[Rhodes22-list] What constitutes War; and quick shout out.

Herb Parsons hparsons at parsonsys.com
Sun Jun 29 21:03:57 EDT 2008


Oh nonono, you don't get to put words in my mouth.

You asked if I disagreed. That was with your definition. You have yet to 
show WHAT the Bush or Cheny thinks, nor do I accept that you are their 
spokesperson.

I disagree with YOUR assertion. I haven't heard anything like that from 
the President or VP.

TN Rhodey wrote:
> Herb, I agree that the Constitution is some what vague and muddy....Section
> 8 provides Congress the Power to Declare War with little specifics. So I
> do agree the Constitution is vague. OK? However our current administration
> is maintaining there is a  difference. between Declaration of War and a War
> Resolution.  It is duly noted that you disagree. with Bush ,Cheny and the
> ex-AG and think the two are one in the same. I actually agree with current
> administration on this one....there is a difference.
>
> Just for the record we have  officially Declared War. I will provide you an
> example.  See link for our official declaration of war (WW II) -
> http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/germwar.shtml
>
> I am sure you can find copies of other US Declarations of War. I think we
> have officially declared war 5 times give or take.   Our War resolutions
> have subtle and not so subtle differences from Declarations. Often there are
> funding and/or time limits involved.. If you read a couple of Resolutions
> verses Declarations of War the differences become obvious..
>
> Wally
>
>
>
>
>
> On 6/29/08, Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com> wrote:
>   
>> I disagree. Since there is no formal wording to a declaration of war,
>> how can one say this is or isn't with any certainty? The waters have
>> ALWAYS been muddied, whether you acknowledge it or not, which is the
>> reason that the supreme court had to chime in on the matter a mere 24
>> years after our country was founded.
>>
>> Since there is no "official" declaration of war, how is war declared? By
>> an overt action? By a response to an action? Are the words "We declare
>> war" required? Maybe we can do a Steve Martin thing and say "I make war
>> with thee, I make war with thee, I make war with thee" and then throw
>> dog poopie on their shoe.
>>
>> My point is that certain actions are recognized by most countries as
>> "acts of war", and those actions are considered, or can be considered,
>> by most countries as a declaration merely by their actions.
>>
>> Incursion into another country is considered an act of war. If that
>> action is considered a declaration, then one could reasonably say that
>> when congress approved that action, they were declaring war.
>>
>> It would be interesting, again keeping in mind that we have no official
>> language for "declaring" war, to do a study and find how many of the
>> congresscritters who voted for the resolution have called the results of
>> that resolution "the Iraqi war".
>>
>> On the other issue, I put saying the post of said poster were
>> "chickenshit" (though I DID miss that one) to be no more offensive than
>> said poster referring to the posts of others to be "polluting". Sorry
>> you missed that point.
>>
>>
>> TN Rhodey wrote:
>>     
>>> Herb, I don't know why I try. I did not comment further on the name
>>>       
>> calling
>>     
>>> because it wasn't your post and like I said it is silly. I thought Brad's
>>> "chickenshit" comments were a little over the top. No biggie I guess we
>>>       
>> are
>>     
>>> all adults and no I am not trying to make any changes to the list.
>>>
>>> What is muddy? A quick review.....Rummy said we did not declare war. Ed
>>>       
>> said
>>     
>>> that the resolution was the same thing. I sided with Rummy, and President
>>> Bush.....a War Resolution is different from a Declaration. Honestly from
>>> your post i can not make out your position. Are you saying they are the
>>>       
>> same
>>     
>>> thing? For some reason you are making this more complex than it really
>>>       
>> is.
>>     
>>> Care to comment on our formers AG's quote?  Congress did not vote to
>>>       
>> declare
>>     
>>> war. Congress did pass War Resolution. No value judgement here...just a
>>> fact. There is a difference. Do you disagree? If so why?
>>>
>>> Because we did not declare war treaties and agreements concerning times
>>>       
>> of
>>     
>>> war are not in play.Do you disagree? Why?
>>>
>>> It is not like you to disagree with current administration so maybe I am
>>> missing something.
>>>
>>> Well I will go back into troll mode. I really do hope some of you are
>>> sailing.
>>>
>>> Wally
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/29/08, Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Actually, the war powers act muddied the waters. As I stated previously,
>>>> there is nothing that says what is a declaration of war. In days of old,
>>>> and act of war was considered a de-facto resolution. of war. Then little
>>>> skirmishes came up. A blockade here, taking of a vessel there, incursion
>>>> on sovereign ground here and there. These types of actions are what
>>>> caused the case mentioned to be taken to the SC in the 1800's. Those
>>>> bringing the case, and cases similar to hit, said "this is war, and the
>>>> constitution clearly says that congress must declare war". The war
>>>> powers act acted on the SC decision, and actions involving "limited
>>>> hostility" (most notably Vietnam), by saying that they, Congress, were
>>>> going to be the ones to decide what constitutes "limited hostility".
>>>>
>>>> The problem is that "that side" had already said that these actions are
>>>> war. So now we have Congress voting for "these actions" which were
>>>> considered war. If/when Congress votes to allow something that they, and
>>>> others, consider to be war, and Congress must vote to DECLARE war, well,
>>>> I think any right thinking person can see how folks will say - you just
>>>> declared war with that vote.
>>>>
>>>> Muddy the waters a little more with the idea that most of the Presidents
>>>> since the voting of the war powers act view it as an unconstitutional
>>>> incursion on the powers of the executive branch, and basically don't
>>>> acknowledge its validity. Because of that, you will regularly find
>>>> wording similar to Mr Gonzales.
>>>>
>>>> I you are mistaken on the current administration's stance on the Geneva
>>>> convention. The stand is that the enemy combatants are members of
>>>> terrorist groups, not members of a recognized army, and thus are not
>>>> party to the GC.
>>>>
>>>> I noticed that you asserted I "missed" the name calling, but didn't give
>>>> an example. I don't think any exist, care to enlighten me? There were
>>>> some pretty silly accusations made, such as calling other posts
>>>> "polluting"; but I didn't see the name calling.
>>>>
>>>> TN Rhodey wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> Herb, Relax....Please re-read my post. I stated that war resolutions
>>>>>           
>> are
>>     
>>>> not
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> the same as a War Declaration. I was agreeing with Rummy's post. Please
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> note
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> I didn't claim the many past and current "War" Resolutions were
>>>>>           
>> illegal.
>>     
>>>> I
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> really don't know how you got that from my post. I claim they are not
>>>>>           
>> the
>>     
>>>>> same....do you disagree? Former AG Gonzales and the current
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> administration
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> agree with me.
>>>>>
>>>>> To quote Gonazales before Senate Hearing 2/6/06...:GONZALES: "There was
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> not
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It
>>>>>           
>> was
>>     
>>>> an
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> authorization to use military force. I only want to clarify that,
>>>>>           
>> because
>>     
>>>>> there are implications. Obviously, when you talk about a war
>>>>>           
>> declaration,
>>     
>>>>> you're possibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic relations.
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> And
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> so there is a distinction in law and in practice. And we're not talking
>>>>> about a war declaration. This is an authorization only to use military
>>>>> force."
>>>>>
>>>>> I do have a problem with the US holding people in prisons for years
>>>>>           
>> with
>>     
>>>> no
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> trial. I did mention the recent SC ruling...do your own research
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> regarding
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> this ruling. The recent ruling did not involve the legality of the
>>>>> Resolution and neither did my post. This is the ruling I mentioned. I
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> don't
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> think War Resolutions are illegal. Got it?
>>>>>
>>>>> I do think that (in most cases) if we decide to attack a country we
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> should
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> go "all in" and have Congress vote to Declare War. If past perforamance
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> is
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> any indication of future results....well it just seems we have better
>>>>> results when we declare war verses "resolutions".
>>>>>
>>>>> Regarding childish names I don't doubt you missed them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Been sailing lately? Fair Winds!
>>>>>
>>>>> TN Rhodey - Wally
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 6/29/08, Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>>> TN,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe you could be so kind as to reference where the "official"
>>>>>> declaration of war wording for the US can be located. In the Bas v.
>>>>>> Tingy case in 1800, the Supreme Court clearly ruled that the executive
>>>>>> branch had the power for limited action (action that would normally be
>>>>>> called "an act of war") without declaration, or approval, of Congress.
>>>>>> Since that ruling, there have been various instrument to attempt to
>>>>>> quantify just how limited that limited action can be. The war powers
>>>>>>             
>> act
>>     
>>>>>> of 1973 was probably the best known of those attempts. No matter if
>>>>>>             
>> you
>>     
>>>>>> agree with Congress constitutional "right" to pass such a restriction
>>>>>>             
>> on
>>     
>>>>>> the executive branch, one thing is clear.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The President acted within the restraint of that act.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In 1992 Congress overwhelmingly passed a joint resolution authorizing
>>>>>> the President's action.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> SC Precedent says this war is allowed, both sides of Congress
>>>>>>             
>> authorized
>>     
>>>>>> it, and the President acted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In what way do you think something was done improperly? Maybe they
>>>>>> forgot to check with you first?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What childish names were called, I must have missed that one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TN Rhodey wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> I still get list emails but seldom have time to read and even less to
>>>>>>> respond. I will say all is well and we just paid off our home. Sweet!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Some of the subjects catch my interest but I delete most withourt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> reading.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> This is going to be quite an election. Brad was talking about voting
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>> for
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> Clinton, Bill E supporting a republican! Well I am sure Ed still
>>>>>>>               
>> thinks
>>     
>>>>>>> everyone who disagrees with him is a Socialist or commie .....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No Ed the resolution is not the same as an actual declaration and
>>>>>>>               
>> that
>>     
>>>> is
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>>>> why there is a fuss.  We need to step up and declare war when we want
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>> to
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>>>> attack a country. However not doing so (declaring war) allows us to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> ignore
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> Geneva Convention and according to current admin the constitution.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> Luckily
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> the Supreme Court corrected some of this in recent decision.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes Brad it is true that thousands of POWs died in hell hole prison
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>> camps
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>>>> during Civil War. This has nothing to do with today's issues but it
>>>>>>>               
>> is
>>     
>>>>>>> no excuse for our current behavior. We also allowed slavery back then
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> By the same logic ....should we bring slavery back. No sir we have
>>>>>>>               
>> come
>>     
>>>> a
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>>>> long way as a country. There is much to like and admire about McCain.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>> But
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>>> it
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> is hard to believe he has flip flopped so much on the issue of
>>>>>>>               
>> torture
>>     
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> treatment of detainees. Using the argument that they do worse to us
>>>>>>>               
>> is
>>     
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> not
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> relevant. I don't use terrorists behavior as our standard. We are
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>> better
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>>>> than that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My thoughts on the election...Do folks really think the Hillary's
>>>>>>>               
>> women
>>     
>>>>>>> supporters will not fall in line and vote for Obama? Once they figure
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>> out
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>>>> that Supreme Court judges and Roe Vs. Wade may be at stake  they will
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> vote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> Democrat. The polls all show Obama ahead but there is plenty of time
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>> for
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>>>> either candidate to implode. Despite what they say both sides are in
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>> bed
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>>>> with the usual tacky lobbyist groups. Money and politics always go
>>>>>>>               
>> hand
>>     
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> hand.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I tried hard to pick one of the big two but it looks like Bob Barr is
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> going
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> to get my vote.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh yeah.....Why did you guys jump so hard on Ron? He figured out what
>>>>>>>               
>> I
>>     
>>>>>>> figured out over a year ago.  Do any of you guys even go sailing
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>> anymore?
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>>>> Calling a guy childish names for deciding not get drawn into silly
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> arguments
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> with people who have already made up their minds....well it just
>>>>>>>               
>> seems
>>     
>>>>>>> silly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fair winds....I will go back into troll mode.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> TN Rhodey
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/23/08, Tootle <ekroposki at charter.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>> Rummy said, "Question? I don't believe that the United States has
>>>>>>>> officially
>>>>>>>> declared  war
>>>>>>>> on Iraq, have we? The Vietnam war wasn't a declared war either, it
>>>>>>>>                 
>> was
>>     
>>>> a
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>>>>> "police action". Same holds true with Korea. The last declared war
>>>>>>>>                 
>> was
>>     
>>>>>>>> WWII.
>>>>>>>> Correct me if I'm wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I believe that the Congressional authorization against Iraq is
>>>>>>>>                 
>> legally
>>     
>>>>>>>> considered a declaration of war.  I do not believe that you find the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>> word
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>>> 'declaration of war' in the subject line, but the language is
>>>>>>>>                 
>> legally
>>     
>>>>>>>> conclusive.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is why we still have all the fuss over that resolution.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For what it is worth department.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ed K
>>>>>>>> Greenville, SC, USA
>>>>>>>> "One of the challenges we have is to be able to read the fine print
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>> indoors
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>>> without any sunlight."  Kai Abelkis
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> View this message in context:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                 
>> http://www.nabble.com/What-constitutes-War--reply-to-Captain-Rummy-tp18067074p18067074.html
>>     
>>>>>>>> Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go
>>>>>>>>                 
>> to
>>     
>>>>>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go
>>>>>>>               
>> to
>>     
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>>>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> __________________________________________________
>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>>>       
>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>     
>>> __________________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> __________________________________________________
>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>> __________________________________________________
>>
>>     
> __________________________________________________
> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> __________________________________________________
>
>
>
>   


More information about the Rhodes22-list mailing list