tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12796551.post8573848836680839538..comments2024-03-26T05:18:53.709-04:00Comments on Pen and Sword: Warmongers: They're not Just Neocons AnymoreJeff Huberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14146644937683409726noreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12796551.post-68196467619829298832011-04-13T11:09:19.409-04:002011-04-13T11:09:19.409-04:00"Your argument says the Constitution allows C..."Your argument says the Constitution allows Congress to grant a foreign political power the authority to send American to war, overriding the congress and the executive as well."<br /><br />No that is not my argument. The constitution empowers Congress alone to decide the state of war or peace, and to ratify or not ratify treaties. And they have, entirely as prescribed in the constitution, done this with respect to the UN Charter. That is my argument.<br /><br />There is no override of Congress or the president possible, the U.S. as a permanent seat with veto power on the UNSC. A war without the express approval of the president is not possible. And if Congress didn't like it, they can rescind our membership in the UN, and our obligations, entirely legally, with a simple majority vote, not even requiring presidential approval. Anything the UN commits the U.S. to has at the very least tacit approval by Congress, and direct approval of the president.<br /><br />Your argument is that the constitution is higher law than a treaty, in particular one with which you don't appear to agree with. But the constitution's own text does not consider constitutional law higher than treaties, it considers them equal.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08113635193513490349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12796551.post-25319091146827625752011-04-11T12:24:26.184-04:002011-04-11T12:24:26.184-04:00The liberalism represented by Cole is really just ...The liberalism represented by Cole is really just one of the two rival tribes composing the American political class. I've been seeing this ever since Obama got elected -- very little "progressive" changes, lots of business as usual. His supporters, despite being against this, have muted themselves because deep down elections have stopped being about real, pressing national issues but more of an Us vs. Them bar fight. Criticizing Obama now for continuing Jooner's failed policies would just lend support to whatever screwhead the GOP puts forward next year -- who will also want to continue the failed policies.<br /><br />Ugly situation. It takes guts to keep pointing out the absurdities. Keep up the good work.Trevorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01801487338426411136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12796551.post-2013137091941393062011-04-10T22:43:24.875-04:002011-04-10T22:43:24.875-04:00Your argument says the Constitution allows Congres...Your argument says the Constitution allows Congress to grant a foreign political power the authority to send American to war, overriding the congress and the executive as well. That's insane. Please don't take up any more space here with this kind of wind.Jeff Huberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14146644937683409726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12796551.post-8461198486259990752011-04-10T20:06:33.746-04:002011-04-10T20:06:33.746-04:00"No, that is not rational, nor is it rational..."No, that is not rational, nor is it rational to conclude that Congress can usurp its own constitutional authorities by ratifying a treaty that overrides them."<br /><br />Congress alone has the constitutional authority to determine the state of war or peace, that is clear in the constitution. The mechanism for treaties is also very clear in the constitution and the document itself places EQUAL weight to both constitution and treaties. It is eminently rational to conclude Congress can give up its power to even declare war. And through the treaty process it has done exactly that. It has in effect permanently deferred the power of warfare to another body, using the treaty process. You may not like it, but that is how the text of the constitution reads, it's how Supreme Court cases have gone, and it's actually how the world works today, unless you get member countries going off rails starting wars without UN resolutions, or in direct self-defense in the face of attack, as required.<br /><br />In the aftermath of WWII ending all war was precisely the mood this country, the world, and certain the League of Nations and founders of the United Nations were in. Millions of people died in WWII. The UN Charter expressly makes it illegal for member countries to start a war. It expressly makes any war illegal unless either a.) armed conflict approved by the UNSC, or b.) self-defense in the face of attack.<br /><br />Neither of those were true for the 2nd Iraq war. Only one of them is true in the case of Libya. And here the UN is prattling on about Libya, tragic though it is, and we have humanitarian crises going on in Ivory Coast and in Syria. I do not think we should be involved in any of these conflicts. If humanitarian causes are valid, then genocide in Dafur would take precedence over bloody noses in Syria and Libya. Yet the UN did nothing.<br /><br />"I'm afraid you've fallen prey to the same kind of leftist intellectual dissonance that Juan Cole has become such a high priest of."<br /><br />And that's just name calling, plain and simple. It is not an analysis of the constitution or the UN charter. It is an emotional reaction. You're merely disagreeing with something because you don't like the connotation or the result, but it has no basis in fact or law.<br /><br />What you want to do is discard the facts as though they don't matter, and therein lies a real concern with any treaty established by our masters, in their interests, not ours. The reality is, it works exactly as I've described whether you like it or not, whether you think it is legal or not.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08113635193513490349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12796551.post-87792999995348078932011-04-08T19:28:32.740-04:002011-04-08T19:28:32.740-04:00jp white
Thanks and here I was afraid all those ...jp white <br /> Thanks and here I was afraid all those properties would just go to waste;) <br />Gates, are they talking about trying to get rid of the last to strong holds that don't like Amerika I wonder?jo6pachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13243469700844995455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12796551.post-1024207834899514582011-04-08T12:35:13.069-04:002011-04-08T12:35:13.069-04:00Gee whiz, folks making money of war. Well, what&...Gee whiz, folks making money of war. Well, what's a capitalist to do, turn down free money?Jeff Huberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14146644937683409726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12796551.post-61330831094775549912011-04-08T12:03:26.652-04:002011-04-08T12:03:26.652-04:00Follow the money??
http://www.chron.com/disp/stor...Follow the money??<br /><br />http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/7512792.html<br /><br />Oil prices are up again this morning. <br /><br />Lots of folks making lots of money from this... and all wars in the Mideast.Elderladyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02268520056042293783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12796551.post-38014261016865491822011-04-08T06:45:27.584-04:002011-04-08T06:45:27.584-04:00"One can rationally form an opinion that UN r..."One can rationally form an opinion that UN resolutions bind the U.S. to treaty obligations including armed conflict."<br /><br />No, that is not rational, nor is it rational to conclude that Congress can usurp its own constitutional authorities by ratifying a treaty that overrides them. <br /><br />I'm afraid you've fallen prey to the same kind of leftist intellectual dissonance that Juan Cole has become such a high priest of. <br /><br />JJeff Huberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14146644937683409726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12796551.post-6335753902168417922011-04-08T03:47:18.811-04:002011-04-08T03:47:18.811-04:00For all the sound and fury over Libya, it's ju...For all the sound and fury over Libya, it's just a sideshow in this carnival:<br /><a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42448218/ns/business/" rel="nofollow"><br />Defense Secretary Gates, Saudi king to discuss Mideast unrest</a><br /><br />Yeah, I'll bet. I don't envy Gates his job. That Saudi royal family is <i>big</i>. It's probably a good thing we have all those empty McMansions left over from the housing bust.<br /><br />That's no doubt why we let the Europeans take point in the Libya fracas: we're holding those military assets in reserve for the "big one."<br /><a href="http://www.zerohedge.com/article/saudi-arabia-goes-mad-saudi-oil-minister-says-crude-hit-300-if-turmoil-spreads-saudi" rel="nofollow"><br />Saudi Arabia Goes M.A.D.: Saudi Oil Minister Says Crude To Hit $300 If Turmoil Spreads To Saudi</a><br /><br />Of course, that"s extremely unlikely to happen. One of those "low probability events." Like a guy setting himself on fire and sparking a revolution. Or a 9.0 earthquake. Probably not going to happen.<br /><br />Probably.jpwhitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17975430453557627368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12796551.post-84230052488484312992011-04-07T22:32:57.746-04:002011-04-07T22:32:57.746-04:00One can rationally form an opinion that UN resolut...One can rationally form an opinion that UN resolutions bind the U.S. to treaty obligations including armed conflict. We've agreed to that very possibility, and the mechanisms for approving such armed conflict, within those treaties. Now, you can make an argument that you don't agree with the content of those treaties or their mechanisms, and I may very well agree. But that doesn't wipe away the present facts that we've already tacitly approved of UN resolutions calling for our involvement in armed conflict. Congress has approved the treaty. And they tacitly agree with this every single day they do not rescind the treaty - which by the way is much easier to do than treaty approval in the first place.<br /><br />I have not ignored UN resolution 1441, I am referring directly to it. It did not authorize armed conflict. Not only the written language of 1441, but every verbal conversation from every member of the UNSC, include Negroponte (U.S.) who said an additional UN resolution would be required to authorize armed conflict with Iraq. That resolution was in the works, with only the U.S. and U.K. backing it, leading up to invasion, and never was passed.<br /><br />And article 52 isn't applicable because it allows defense in the case of armed-attack. Iraq had attacked no member country.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08113635193513490349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12796551.post-21443218181139664182011-04-07T20:52:30.512-04:002011-04-07T20:52:30.512-04:00Your points are worth consideration. Here is my q...Your points are worth consideration. Here is my quick reply. <br /><br />I reject out of hand, as should you and every other American, any argument that says a UN resolution overrides the Constitution's requirement that the U.S. Congress approves sending troops to war. <br /><br />Your argument that OIF is illegal has the same holes that similar arguments make. You ignore the self-defense clause in the UN charter and the existence of UN resolution 1441 which the Bush admin. used to bolster the legitimacy of its invasion. <br /><br />JJeff Huberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14146644937683409726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12796551.post-56856724272968109782011-04-07T20:18:32.528-04:002011-04-07T20:18:32.528-04:00While I agree with the overall theme of the post, ...While I agree with the overall theme of the post, there's a detail I don't agree with, and that's the idea that international agreements aren't relevant to a war's legality.<br /><br />Article V of our constitution places the constitution itself, all laws derived from that constitution, and "all Treaties made, or which shall be made" as the supreme law of the land. I don't see how you rationalize sidelining treaties we are bound to by constitutional law, while propping up "domestic" laws as primary. The language of the constitution doesn't make the distinction. The UN, Geneva Conventions, and NATO are produced by and we are legally bounded to those organizations constitutionally. These are not secondary to U.S. law.<br /><br />Perhaps a more honest metric is merely what wars will be tacitly accepted (as legal) due to the lack of either successful war crimes prosecutions or a UN Article 39 determination of illegality. An honest criticism of the UN Charter is that practically the U.S. would never actually be charged with an actual determination of an illegal war, because that determination is entirely up to the UN Security Council and the U.S. has veto power. It's pretty unlikely the U.S. would not use it to avoid an illegal war designation, for any war it was involved in.<br /><br />But despite this practical problem preventing an official designation, one can ignore this requirement and come up with a compelling opinion based on the available facts and the treaties we've signed. And from that perspective the 2nd Iraq war was substantially illegal.<br /><br />In the case of Libya, there is a UN resolution authorizing use of force. Unlike with Iraq. So while I don't agree with the outcome, that is not a basis to determine legality, anymore than merely looking at U.S. domestic laws while ignoring treaties we've agreed to.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08113635193513490349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12796551.post-2317296642507253712011-04-07T20:06:17.318-04:002011-04-07T20:06:17.318-04:00The hate of liberals is a waste of time.
Better t...The hate of liberals is a waste of time.<br /><br />Better to discriminate based on hate of illicit war.Empire and Rebellionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06395672126760848375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12796551.post-82416718732033492322011-04-06T13:54:20.137-04:002011-04-06T13:54:20.137-04:00Libya has oil (I'm smiling wryly) and the Ye...Libya has oil (I'm smiling wryly) and the Yemeni ruler is being asked to step down by his DC/S.A. handlers http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFLDE73514X20110406?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0&sp=true<br /><br />Eeek, when I did I get so cynical?nunyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08833886980442919570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12796551.post-62767610056823817182011-04-05T19:19:00.996-04:002011-04-05T19:19:00.996-04:00Jo,
Well, I too got a good laugh from it. I rea...Jo, <br /><br />Well, I too got a good laugh from it. I really am disappointed in what the left has done--or not done--given power. The hell of it is that the alternative to the left is the right. <br /><br />God help America. <br /><br />JJeff Huberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14146644937683409726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12796551.post-13128098834123998082011-04-05T18:56:08.475-04:002011-04-05T18:56:08.475-04:00Saul,
Thanks for the catch. I'm talking abo...Saul, <br /><br />Thanks for the catch. I'm talking about Darfur, of course. Sheesh! I'll rewrite that bit right away.Jeff Huberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14146644937683409726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12796551.post-74602740154688166842011-04-05T18:40:29.052-04:002011-04-05T18:40:29.052-04:00Thanks Jeff. as some one from the left I got a goo...Thanks Jeff. as some one from the left I got a good laugh from Coles letter, I guess he has become/always has been a beltway whore. I got hammered when I said only about the oil and as it's been pointed the first ship is loading up and since there's no worry about any planes showing up, it looks good from the wh. I guess the rebels have to pay back their new Masters.jo6pachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13243469700844995455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12796551.post-86534845948352021712011-04-05T17:01:17.265-04:002011-04-05T17:01:17.265-04:00Jeff, I'm a big fan of your columns, but I hav...Jeff, I'm a big fan of your columns, but I have to point out the obvious that CheneyBush were not running things during the 1994 Rwandan genocide.<br /><br />Otherwise, couldn't agree more.SaulShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08288381979340329477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12796551.post-67468060204723481962011-04-05T14:18:23.289-04:002011-04-05T14:18:23.289-04:00Thanks for reminding me about Powers, Charlie.Thanks for reminding me about Powers, Charlie.Jeff Huberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14146644937683409726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12796551.post-74618332265606247772011-04-05T13:04:05.674-04:002011-04-05T13:04:05.674-04:00Another very good commentary sir.
When will Americ...Another very good commentary sir.<br />When will Americans wake up to see how we have been lied to again? True, the "media" will not tell us the truth. It is the internet that gives the truth now days. Thanks again sir, your blog is an excellent source.<br />I still find it striking how this war is being cheered on by three women. Ms. Rice, Ms Powers, and Hi-Larry. They are, of course, just following their "hero" Madass Al(not so) bright. Remember her comments about the sanctions during the time of Billy Bob Bubba Clintstone? Her "it was worth it" about the deaths of about 500,000 Iraqi children? That was our(??) Secretary of State back then. Obombers' three "ladies" must worship that nasty old gal.<br />We need to stand up and say ENOUGH! Enough of these damn fool wars of choice. The morons in congress are trying to gut Social Security, Medicare, and every other social program that helps the working class and the poor. This IS class warfare people. We need to stop it.<br />Yeah, Obomber has "announced" his bid for a second term that will no doubt top $1 Billion dollars! Holy crap, just think how much good can be done with that amount of money. Our infrastructure is crumbling and yet all we do is start another damn fool war. Yes, I am highly pissed off. <br />America, what a countrycharlie ehlenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05584863034307604847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12796551.post-5462070185773273452011-04-05T08:51:42.050-04:002011-04-05T08:51:42.050-04:00War eggs. Jesus, God and Julie from The Mod Squad...War eggs. Jesus, God and Julie from The Mod Squad, what has happened to us? <br /><br />Thanks for the info, EL.Jeff Huberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14146644937683409726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12796551.post-86098754911056236282011-04-05T08:41:13.279-04:002011-04-05T08:41:13.279-04:00We Americans are so much in love with war...... no...We Americans are so much in love with war...... now there is this:<br /><br />http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/04/04-6<br /><br />We now have "war" Easter eggs.<br /><br />Back in the day, when I was more or less forced/shamed into attending church on a regular basis.... (my grandmother was the organist, and my mom was the choir director)....<br />we were taught that Easter was the celebration by Christians, of the resurrection of The Prince of Peace. <br /><br />Now, we have "war" eggs.Elderladyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02268520056042293783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12796551.post-43830895958249708692011-04-05T06:16:58.651-04:002011-04-05T06:16:58.651-04:00Thanks once again for the added value, JP. Have a...Thanks once again for the added value, JP. Have a great week. <br /><br />JeffJeff Huberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14146644937683409726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12796551.post-41571441040864574412011-04-05T02:42:52.724-04:002011-04-05T02:42:52.724-04:00Well, there is one difference between Libya 2011 a...Well, there is <i>one</i> difference between Libya 2011 and Iraq 2003: Saddam didn't get a bailout from the Fed before we started dropping bombs on his ass:<br /><a href="http://www.zerohedge.com/article/fed-bailed-out-libya-owned-bank" rel="nofollow"><br />The Fed Bailed Out A Libya-Owned Bank</a><br /><br />Also <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-31/libya-owned-arab-banking-corp-drew-at-least-5-billion-from-fed-in-crisis.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="http://seekingalpha.com/article/261574-fed-release-of-discount-window-bailout-another-reason-to-be-cautious-of-banking-systems" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br />What I'd love to know is if they paid the same ridiculously low interest rate (a fraction of 1%) that outfits like GM got when they were issued emergency loans from the “discount window.” <br /><br />Are you mad yet, Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer? (Americans sure are a passive-aggressive bunch). <br /><br />Oh, and it looks like the GWOT has been cancelled, or at least put on hold indefinitely:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.zerohedge.com/article/us-purchase-oil-libyan-rebels-thus-funding-flickers-al-qaeda" rel="nofollow">US To Purchase Oil From Libyan Rebels, Thereby Funding "Flickers" Of Al Qaeda</a><br /><br />And why not? “Thar's light sweet crude in them thar hills. Al Qaeda? Never heard of him.”jpwhitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17975430453557627368noreply@blogger.com