http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm

"The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001."

"The President's constitutional power to defend the United States and the lives of its people must be understood in light of the Founders' express intention to create a federal government "cloathed with all the powers requisite to [the] complete execution of its trust." The Federalist No. 23, at 122 (Alexander Hamilton) (Charles R. Kesler ed., 1999)."

__________________
Jones:- We're going to teach them climbing, abseiling, canoeing, archery, shooting...

Interviewer:- Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible isn't it?

Jones:- I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the range.

Interviewer:- Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?
You're equipping them to become violent killers.

Jones:- Well, you're equipped to be a prostitute but you're not one are you?

Obviously, the President has the power to protect the United States from imminent attack or in light of self-defense.

Iraq was neither.

No. They passed that "authorization of force" to the President.

Your opinion.

We have already established that it was believed that they were a threat. Read the rest of the link I posted. You will find that it is well within the constitutional rights of the president to authorize military action without a declaration of war.

Well the second and third lines are enough.

"The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.

The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11."

You have no argument here friend.

__________________
Jones:- We're going to teach them climbing, abseiling, canoeing, archery, shooting...

Interviewer:- Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible isn't it?

Jones:- I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the range.

Interviewer:- Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?
You're equipping them to become violent killers.

Jones:- Well, you're equipped to be a prostitute but you're not one are you?

And more.

"Article II, section 2, of the Constitution provides that the President "shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." By virtue of this constitutional office he has supreme command over the land and naval forces of the country and may order them to perform such military duties as, in his opinion, are necessary or appropriate for the defense of the United States. These powers exist in time of peace as well as in time of war."

__________________
Jones:- We're going to teach them climbing, abseiling, canoeing, archery, shooting...

Interviewer:- Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible isn't it?

Jones:- I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the range.

Interviewer:- Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?
You're equipping them to become violent killers.

Jones:- Well, you're equipped to be a prostitute but you're not one are you?

OP: If the war bothers you so much, why are you crying about it over the internet? Shouldn't you be leading a march in DC, or maybe planning an anti-government bombing? Obviously, the anti-war cause doesn't matter enough to you for you to do something about it other than whine. On the other hand, our volunteer army cares enough in favor of the war to stand up and put their lives on the line. You're entitled to your belief; and if it's that important, go do something real about it.

__________________
Educating the world, one blogger at a time.

Read carefully. Try to understand.


The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

On matters of the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression - it is the Security Council that "shall determine" whether these things exist.

Not individual nations. The wording says exactly that they decide for the other nations. By agreeing to this clause in this treaty, the USA has agreed that in matters between UN Member States - the USA relinquishes its right to decide on the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression - because the UN Security Council SHALL DETERMINE this


What is to ignore?

It says that if the UN Security Council has determined that threat exists - then the UN Seciurity Council shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Why do you keep ingoring the words directly after those - " or decide what measures shall be taken"

It is very clear.

By invading a UN member nation without sanction from the UN Security Council - it is the invading nation(s) that has determined the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression.

This is contrary to Article 39, which says that the UN Security Council will determine this - NOT the member nation.

And it was the member nation that decided what measures would be taken in response to this perceived threat.

This is contrary to Article 39, which says that the UN Security Council will decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Because the action was directly contrary to the provisions of Article 39 - it is illegal under Article 39.

I don't know how I can explain this any more simply to you.

If you don't understand how to read law - please don't try to pretend that you do.

__________________
Have you ever stood toe to toe with someone that was intent on kicking your arse? C-D-P

yep, why don't you do something helpful like kufnaka here, and post on an internet forum. you tell him kufnaka

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bushfan http://www.politicalforum.com/images...s/viewpost.gif Pelosi calls Mr. Bush a Failure in Eeverything. You just can't hide a public eduation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rusticus Rove is s the slime on which this whole administration slid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raharu Haruha And spending money is nothing more than another form of voting.

Well - the USA is a signatory to the UN Charter and this forms part of US Law under Article 6 of your Constitution.

If you don't like it - ask your government to withdraw from the UN

Yes they can make recommendations OR determine what actions will be taken - that pretty much covers everything.
No - article 42 describes what actions the UNSC may determine may be taken:
Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.
eg - the Allied military action in Kuwait in 1991.

__________________
Have you ever stood toe to toe with someone that was intent on kicking your arse? C-D-P

No, you are wrong.

Article 39 is very clear in defining the role of the UN Security Council with respect to acts of agression between member states.

Your opinion has no basis. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise.

__________________
Have you ever stood toe to toe with someone that was intent on kicking your arse? C-D-P