So, you are not going to answer my questions?

Discussions are two-way streets. I answered your questions (multiple times, I might add, despite your insistence that I did not). Please give me the same courtesy.

How do you prove an "imminent threat" and still have time to get it through Congress without it becoming a "what the hell happened and why didn't we act sooner?"

BTW, we had Congressional authorization for Afghanistan.

Also, Letters of Marque were outlawed with the Declaration of Paris. We are not signatories of that agreement, but try to get that passed in the international community. Does a Letter of Marque apply to the President? I thought that it only grants Congress the ability to grant this authority to private citizens.

Congress authorized the use of force in Iraq. This satisfies Jim's requirement of Congressional approval. Congress also authorized the use of force in Afghanistan. This, again, fulfills Jim's request for Congressional approval.

Congress authorizes military force and it is up to the President to apply that force. The Legislative branch is not in charge of the military, the Executive branch is in charge of the military. Therefore, all Congress can do is authorize the military to be used. They did that and the President used that authorization to apply military force. I see no breach of the Constitution. Congress did what they are allowed to do (no more) and the President did what he was allowed to do (no more).

What would happen if you used a Letter of Marque on Osama? Who do you send in to get him and what do you think would be the reprisals for doing so? Do you think that the Taliban would allow Americans (or anyone else given the authority under a letter of Marque) to enter their country and go after someone they are protecting? THe Letter would be directed at Osama. What about the rest of the the terrorist organizations around the world? Taking out Osama does not stop the terrorist attacks. It does not slow down the terrorist attacks. Terrorist organizations are designed in such a way to make Letters of Marque useless.

I am sorry, but I cannot support reactionary policies as the only policies. You are saying, "I will wait for American citizens to die before I start to take action to provide Constitutionally mandated national defense."

Ken, the constitutionality of any law is rooted entirely in the continuity of its wording.  That's what connects a law to the Constitution.  So if the Congressional authorization of force doesn't say "war", then it's not "war" in the constitutional sense.  "War" is a legal term, like "marriage", "vehicle", and "traitor".  They have specific meanings within the law, and have downstream effects once used.  For example, if you're "married", then you get special tax benefits, inheritance rights, powers of attorney, etc.  That's one of the reasons why gays want to be "married" -- they get all the benefits associated with being "married" in the eyes of the law.  Similarly, once the "war" word is used, a whole bunch of other things kick in, such as the Geneva Convention (which George W. has already said doesn't apply; and he's right -- it's not a "war").  So what Congress did via the War Powers Act was NOT declaring "war"; it was something else.  If it was a constitutional act, then its authority should be rooted somewhere in the constitution -- but where?  Under "posting roads"?  "Coining money"?  No, it's not in there, so it is, by definition, unconstitutional.  As we've already agreed, the Constitution must be enforced.  Maybe I'm wrong, but please tell me: Which part are you enforcing with the War Powers Act?

And before you mention it, the use of the word "war" in the title means nothing.  It's a tenet of law that titles confer no authority.  But we all knew that.



True, but if that authorization is not in the manner outlined in the constitution, it's, well, unconstitutional.  The forms must be obeyed.



Again, under what provision of the Constitution?  As I've already pointed out, it's not A1/S8/C11.

If you think that the words of the Constitution do not apply, if you think that the Congress can abdicate or delegate its authority, if you don't think that http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2002/pr100402.htm is a good example of the constitutional way to declare "war", then we have no basis to continue this discussion any further.  Instead, let's talk about law.  Once we agree on how laws and the Constitution interact, then we can pick up on this thread again.  But apparently we differ on basic definitions.  Or am I wrong?



Who do we send in?  The US military, of course.  (Although I am a big fan of Tobor the Eighth Man.)

Would they "allow" us in?  They have no choice.  (Unless they're bigger or badder than we are, as was already pointed out about the ex-USSR.)

What are the reprisals?  None, if the Taliban stands aside and lets us capture Mr. Bad Man.  Some, if they choose to stand in our way.  But look what George W. did: he just went ahead and conquered the whole damn country -- and without them "allowing Americans to enter".  So W. did just what you say the Taliban would not let him do.  Although taking a Letters approach MAY have ultimately led to the same conquering, the choice would have been up to the Taliban rather than King George W.  Or do you believe that other countries shouldn't have at least some say in determining their own fate?

Are you saying that wanton conquering is better than first attempting a surgical removal?  I'm not sure I understand your point.  But we're off the topic of Iraq anyhow.



I can't recall having asked for any support; I was merely making some observations.  And calling them "reactionary" is an evaluation of a fact, not the fact itself, and conveys no meaning beyond your possible disapproval.  So before I can respond, I need to know what's the fact that leads you to that evaluation?  What makes a constitutional, surgical strike "reactionary"?  Isn't it more fitting to call George W's unconstitutional conquering "reactionary"?  But I digress again, and not that it matters.  Calling anything "reactionary" is only opinion anyway.

As for waiting for American citizens to die, this harkens back to the "non-initiation of force" part of my observations.  It sounds like you're siding with Dr. Ron who argues (paraphrasing) "I feel threatened, therefore I'm going to initiate force against you!"  People feel threatened by a lot of things.  Are you advocating that I can shoot anyone I feel threatened by?  I don't think so.  Here's another example: Statistics show that most "crimes" are committed by black males between 18 and 25.  Shall we lock them all up as a pre-emptive strike?  Of course not.  I'd suggest we stay off that slippery slope and not do ANYTHING until a harm is done.  So my answer is "Yes, I will wait for American citizens to die before I start to take action to provide Constitutionally mandated national defense."  Any actions taken any sooner are immoral, unjustified, and possibly pure paranoia.

And taking out one tin-plated dictator isn't providing any Americans any sort of "national defense", nor is it constitutional.  In fact, it's the opposite on both accounts.  More Southwest Asians hate us now than before this unconstitutional non-war.  

Don't get me wrong.  Personally, I think the world is a better place without Sadman Insane in power.  I also think that people should be more polite.  But in both cases, I have no authority to force either boon to come to pass.  And neither does our government.

I can see we have a loooong conversation ahead of us.  I can also see why Jim keeps asking you for your definitions, because that is apparently where the disagreements lie.  

So let's start there.  Which of my definitions do you disagree with?

KenK:

You originally supported the war and didn't have any Constitutional qualms about it.  Now you don't; that's a flip-flop.

There are many other rational justifications for the war I can give.  For instance, according to Czek intelligence, it was an Iraqi agent that funnelled the final sum of money to Atta to launch the 9/11 attack.  That makes Iraq our enemy, by definition.  Any country that supports terrorism against us is ipso facto an adversary and has thereby initiated agression against us.  We therefore have the right to defend ourselves and thus to defeat these bastards.

The fact that Congress has authorized funds for the war makes it legal.  (If there has been any court challenges, they've been defeated.)  We are helping the Iraqis set up a democratic republic.  I call upon all the destructive Syrians, Jordanians, Iranians, and Saudis to leave Iraq and go home to their own hell-holes.  "The tree of liberty must be watered by the blood of tyrants each generation." (T. J.)

I beg your pardon???  I have NEVER supported this Iraqi war.  As I already mentioned, while I personally think that the world is better off without Sadman Insane in power, I have consistently denounced how George W. has prosecuted this war.  

But don't take my word for it.  Exactly ten days after George W. illegally invaded Iraq, I was a guest on Harry Browne's radio show, and these same questions came up.  That interview is still out on the web.  Listen to my answers then, and compare them against my answers today, and you'll find zero difference.  The show is at http://www.harrybrowne.org/Obsolete/Archives2003.htm, listed on the website as "March 29, 2003, Guest: Ken Krawchuk, candidate for the Libertarian presidential nomination".  Although most of the interview is about my bid for the LP presidential nomination in 2004, a goodly portion of it is about the war, most of it convering the very same ground we've covered in this thread, plus other war-related -- uh, DEFENSE-related, I should say -- issues.

In any case, I would greatly appreciate it if, in the future, you would amend your statements, sir.  It seems that there are some folks out there who keep confusing my strong pro-military stand with a pro-war stand, and comments such as yours only feed that misconception.



These are all valid causus belli and the decision to declare war against the perpetrators should be debated in Congress when they decide to declare war, as per the Constitution.  



I've never argued anything to the contrary.  What I've argued is that the Constitution must be obeyed.  Period.  No cheating, no squirming, no grey areas, no "well, that's what they MEANT to say!", no nonsense, no making up the law to fit your facts, no twisting of history, no appeals to the heart, no avoiding answers, no redefining the plain meaning of words, no dodging legal responsibility, no ignoring this piece of the Constituion in favor of that piece, no bull.  My only concern is: What does the LAW say!



Garbage.  How does one illegal act justify another?

In 1861, Abraham Lincoln called up 75,000 militia without authorization.  When Congress reconvened, their first act should have been to begin impeachment proceedings against the clearly-illegal actions of a renegade president.  But they didn't.  The ultimate result was that the American Republic perished from the earth to be replaced with a federal democracy.  One hundred and fifty years later, people continue to die from that failure of Congress to act, such as the sick in those states which have passed referrendums allowing for the use of medical marijuana.  States rights died that day in 1861.  But I guess that's legally OK by you, following your logic, since Congress failed to impeach an oathbreaking tyrant.



Very eloquent.  Also very off point.  Let them water their own damn tree with their own children's blood.  But if you want to help water it, feel free.  Send your own kids and grandkids, not mine and not those of any other American who'd rather be left alone to live their own life their own way rather than chasing after your illegal crusade, wasting our hard-stolen tax dollars and inflaming the foreign hordes against the Great Satan.  

<deep breath>

Let me summarize: If there be cause for war, let Congress declare it, and the president lead it, as the Constitution demands.  Anything else places our nation precariously on the slippery slope to tyrrany, which is where we currently -- and unfortunately -- find ourselves.  And that slope is steepening every day we let Congress and the president continue to ignore their sworn duty.

Well, we have a volunteer armed force, so no one is forcing you or anyone else to go to Iraq.  As for my own service, I did my (voluntary) military time with Central Intelligence and had a top secret military clearance.  I worked on the spy satellite program during the Cold War.  I take a very dim view of any totalitarian regime, as does KenC, and so I'm delighted that Saddam is gone from power.  May liberty spread throughout the Middle East!

Prior to your radio interview, you asked me for material supporting the war, and I sent you one or more essays by Andrew Sullivan.  Look, I agree that it would have been more proper to officially declare war--my point is that Congress has done it by de facto means.

The question is, What is the course of action now to increase liberty?  Obviously, pulling out would result in chaos and would snatch defeat from the potential jaws of victory.  We should stay in Iraq to ensure that a friendly, democratic republic exists--this would be an increase of overall liberty.  If you want to retroactively declare war on Iraq, I would support that.  Oh, and for a couple of other reasons:  Iraq was implicated in the original '93 bombing of the Trade Towers, and there is evidence (not conclusive) that they were involved in the Mura Building bombing.  Further and most importantly, there was an al Queda training base in northern Iraq (and don't tell me that Saddam didn't know about it).

Let's all try to stay friendly while we're discussing these issues.

This should make things easier.  Right, hawks?

http://libertyforsale.com/2005/09/15/adding-nuclear-teeth-to-failed-us-foreign-policy/