Favor unilateral retaliation? How long have you been a Bin Laden supporter, anyway?

[Monty]

*Originally posted by Weirddave *

*Originally posted by Monty *
Regardless of the President’s terminology at the moment, the United States is not, technically, at war until the Congress declares it so.

Nifty little thing, that there Constitution.

True.

Oh, so you actually are aware of the very words of said document? Glad we don’t have to cover that Civics lesson.

But the discussion was about an executive order, and what it actually means.

Um, 'twas you who posted

This rule does not apply in times of war. By stating that an “act of war” has been committed, Bush covered this.

Bush hasn’t covered anything yet. The rule applies until it’s invalidated (as in “Congress declares War”) or revoked. Just sitting in the Oval Office and saying “This is War” doesn’t pass the Constitutionality test.

We’re not talking the Constitution,

Since it’s the Constitution which deteremines by whom a state of war is declared for the United States of America, there is absolutely no way (short of being ignorant of the document in question, which you have proven yourself not to be) to discuss war for this country without also discussing the Constitution.

we’re arguing legalities.

Exactly. And the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Under our legal system now, assisination would be legal.

No. See above. Unless and until the Executive Order in question has been invalidated by Congress or revoked by the President, assassination is unlawful.

Thank you for playing Monty, Don Pardo will now tell you about the Rice-a-Roni you have won.

How much did I win? Love the stuff & think that’s a mighty dandy first prize!

[jshore]

Don’t know if this has already been posted in any of the millions of threads on the subject, but here is an article written by a writer of Afghani descent that speaks to the point of the OP:

http://www.tompaine.com/opinion/2001/09/16/index.html