war

[da_nolo]

…what is it good for? absolutely nothing…say it again yall…

besides reading a typed out revision of a song to attempt to imply I am actually singing it…
I created this post to attempt a simplistic approach to ‘powers’ of u.s. congress and u.s. president.

da_nolo:

problem: president may call to war w/o Congress by declaring it to being something else. millions/billions are spent questionably while lives are thrown into the fire for questionable causes/reasons.

solution: rewrite law to allow Congress and only Congress to either “Declare” war or “Announce” war/battle (or some other possible name/word to still clarify that there is a war).
Similar if not same requirements for the declaration of war.
“Announcement” would allow deployment of troops:

w/o necessity of allies nor require their involvement;

require that purpose and reason be fully explained to public w/ media announcement,

online and print literature to full reasons;

punishment towards failure to comply is listed as treason and result in loss of seat & inability to be involved w/ politics;

punishment towards corruption be the same as above PLUS hundred thousand dollar fine (which may be adjusted by public OR judge(s) vote);

open discussion for implementing investigation(s) procedure(s);

decision process may occur w/in 1 to 2 months.

I am not clarifying my position nor implementing that I am the one who had written the above.
share positions and even additions or changes to above or your own thoughts

 

[BlueEyedLady]

1. Only congress can declare war.
2. The president can take military action for only 60 days without congressional approval with an additional 30 day withdrawal period.
3. It isn’t a matter of rewriting the law. We would have to amend the constitution.

 

[Mumbles140]

What is your definition of war? Would our top secret cyberwar against Iran to hinder their nuclear development have to fall under this? Or what about the actions of Seal Team 6 (along with many others, undoubtedly) in taking out Osama bin Laden? Those are only two examples of the types of things you are hoping to publicize, but hopefully they show you the far-reaching implications of this.

 

[tafan]

When the government is functioning correctly, the congress already has the approval. Congress has to agree to pay the bills, so that is that. Now, currently,under the Obama administration, it is not functioning correctly, because of two things

1. Obama ended Bush’s policy of approval of Iraq and Afghan way funding being independently approved by congress outside the normal budgeting process. Obama did this in a very disingenious way, stating that it was invalid accounting and understated the deficit. This is not true, the costs have always been accounted for properly. What Bush did, and to his great credit, is let Congress debate the war funding independently of the rest of the budget. This, in effect, was a declaration of war by congress. The constitution does not say how congress has to declare war, only that it does.
2. And now, the government is not being funded by approved budgets but by continueing spending resolutions, so war funding is even more hidden behind other politics than ever. Can you imagine an anti-war Democratic senator voting with the GOP to shut down the government because he/she did not approve of the Afghan war? Won’t happen.

In summary, until the present administration, I do not agree with the oft-heard statements thatthe previous wars of the US since WWII have not been declared. Congress had to fund them all, on a continueing basis.

 

[GratefulFred]

I think the US Constitution is just fine. Politicians can twist words to seem like they are followng the Constitution regardless of how it it written.

We NEED political leaders to have some real sense of and commitment to the these Principles set down by St Augustine some 1500 years ago.

Principles of the Just War

• A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
• A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
• A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient–see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with “right” intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
• A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
• The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
• The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
• The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.