Where is the US Congressional Declaration of War...

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

choff
Posts: 2447
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:02 am
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Post by choff »

Only if he likes peaches.
CHoff

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

ladajo wrote:Where is the mandate not to "murder" Ghaddafi (spelling optional)?
I always liked Kdaffy.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

ladajo wrote:The question is simple and direct.
Where in international law does it say a Head of State can not be killed in a conflict?
I believe it is fall out from the treaty of Westphalia - 1648.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

More importantly, if some worry that Bush bent the rules in going to war with Iraq
Uh. No. Look up the AUMF for the Iraq War. Now compare it to the AUMF for the War Against the Barbary Pirates (I don't recall if it was the first or second Barbary War - I seem to remember Jefferson so probably the first).

Just about identical.

I can't tell about International Law but Bush did follow American rules.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

MSimon wrote:
ladajo wrote:The question is simple and direct.
Where in international law does it say a Head of State can not be killed in a conflict?
I believe it is fall out from the treaty of Westphalia - 1648.
There is some custom, but no law. And certainly there is no American Way of War law. For example, if we had gone nuclear with the russians, we most certainly would have targeted the government en mass.

The whole argument is more a manifestation of the media and pundits who know naught. Like a number of things I guess.

Westphalia codified the relatively new concept of sovereignty. A concept that may not last the test of time. But in the mean time it has proven an effective tool to support the claim of nations that, 'what is mine is mine, including what I can get away with taking from you.' It has also become a convenient shield to hide behind by many an @$$hole. I like to think of it as teh official beginning of "lawfare".

rjaypeters
Posts: 869
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:04 pm
Location: Summerville SC, USA

Post by rjaypeters »

ladajo wrote:Dude,
you've been staffer Form Letter rubbber stamped.
Indeed, I have. I expected no more. I did get a similar snail-mail letter from my other Senator, though Senator Graham supports the intervetion in Libya. Just as much staffer rubber stamped, too.

On the matter of Congress not doing anything other than sending letters: the War Powers Resolution will become even more worthless than it was unless Congress forces the issue with the President. Doesn't look like Congress is going to...
"Aqaba! By Land!" T. E. Lawrence

R. Peters

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

The complicating factor is the use of NATO. This has now become a treaty issue.

rjaypeters
Posts: 869
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:04 pm
Location: Summerville SC, USA

Post by rjaypeters »

I honestly don't see how, I thought NATO was a defensive alliance. Has Libya attacked our NATO allies?

A separate thread would be the opportunity to reduce our entangling alliances by withdrawing from NATO. Oh, and bringing home hundreds, if not thousands of under-utilized servicemen and women. And maybe saving some money, too.
"Aqaba! By Land!" T. E. Lawrence

R. Peters

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

rjaypeters wrote:I honestly don't see how, I thought NATO was a defensive alliance. Has Libya attacked our NATO allies?

A separate thread would be the opportunity to reduce our entangling alliances by withdrawing from NATO. Oh, and bringing home hundreds, if not thousands of under-utilized servicemen and women. And maybe saving some money, too.
Lovely thought.

Unfortunately America is the guarantor of the international system (such as it is).

Britain abdicated that role in the 20s and 30s and America did not step up to the plate. We got the roaring (gun barrels) 40s. To prevent a repeat of that the current system was developed. It has worked pretty well for 65 years because - for better or worse - America is the only power that everybody trusts - at least to some extent.

When peace keepers are wanted who is everyone's first choice? Americans.

If America was no longer backing the system it would all get sorted out in time the way those things are usually sorted out. But the usual way is bad for business.

You think what we are doing now is expensive? What do you think a world war will cost? If it comes to a world war we are well positioned (for now) to prevail.

Of course the Libya thing is stupid in execution. It is no reason to shut down the whole system.

Just as a fire at one oil refinery in America is no reason to shut down all refineries. Or one bad oil spill as a reason to shut down oil exploration.

We have a bad President - should we opt for a dictatorship as an alternative?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

rjaypeters wrote:I honestly don't see how, I thought NATO was a defensive alliance. Has Libya attacked our NATO allies?

A separate thread would be the opportunity to reduce our entangling alliances by withdrawing from NATO. Oh, and bringing home hundreds, if not thousands of under-utilized servicemen and women. And maybe saving some money, too.
NATO can mobilize under deferent articles. For example an Article 5 would be the most robust. There were many debates over this regarding the use of NATO in Afghanistan. In the end, it is up to the Political and Political Military Commitees. If they vote yes on it, then it can happen. The argument normally revolves around which article to invoke.

rjaypeters
Posts: 869
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:04 pm
Location: Summerville SC, USA

Post by rjaypeters »

MSimon wrote:
rjaypeters wrote:I honestly don't see how, I thought NATO was a defensive alliance. Has Libya attacked our NATO allies?

A separate thread would be the opportunity to reduce our entangling alliances by withdrawing from NATO. Oh, and bringing home hundreds, if not thousands of under-utilized servicemen and women. And maybe saving some money, too.
Lovely thought.

[snip]

When peace keepers are wanted who is everyone's first choice? Americans.

[snip]

You think what we are doing now is expensive? What do you think a world war will cost? If it comes to a world war we are well positioned (for now) to prevail.

Of course the Libya thing is stupid in execution. It is no reason to shut down the whole system.

Just as a fire at one oil refinery in America is no reason to shut down all refineries. Or one bad oil spill as a reason to shut down oil exploration.

We have a bad President - should we opt for a dictatorship as an alternative?
Whoa! I didn't say bring everybody, from all around the world, home. I'd specifically keep our obligations to South Korea and Taiwan intact. Oh, and the Japanese, too.

NATO and Europe are my particular bette noire because their aggregate economy is large enough to support a robust military to guard their interests, which largely coincide with ours. If the europeans want a Libyan adventure, they can foot the bill in treasure and blood.

Just because Americans are the least distrusted around the world doesn't mean it is our obligation to answer every call.

Also, note I, in another thread, question the composition of the U.S. Navy under a petroleum-becomes-less-critical-to-Western-civilization scenario, but I don't advocate shutting down the U.S. Navy. I agree with you, freedom of navigation is in our best interest, and we should be footing the bill for it.
"Aqaba! By Land!" T. E. Lawrence

R. Peters

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

Right, and keep in mind that the entrie premise of Freedom of Navigation is to put forth UNCLOS and also sustain issues of sovereignty.

choff
Posts: 2447
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:02 am
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Post by choff »

Another way to look at it, under NORAD Canadian soldiers serve inside Cheyenne Mountain, If the proverbial $hyt ever hit the fan they would be involved in the launch process, in effect attacking a foreign power with nuclear weapons under US command, also directing US forces. No involvement by the Canadian government, all under treaty.
CHoff

rjaypeters
Posts: 869
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:04 pm
Location: Summerville SC, USA

Post by rjaypeters »

Indeed, two of the best officers with whom I ever served were Canadian majors assigned to NORAD (in the Headquarters, though). We (USAF) suspected the Canadians sent their very best south.
"Aqaba! By Land!" T. E. Lawrence

R. Peters

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

NATO and Europe are my particular bette noire
Ramstein is important as a support base for our kinetic adventure in the ME.

http://www.popsugar.com/Pictures-Angeli ... e-16689234

http://www.stripes.com/news/europe/phot ... e-1.143485

http://homepost.kpbs.org/2011/05/angeli ... ase-video/

=======================================

What is the old saw?

Amateurs study battles, professionals study logistics.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Post Reply