>
> I'm not sure exactly how I feel about the military tribunals, but I'm not
> sure this is a fair statement. I've felt that the main reason that we
> having officially declared war is because there's no one to actually declare
> war ON.
Perhaps, but there's certainly legal issues regarding war, the
declaration thereof, and the powers that the government can LEGALLY
exercise - all dependent upon an actual declaration of war.. not to
mention social and political realities.
I'm sorry, but we are not at war. Dropping some bombs from the safety
of 30,000 feet while our puppet army (a corrupt, monarchal puppet army
with a shoddy human rights record that China would be ashamed of)
attacks is NOT war (unless, somehow, we're now going to retroactively
declare all the other military actions we've taken like this in the past
"war" and prosecute the Executive branch at the time for overstepping
their bounds.. its Congress that declares war, NOT President Cheney)
Bob z replies:
I think this is the key point. We do allow for certain curtailment of rights during wars. The president and executive branch of government are given more power and leeway. But this is done within the context of congress declaring war and granting the executive branch a lot of latitude within the period of time of the war. The checks and balances of our government are not suspended. The administration has unilaterally changed and compromised some of the basic freedoms that distinguish us from other societies. We are asked to trust them that they will not abuse these powers. But their very actions are an abuse of this power and these actions make us distrustful of our own government.
> Meaning that there's no one foreign government behind what happened
> on Sept 11th. Sure, we are spanking the Taliban but that's more because
> they won't turn over bin Laden, isn't it?
You betchya.. but in most Americans minds, Afghanistan is behind the
attack, not merely a target of convenience that happened along when we
were pissed and throwing our weight around - "You're with us or you're
with the terrorists" was what George Jr said, wasn't it? How much more
of a shortsighted, narrow, and backwater a foreign policy statement
could he possibly have made? *sigh*
> If it had been Iraq or someone like that behind
> the attacks, I think the USA would have declared war immediately on that
> country and we would have our declaration of war.
Rose colored glasses, John?
There's quite a heap of evidence that Iraq was behind this, or at least,
offered FAR MORE support to AQ than the Taliban ever did, but we're not
bombing their children, are we?
-j-
