperson would and should.
Elvis: It’s clear that you are just making shit up to support your predetermined conclusion, since the part Section 2 of the AUMF that you quoted does not in any way require the president to exhaust all diplomatic measures. It just says that Congress supports the efforts Bush is making-- it doesn’t require him to do anything.
The authorization in Section 3 is clear as can be. The president is authorized to use force once he determines that diplomacy alone will not bring about the desired result. If you want to get hyper-technical and take the literal meaning of that authorization, it doesn’t even require that any future diplomatic efforts be made at all. It just says that Bush has to determine that any further diplomatic efforts will not work.
I see no point in further discussion with you on this subject. Enjoy your weekend.
Time for me to take up my accustomed role as peacemaker, bringing the balm of sweet reason. You’re both right, and therein lies the mastery of this document.
“Yes, repeat, no!” a phrase I picked up from John LeCarres stories about spies. It is a phrase that describes a set of very precise instuctions that mean almost nothing, but serve to rid the author of the burden of responsibility. It presents mutually contradictory parameters, so that no matter what the result, the author can claim to have instructed the correct course of action, and if things turn to shit, well, hell, we told you not to. Or if things turn out peach keen, well, hey, you did what we told you, and it worked! “Yes, repeat, No!”
The authorization, and the attendant arguments, served precisely for that. It included references to diplomacy that sorta kinda looked like they might be actual “instructions”, but left a trap door. And GeeDub was claiming to be quite content with such wording, surely he wasn’t about to start a war for no good reason, why, that would be crazy! No, no, of course he wasn’t going to do anything so stupid, perfectly happy to have such llanguage included. But, of course, somebody must decide, and the Executive, he’s the decider.
The document itself isn’t at grevious fault, its the man to whom it was given. If the President could have been trusted, there is no fault to the authorization, it does, in fact, do what *would have been * needed if the President wasn’t a lying sack. The AUMG had everything it should have had but a “Thou shalt NOT!” clause. Yes, repeat No.
Whats’ that Bob Seegar line? “I wish I didn’t know now what I didn’t know then”? Most of us did not yet know what a piece of crap had been installed as President. Some of us did, but who listens to crazy radicals? Of course the President would act in good faith, he’s the President! Besides, you don’t* know * he’ll fuck it up, you can’t prove he’ll screw the pooch, all you got is your judgement of his character, and all you Bush haters…yadda blah, yadda blah…
And finally, the sad truth is that the AUMF probably, near certainly, reflected the will of a misled people. If it were possible to submit that document to an instant national referendum, it likely would have carried. And that might have been ok, had we a worthy man for President.
Yes, repeat, No!
Or, as Otter put it, “You fucked up! You trusted us!”.
Sorry, but that’s just not correct. It simply does not say the president must exhaust all diplomatic efforts first. It doesn’t. It does seem to imply that some further efforts should be extended, but it clearly allows Bush to decide when enough is enough. He just has to report back to Congress once that happens, but there is nothing that says Congress will do anything other than listen.
That is the point I was making earlier about the Levin amendment, which was voted down. That had teeth in it to allow Congress to determine if those efforts were “enough”. From the NYT article I linked to earlier:
John, there is simply no point in being a strict textualist about a document built around ambiguity.
I don’t think it was built around ambiguity. And I’m not sure how you’ve determined that. Just because it seems to be missing something that we wish was in there, doesn’t mean that it might actually be in there, hidden somewhere in lawyerly language. And when we know for certain that the desired language was explicitly voted down (by both Houses of Congress), I don’t see any reason for us to add it back in after the fact.
But even if we accept that it’s ambiguous (which I don’t, but for the sake of argument), then the proper response is not: No, the document insists that X must happen first! You obviously haven’t read it. The proper response is: It’s ambiguous. Hard to say if the document requires X to happen first.
I am old and remember an America that claimed ,true or not, that we did not attack other countries unless they attacked us first.
I remember how we were the shining light that would not torture because we know it is wrong. We were ruled by law and principal. Whether it was true or not , we could pretend it to be so. We no longer can. We are a different country now. Maybe we can never go back. Bush and Cheney have downgraded us to another opportunistic rogue nation. We can not be trusted to tell the truth in any forum.