June 09, 2006
Watada, Meet Al-Zarqawi

Ehren Watada, the Fort Lewis Army Lt. who's refusing orders to deploy to Iraq, held a media availability yesterday. The Tacoma News Tribune reports that nationwide, he's not exactly winning a lot of hearts and minds with his claim the war is illegal, unjust and unsupportable....Perhaps that has to do with statements such as his claim last night that any punishment he receives will be "no more and no less than the soldiers who are sacrificing their lives in Iraq." What a self-aggrandizing putz!

...news coverage here and in Watada's hometown of Honolulu has generated hundreds of responses from readers, viewers and listeners, with the majority running against the officer, who joined the Army after the start of the war he now says he won’t fight.....

Meanwhile, the Everett Herald reports this a.m. that local Iraqi immigrants are hailing the killing by U.S. forces yesterday of al-Qaeda In Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Al-Zarqawi's death is a sign that the United States is winning the war in Iraq, Mohamed al Ameedi said. "Anyone who says the U.S. is not winning is lying," he said. "They're stopping terrorists. They stopped Saddam." When al Ameedi and his wife have a child, he said they plan to name it after President George W. Bush.

Daniel Henninger of the Wall Street Journal writes today:

Start with the Iraqi police. On the news of Zarqawi's death, they were seen rejoicing in Sadr City, one of Baghdad's poorest districts. No order can be sustained in Iraq's cities unless men have the courage to serve as police. Thus the insurgency makes them a top target. Iraq's new, aggressive Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said yesterday that Baqubah-area residents offered tips for the air strike (which killed Zarqawi). This is a potentially important turn....It will take courage for normal Iraqis to blow the whistle on the insurgents among them. Take Haditha, site of the alleged Marine massacre that global publicity has made a household name for moral collapse. But how about this for moral collapse: Haditha is mined with IEDs, the remote bombs that kill U.S. soldiers. A source with contacts among the Marines there called this week to explain how this works: Insurgents offer Haditha residents $100 to plant an IED; if they decline, the insurgents promise to murder them and their families, and they do murder non-collaborators.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki details "Our Strategy For A Democratic Iraq" in today's WaPo.

It will be a few years at least before a convincing stability reigns in Iraq, and a historical, still very gradual transformation of the Middle East kicks into second gear. When the history books are written, Ehren Watada's name will not even be a footnote. Especially compared to the brave U.S. soldiers who gave their lives in Iraq.

Posted by Matt Rosenberg at June 09, 2006 08:08 AM | Email This
1. If he is not going to keep his oath, the least he could do is get the flag at his press conference turned the right way!

Posted by: James on June 9, 2006 07:25 AM
2. Wish I had this coward's e-mail address. What a candy-ass and a liar.

Posted by: Nick Tuck on June 9, 2006 07:40 AM
3. As a former officer, it is my sincerest hope that they court martial this clown, send his dumb ass to Leavenworth, Kansas; and give him a cell with a roomy named Bubba.

Posted by: Hinton on June 9, 2006 07:45 AM
4. What's interesting about this guy is that he enlisted after the start of the Iraq war. So one of two things must be true. Either 1) he is so stupid that he did not believe he would be sent over there in a time of war when he enlisted, or 2) he did believe he would be sent over there, but wanted to create such a spectacle on purpose to promote his anti-war beliefs.

Posted by: Palouse on June 9, 2006 07:53 AM
5. He thinks the war is illegal, but he has no problem sending his replacement there.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on June 9, 2006 07:54 AM
6. Quotes are from Lt. Watada's statement

My moral and legal obligation is to the Constitution and not those who would issue unlawful orders.

Unlawful? Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq passed by congress, signed by the President.

Watada is simple wrong. Moral judgments my differ from legal judgments. Watada joined after the beginning of the Iraq war, and tried to resign after receiving orders.

The war in Iraq violates our democratic system of checks and balances. It usurps international treaties and conventions that by virtue of the Constitution become American law.

Wrong again, it followed the process, congressional approval, Presidential approval. Watada display a profound ignorance at our system of checks and balances.

The wholesale slaughter and mistreatment of the Iraqi people with only limited accountability is not only a terrible moral injustice, but a contradiction to the Army’s own Law of Land Warfare. My participation would make me party to war crimes.

Watada's duty as an officer is to report war crimes. Without specifics this statement is vapid, and contradicts the known civilian casualty rates.

Normally, those in the military have allowed others to speak for them and act on their behalf. That time has come to an end. I have appealed to my commanders to see the larger issues of our actions. But justice has not been forthcoming. My oath of office is to protect and defend America’s laws and its people. By refusing unlawful orders for an illegal war, I fulfill that oath today.

Once you join the military you voluntarily give up the right to speak on policy.

The Iraq war is legal in both American and International Law.

Watada's timing is suspicious. Join after the war started, refuse deployment orders days before deployment. This smells like a PR stunt for the LLL from start to finish.

The worst is leaving a open slot at the worst possible time.

He is betraying those most dependent on him, his fellow soldiers.

Watada is a ignorant of the law, a lier, a shirker and coward.

Posted by: JCM on June 9, 2006 07:54 AM
7. If LT Watada is sincere in his beliefs, he'll take his court martial, serve his time, accept his dismissal from the service (equivalent to dishonorable discharge), and go on about his life.

I suspect he is nothing more than a pawn in the hands of the anti-war crowd, most of whose positions on Iraq he is repeating. And when the media loses interest, the peace-at-any-price crowd will drop him.

Sayonara, Watada.

Posted by: Hoplophile on June 9, 2006 08:05 AM
8. Watata, in declaring the war illegal, is thereby implying that all the thousands of other officers serving in Iraq are behaving illegally. He's a minority of one.

It's absurd to believe that his interpretation of his officer's oath and duties is superior to theirs, or better considered.

More likely, he's attempting to attain the false 'celebrity' status of Cindy Sheehan, based on a specious claim of moral infallibility and the sure support of the organized 'antiwar' movement plus much of the ever-sympathetic media. Quite possibly he planned his stunt prior to his enlistment, in coordination with said 'antiwar' sorts.

He and Sheehan are media puppets with no particular virtues other than their access to print and TV coverage. Let him enjoy his court martial and ensuing sentence bathing in the fading limelight, while the blogs eat the media's lunch.

Posted by: Hank Bradley on June 9, 2006 08:28 AM
9. I remember hearing of when Saddam was toppled that these same Iraqis paraded up and down the Everett streets cheering.

Posted by: swatter on June 9, 2006 08:31 AM
10. I love how the ill-timed Watada train sort of ran out of steam right after it started, on the news of Zarqawi. Divine intervention, methinks.

Posted by: Misty on June 9, 2006 08:44 AM
11. Compare how this Military law breaker is being treated to how our heroes in shackles are being treated and then tell me there is nothing wrong with the Bush/Rumsfeld military.

And why hasn't Reichert taken up the the cause of our PoWs? Makes me wonder what he would do if he was still Sheriff and it was his police officers caught up in a similar situation.

Posted by: JJ on June 9, 2006 09:15 AM
12. Gotta say, the title of this post gives me one of those ideas...

What is the maximum penalty under the UCMJ for what this clown is doing? If execution (and I sincerely hope that it is), how about strapping some fins and laser-navigation equipment onto him, and dropping him onto whoever gets promoted to take Zarqawi's place? Even if he proves as much of a dud as a munition as he has as a soldier, it'd still be a productive airstrike.

Posted by: TB on June 9, 2006 10:55 AM
13. JCM, well reasoned and well said sir!

This has all the earmarks of a planned (albeit poorly) deliberate act of defiance. It will be interesting to see what groups stand with him and to put the spotlight of public scrutiny on them.

Posted by: Diogenes on June 9, 2006 11:02 AM
14. Matt,

couldn't help but notice the fact that you chose to never serve in the military. Care to enlighten your readers as to why? Unless you've got a good reason, perhaps you should reconsider your personal attacks against the young Lt. Especially given that you apparently made a similar decision yourself - albeit by completely avoiding any sort of military service.


PS - how old are you? My understanding is that the National Guard is giving out age waivers. Any kids? If you have any I assume that you've encouraged them to sign up to fight in the great patriotic struggle against all those who oppose the Bush administration's policies.

Posted by: Claire on June 9, 2006 11:16 AM
15. Still just as simple-minded as ever, eh claire? Do you ever get anything correct?

Posted by: alphabet soup on June 9, 2006 11:30 AM
16. Let's see now.

An Iraqi resident in America proclaims solidarity with his former countrymen from the safety of Snohomish County.

An American military officer betrays his comrades and his oath of office in the name of his "conscience."

An Iraqi Prime Minister promises an aggressive pursuit of democracy, while his fellow partisans murder women in Baghdad and Basra for exercising rights they had even under Saddam.

Looking past these "profiles in courage," Daniel Henninger finds another "moral victory" in our extermination of al-Zarqawi, one of the few Jihadis whose name most Americans would recognize.

A nearby editorial on the same page of the Journal notes, more soberly, "While some media outlets seized too readily on bad news in the past, Baghdad is now so dangerous for reporters that the bad news is probably undercovered."

No kidding.

Posted by: Tom Rekdal on June 9, 2006 11:30 AM
17. When the war against terror first began, there was a female "soldier" who whined and snurgled the snot from her tears that when she joined she "never thought she'd go to war".

Hello dumbass - why did you think you joined the military?

The problem is all these whiners wanted the freebies that go along with the military - they love the PX, the medical care, the dental care, the training for future employment and the opportunity for more free education. To their dismay, they failed to realize they HAD A REPSONSIBILITY TO OBEY ORDERS and they falied to realize the PURPOSE OF THE MILITARY in return for the freebies.

Slap that guy in Leavenworth. I have no fear that a military court will do just that.

I will say on his behalf, that at least he has the balls to take this stupid stand - he could have easily broken some miltary rule and gotten kicked out. Of course, I also think the "courageous" stand of this coward is by the design of the Hate America First and Always crowd.

Posted by: Cheryl on June 9, 2006 11:32 AM
18. I can't help but notice every time someone criticizes an anti-war service member (active or retired), Leftists immediately spit out the tired and worn out "Chickenhawk" argument, that basically attempts to silence anyone who has not served in the military; do not dare to criticize the politics of a left-leaning service member, especially when that service member has publicly aligned with several of the "Hate America First Gang".

It is an all volunteer military. Perhaps, if the prerequisite to voicing your opinion is serving in the military, we should restore the draft?

Watada raised his right hand and swore an oath, AFTER we had gone to war in Iraq. He has no integrity, no honor, and is fully deserving of the derision and disdain that is falling upon him.

He has the right to his opinion. He has NO right to be free of criticism.

Posted by: Shaun on June 9, 2006 11:45 AM
19. Anybody know from where he got his law degree? Where did he get his expertise on the Constitution? Just curious.

Posted by: Fred on June 9, 2006 11:49 AM
20. What I'm curious about is his bank account. That and Cindy Sheehan's. It seems you can always "follow the money" to get at the source of things. One wonders what Cindy Sheehan is living on? I suspect Moreon.org has a hand in her finances.

Posted by: katomar on June 9, 2006 12:17 PM
21. remember that older, non-p.c. version of that now-famous picante sauce advertizement? "...get a rope..."

my sentence for him (oh yea--assuming innocent till guilty)? have him in forced community service cleaning all the bed pans and soiled bandages of injured and disabled vets in local VA hospitals for 10 years; THEN--tell me what you think, you selfish, leftie little b-stard; it's not 'all about you!'

Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on June 9, 2006 01:06 PM
22. Shuan - that does seem to be the typical refrain. You can't criticize it because you haven't served/you didn't loose someone in the war/you didn't loose someone in 9/11, etc. etc.

Why then if you have to experience what you criticize don't the lefties have to experience being conservative, being religious, etc. before they criticize? Lefty hypocrisy, or highly intellectual nuance beyond the grasp of a common Republican?

Posted by: Fred on June 9, 2006 02:24 PM
23. Watada is a coward. When I signed the papers to join the military, I did so KNOWING I could be sent to war. That is what we pay them for. This fellow deserves the firing squad.

Posted by: pbj on June 9, 2006 02:24 PM
24. Claire,

Since you think the US such a horrible place, why don;t you move somehwere else more suitable, such as Canada or Russia?

Matt never signed up and then looked at the political party of ther person in charge and decided if he would obey or not. As one who HAS served in the military honey, let me tell you that I appreciate 10,000 Matt's who don't join up over 1 Watada who falsely signs up and then in the middle of a war decides he doesn't like it.

Funny, I don't recall ANY liberals coming to the defense of at least one soldier who refused to servce when Clinton launched his illegal war in Kosovo slaughtering civilians from 30,000 feet.

Posted by: pbj on June 9, 2006 02:31 PM
25. Claire -

Hey honey, can you please tell us what unit you served with? M'kay Hun?

Posted by: pbj on June 9, 2006 02:35 PM
26. Claire - So, your position is "if you haven't done the job, you can't comment on it"?

I can be silly too. I doubt you've ever been President of the United States. Should you therefore be barred from making any comments about POTUS?

Watada is not honorable. In refusing to go (for his own, personal, political reasons) he is requiring the Army to assign another Lt. to take his place. God forbid anything happen to this Lt., but if it did, would Watada's "high morals" require him to somehow make restitution to that Lt.'s family? Would he even feel guilty?

I doubt it.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on June 9, 2006 03:28 PM
27. By Claire's logic one can't support public education either unless one has kids in the public school system or is a teacher...or support Social Security unless one partakes of it directly...or support attacking the Taliban after 9/11 unless one was in the military. Putting aside the merits of any of these issues by themselves, the logic is juvenile.

And since she posed the question of Matt, who can defend himself, I'll answer hers from my end. I almost ended up serving in Marine intelligence, but didn't because the surprise pregnancy that resulted in my 1st child's birth. And I'd gladly encourage my own children to sign up when they reach the appropriate age if they feel called to do so.

Lastly, in follow-up to Matt's point, if Lt. Watada felt so strongly about the Iraq war being "illegal," he should either a) never have signed up or b) resigned long before his unit received orders to head to a combat zone.

Posted by: Eric Earling on June 9, 2006 04:35 PM
28. pbj - thanks for asking

HQCO 7th Marines 1990-1992
2nd battalion 7th marines 1992-1994

ps- my real name's not claire and I'm not female.


Posted by: Claire on June 9, 2006 05:39 PM
29. Claire, don't despair--Gregoire will declare a month for you too.

Posted by: Organization Man on June 9, 2006 07:10 PM
30. I dont care about the worm Watada. I am confident that Lt. Watada will get exactly what he is looking for, to be made an example of. The U.S. Army has to punish this man to the fullest extent of the law, or risk a couple hundred other soldiers following in his yellow stained footsteps.

Claire, I joined the U.S. Army in 1986. Under the leadership of one of the wisest presidents we have ever had. President Reagan. I remained in the U.S. Army through the Clinton years, even though I was not of the same political beliefs as he. I disagreed with his morals and disdain for soldiers. I performed any duty that was asked of me, and was prepared for war should it ever come. War did come for me in March of 2003. I left my job(Im a reservist), my wife, and my 4 children to go serve my nation. Not because Im a hero, or because I thought it would be an ego boost, or because I feared repercussions, or even because I thought it was a righteous war. I did it because I made a deal. I made a deal with the people of the United States. I didnt make a deal with the president, if that had been the case, then my committment would have ended when President Reagen left office. I swore an oath to uphold the constitution and obey the orders of the officers that were appointed over me.
This is a dangerous game that we as a nation are playing. Regardless of what you believe in, or what president you are allegiant to, if there is not an apolitical military, what are we destined to? If, in 2008, Hillary Clinton gets elected (God forbid), and she decides that we as a nation should protect the innocent people in Sudan. What if the persons in the military who decide that they dont agree with her politics decide to desert? I guess my question is, Who gets to decide whats right? Who, if not the president, gets to decide when to use force? Do we take a vote? I think not, that why they are called "Leaders".
I can tell you this, that even if Hillary becomes "Madam President", I will faithfully carry out her orders, because thats what we as officers and soldiers do.

Posted by: hookr23 on June 9, 2006 08:00 PM
31. claire, you ignorant (lying) b!tch!

Posted by: alphabet soup on June 9, 2006 08:01 PM
32. Claire -

HQCO 7th Marines 1990-1992
2nd battalion 7th marines 1992-1994

What was your MOS and what base is 7th Marines on?

And you're going to defend this douche bag? This "Officer" just abandoned his men before they need him most - an evolution into a combat AOR. And he's got the 'nads to start spouting off about illegal this and immoral that - why not just be honest, "Sir"? He is a fucking coward. End of story.

BTW before you ask, 2822 - Switch Tech, 2 years H&S BN Camp Butler Oki and 2 years Svc (and A, B, C, and Support)Co, 8th Comm Bn, II MHG, CLNC.

Posted by: Aaron on June 9, 2006 08:50 PM
33. Claire notwithstanding - If Watada does want to serve, that's fine - let him serve in jail. Have to say that this is a crazy hellacious war and don't envy anyone over there - but my respect to those who are over there serving in harm's way. The problem is that these troops are trained to hunt down the enemy, not be a police force among other things.

The war on terror is going to be a long one and we cannot afford to fight it in a politically correct style. Noone in Al-Qaeda is entitled to the Geneva convention - so stick it where the sun don't shine ACLU commie, pinkos !

Posted by: KS on June 9, 2006 10:37 PM
34. My bad - should read; If Watada does NOT want to serve,that's fine - let him serve in jail.

Posted by: KS on June 9, 2006 10:38 PM
35. All this, while controversial, illustrates another side to the problems of fighting another undeclared war. The Congress' resolution is meaningless. It is trumped by the Constitution, which reads that only the Congress shall have the power to declare war.
This is not to say that I agree with Watada, but it seems reasonable that his arguments would see the light of day, sooner or later.

Posted by: Barcroft on June 10, 2006 08:31 AM
36. Barcroft,

REALLY!!?? What language does a Deceleration of war require?

U.S. Constitution Article I Section 8

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

The Constitution does not specify the language for a Declaration of War.

If you have a gripe don't look at the White House, Congress gave the President the carte blanche. Everyone knew what the President would do with it.

From the Joint Resolution Authorizing Force:


(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

Congress voted to give the President the authority to use the Military as he determines in against Iraq.

If there really was a legal question regarding the use of force, would every democrat congress critter, every anti war group be filing suits left, right, up and down to stop the war.

So far the sum of the argument is Bush lied about WMD. Read the F'ing resolution, 23 points, and only 2 out of 23 are about WMD. On those the the part that has turned out wrong is the lack of stockpiles, everything else we have found.

Try again.

Posted by: JCM on June 10, 2006 09:45 AM
37. Barcroft,

Your narrow reading of the Constitution is as inane and simplistic as Claire.
Try thinking about this rather than merely spouting clichéd nonsense.

Besides, no doubt you are a liberal, so why invoke the Constitution?

Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 10, 2006 09:50 AM
38. JCM,

Excellent and all true.
Don't expect an answer though -- all liberals have is the hit and run lying innuendo.

Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 10, 2006 10:00 AM
39. If justly found guilty, how about calling up 'Ol Sparky? Presto--Watada Frittata. Had he dropped his carbine in WW2 or his musket in the Civil War, refused & ran the other way, how long do you think we would be reading about it in the press? I have no problems with conscientious objectors, but he is rubbing our collective nose in it and disgracing our troops & their families who serve and endure without a tantrum. That's the problem--and--ESPECIALLY in a voluntary military. Sedition. Aiding the enemy. Let's not candy-coat it.

Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on June 10, 2006 11:14 AM
40. Jimmie,

I Like it. Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 10, 2006 11:57 AM
41. Sgt. York was a CO.

He served, and said he wouldn't fire a shot. Till that fatefull day. He decided sometimes killing needs to be done for the greater good and to save the lives of his comrades in arms.

The President of the United States
in the name of The Congress
takes pleasure in presenting the
Medal of Honor


Only two reasons I can think of to become a CO after you join in the middle of the war.


Posted by: JCM on June 10, 2006 12:10 PM
42. Watada is right!

The invasion of Iraq was clearly illegal under the charter of the United Nations. Article 2(4) states that:

"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

The illegality of the invasion was affirmed by Kofi Annan in September of 2004, when, in a BBC interview "Mr. Annan was repeatedly asked whether the war was "illegal." "Yes," he finally said, "I have indicated it is not in conformity with the UN Charter, from our point of view, and from the Charter point of view it was illegal... And I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time." [See http://www.un.org/apps/news/storyAr.asp?NewsID=11953&Cr=iraq&Cr1=]

This is also the position of the American Society of International Law [See "Addendum to armed force in Iraq: Issues of Legality" http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh99a1.htm and "The Myth of Preemptive Self-Defense" http://www.asil.org/taskforce/oconnell.pdf] [Also see the Wikipedia entry for "Implications of the UN Charter for the Bush Doctrine" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine]

UN Charter "is a constituent treaty, and all signatories are bound by its articles. Furthermore, it explicitly says that the Charter trumps all other treaty obligations." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Charter]

Its provisions have the force of federal law via article VI of the U.S. Constitution which states that "all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby..."

In this context we should bear in mind the Nuremberg Principles which state (Principle III) that "the fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law."

In other words, the President's order to invade Iraq could not legitimate the invasion of Iraq because by giving the order the he became a war criminal. Ditto for Congressional authorization.

In this context soldiers should bear in mind that (Principle IV) "the fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."

The Nuremberg Principles were adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in 1950, and, although advisory, they should serve as a guide for applying and enforcing existing international law (such as the UN Charter). [See http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-nurem.htm]

Someone might argue that although the invasion was a crime, the subsequent occupation is lawful (under UN Security Council resolution 1483 passed in May 2003). This leads to the paradox that while neither the President, nor the 150,000 troops that participated in the invasion will ever be held accountable for their crime of aggression, Lt. Watada might be punished for refusing to participate in the subsequent, ostensibly lawful, occupation. But I think people should be punished for shedding blood, not for refusing to do so.

Moreover if the occupying forces are viewed as legitimate, assume obligations under the Hague and Geneva conventions not to, e.g. arbitrarily arrest and torture (as in Abu Ghraib and elsewhere), cause excessive civilian casualties (as in Fallujah), and these obligations are clearly not being met. An occupation which is lawful in principle must also be lawful in practice.

I, for one, applaud Lt. Watada's courageous stand and hope that his actions and the actions of like-minded others will one day enable this country to rejoin the community of law abiding nations.

Posted by: Josh Malle on June 10, 2006 07:11 PM
43. Josh,

Watada is basing his arguement on US law not the UN. Even if he did he be as wrong as you are. Koffie is not the UN. But this is the votes and the record of the UN.

At the end of Gulf War I in which Iraq was removed from Kuwait part of the Cease Fire and UN Resolution 687. These agreements of which Iraq was a signatory required the dismantling, destruction and disclosure of all of Iraq’s WMD programs, stockpiles and documentation.

"Surprising" to many Saddam did not comply with UN resolution UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991, or any of the following UN resolutions.
UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991, or
UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991, or
UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991, or
UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994, or
UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996, or
UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996, or
UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997, or
UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997, or
UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997, or
UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998, or
UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998, or
UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998, or
UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999.

They final resolution was UNSCR 1441 which called for the previous resolutions to be complied with and held the threat of "serious consequences" if compliance was not forthcoming. "Serious consequences" is diplo speak for war.

The UN you are so fond of made demands on Saddam, yet was bribe by him, Oil for food, and failed in all respects to follow up on it's own demands.

Posted by: JCM on June 10, 2006 07:35 PM
44. Josh Malle,

Nice job.

Your comments are truly as utterly stupid as any that have ever been written anywhere.

I, for one, applaud your idiotic nonsense and hope that your comments and the miserable utterances of like-minded others will one day soon enable this country to regain its sanity by recognizing the complete inanity you indulge in.

While you forgot to cite the Great Pumpkin, truly breath-taking stupidity . . . good job.

Posted by: Amused by liberal morons on June 10, 2006 09:18 PM
45. JCM,
Actually, the Constitution REQUIRES that Congress declare war if there is to be war. Your own reference proves it. The power is not given to anyone else, and the Congress is given no power to delegate it.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and any attempt by Congress to abrogate it's responsibilities or abridge what the document says or means is invalid, except in the eyes and minds of the polititians who have sworn to "preserve , protect and defend it".
The last declaration took only 33 minutes (Pres. Roosevelt); why do you suppose that W went to such great extremes to avoid asking for a declaration? Do you suppose that it might have been because he would have had to do what Roosevelt did, i.e., make a PUBLIC case for what he wanted?
Had he actually observed what the Constitution provides, he might have 59% of the public behind his war instead of the other way around, and that might even include people like Lt. Watada.
Finally, you'd have a real time proving that I am a liberal.
I'm just a person who can read the founding documents of his country.
When I swore to "preserve, protect and defend" I meant it.

Posted by: Barcroft on June 10, 2006 09:38 PM
46. Barcroft,

Just restating an erroneous case doesn't make it true.

All the Constitution has to say on the matter for Congressional authority is"

To declare war,...

Again the language of Declaration of War is not specified. So according you Congress did not have the authority to do this:

The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate...

You are also claiming the War Powers Act enacted by Congress in 1973 is also illegal and Unconstitutional. And that all the military actions undertaken without a formal declaration of War since the Whiskey Rebellion was illegal.

The Cold War and After: Presidential Power To Use Troops Overseas Without Congressional Authorization

The SCOTUS has passed at least 3 times on this issue when it was brought to them. Which means they believe it is a matter between the President and Congress.

Since the SCOTUS has left the matter to the other two branches we are left with the fact that Congress authorized and the President used an Formal Declaration to use the military as he saw fit.

If you're so right why doesn't Congress rescind the Authorization?
Cut off funding? (like Vietnam)
Why doesn't anyone of the anti-war groups petition SCOTUS?

Because it is essentially a settled legal question making the Iraq War legal.

To sum up your argument; Barcroft knows more about the Constitution than 230 years collective opinion of the Supreme Court, Congress and the President.

Posted by: JCM on June 11, 2006 06:30 AM
47. If the Constitution no longer means what it says, why has the text in my copy not changed?
The languate is quite clear..."THE CONGRESS shall have the power to declare war..." (Article 1, Section 8). Not the President, focus groups, or any other entity.
Why would the Congress recind the Authroization? This is the vehicle in which they headed for the tall grass when it came time to do their jobs, i.e., stand up and declare or not declare. That is the limit of their legitimate authority. The Congress was looking for any way out of putting their names, faces, and public voting record in the position of actually sending American forces into harm's way based on nebulous information. (Remember Mr. Bush meeting with small groups of Congress Critters to "brief" them, in private, of course) so as not to "endanger our sources on the ground"? Looks like the opposite occured, doesn't it?
The system of checks and balances was by-passed and that is why there is so much disagreement about the Iraq situation, including the instant situation with Lt. Watada. Had the politicians done their jobs, things would be much different, I'm sure.
No one in Congress is eager to cut off funding for the brave men and women fighting in Iraq; I'm not, either. However, that is not the point, which is, there is a way to do things legally and right, keeping the American people on your side (read about Pearl Harbor and WWII); and, there are lots of ways to do things behind the scenes, in the shadows and reap the rewards of deception.
Finally, I'm not sure that I know more about the Constitution than the SC, Congress or the President, but when looking at Property Rights, The War Powers Act (and the Resolution, searches without warrants and the Right of Habeus Corpus, sometimes I really DO wonder.

Posted by: Barcroft on June 11, 2006 08:22 AM
48. Josh--the U.N. can kiss my Aziz; you love it so much? then have Belgium or some Europlace defend you here with wilted lettuce 'international ideas'; its usefulness is over; it's a U.S. subsidized hate America school; screw them;

Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on June 11, 2006 08:54 AM
49. It is not clear to me that Lt. Watada is basing his case "on U.S. law rather than international law." Moreover it should be clear that UN Charter has the force of domestic law via Article VI of the Constitution.

And I am not expressing my own personal theory that the invasion of Iraq was illegal under international law. It's illegality is a widely recognized fact. The opinion of the American Society of International Law is worth taking a minute to look at:


On March 20, 2003, the United Kingdom and the United States sent letters to the United Nations Security Council reporting on their use of force against Iraq and their legal justifications for doing so. The UK letter invokes a right to enforce Security Council resolutions requiring Iraqi disarmament. [1] The US letter argues that the basis of the 1991 ceasefire with Iraq was removed, reviving authorization to use force against Iraq found in resolution 678 (1990). [2] The US letter also says the US was acting in its own defense and the defense of the international community. International law scholars have raised serious issues regarding all three justifications.

The UK letter states the "action follows a long history of non-cooperation by Iraq.with disarmament obligations imposed on it by the Council, including in resolutions 678 (1990), 687 (1991) and 1441 (2002)." "The objective of the action is to secure compliance by Iraq with its disarmament obligations as laid down by the Council." The UK and US have long argued that they have the right to use force to enforce Iraqi obligations in Security Council resolutions.

Of the resolutions cited in the UK letter, only resolution 678 authorizes the use of force, but it was adopted on November 29, 1990, to effect the liberation of Kuwait from Iraqi occupation and before Iraq had disarmament obligations. [3] Disarmament obligations were not placed on Iraq until resolution 687, the ceasefire resolution of April 3, 1991. Resolution 687 affirms the "sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Kuwait and Iraq" and the intention of Members to "bring their military presence in Iraq to an end as soon as possible." The resolution then establishes several measures to realize the "objective of restoring international peace and security in the area." These measures included demarcating the common Kuwait-Iraq border, creating a ten-mile demilitarized zone between the two states, as well as placing disarmament and financial obligations on Iraq. To enforce these measures the Council decided it would leave economic sanctions in place until Iraq was in full compliance. In the resolution's final paragraph the Council decided to "remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area." Resolution 687 contains no express authority for any state to use force.

A week after the adoption of resolution 687, the Security Council adopted a third resolution--resolution 688--calling on Iraq to end the repression of the Kurds and other citizens "as a contribution to removing the threat to international peace and security in the region" and to "allow immediate access by international humanitarian organizations." Within days of the adoption of resolution 688, US, French, British, Dutch and German troops established the Kurdish protection zone in northern Iraq. The US adopted the UK's argument justifying the legality of this force: that because resolution 688 referred to "peace and security in the region" and resolution 678 referred to peace in the area, reading resolution 678 together with resolution 688, allowed force to be used to enforce 688. [4] A similar argument was made to justify the subsequent imposition of no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq by the US, UK and France. [5] In 1998, however, when the US and UK used an intense bombing campaign to attempt to induce Saddam Hussein to re-admit UN weapons inspectors, a majority of the Council condemned the action as unlawful. [6] It might be argued that the US/UK interpretation of resolutions 688 and 678 was acquiesced in by the Council with respect to the Kurdish and no-fly zones. [7] No similar argument can be made respecting the use of force to enforce Iraqi disarmament obligations under resolution 687.

The Council passed resolution 1441 on November 12, 2002, but it provided no new authorization for using force. It states in paragraph 12 that a meeting of the Security Council will be the first step upon a report by inspectors that Iraq obstructed their activities. Russia, France and China have all stated they understood resolution 1441 permitted no automatic use of force. Subsequently, in fact, members of the Council were unwilling to adopt a proposed resolution that would authorize force to enforce Iraqi disarmament. Resolution 1441 states affirmatively that in the event of a material breach by Iraq of its obligations to cooperate, serious consequences would follow. But, again, the resolution does not say what serious consequences would follow. Nor did it provide any right of unilateral US/UK enforcement.

The argument in the March 20 US letter to the Security Council that Iraq's failure to fulfill its obligations under resolution 687 resulted in the termination of that resolution is also problematic. Analogizing to multilateral treaties, the argument is that a material breach of the obligations terminated the formal cease-fire in resolution 687 and returned the parties to the pre-ceasefire legal situation, specifically the situation created by resolution 678. Resolution 678 allowed the use of "all necessary means," including, presumably, taking the defense of Kuwait to Baghdad and ending the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Scholars raise at least three problems with this argument: first, resolutions are not treaties and do not automatically terminate upon material breach. Second, the argument that resolution 687 lapsed and resolution 678 revived is inconsistent with the legal position staked out by the US and UK for the last 12 years, and, third, resolution 678 never authorized the forcible change of Iraq's regime in the first place.

While it is true that in some cases of material breach of a multilateral treaty, the nonbreaching parties may suspend the treaty's operation or terminate it, [8] the analogy to resolutions is inapposite. Security Council resolutions are not treaties. They are not agreements among equals reached through negotiations, aimed at achieving consensus and binding on all parties alike if they give their consent. Council resolutions, by contrast, are mandates imposed on certain states that must be respected whether those states consent or not. [9] Resolutions are enforced, modified, or terminated by the Security Council acting under the terms of the UN Charter. The Charter does not authorize either states in general, or individual or groups of Security Council members, to take enforcement action on their own.

An additional problem with this line of argument is that it is unclear exactly when and how resolution 687 lapsed and 678 was revived. As of March 17, 2003, the US and UK were still looking for authority to use force to enforce it. Indeed, until March 19, 2003, the US and UK acted consistently in the belief that resolution 687 was a viable Security Council mandate that imposed obligations on Iraq to comply despite Iraq's consistent failure to do so; moreover, the resolution was receiving full Security Council attention toward getting Iraq to comply.

Even if resolution 687 could lapse and resolution 678 could revive, resolution 678 never authorized the use of force to forcibly change Iraq's government. Resolution 678 was about liberating Kuwait and providing security in the area. The US has acknowledged that the coalition had authority only for these purposes. [10] This fact is also evident in the terms of resolution 687 affirming both Kuwait's and Iraq's territorial integrity and political independence. Resolution 687 established a demilitarized zone between Kuwait and Iraq and disarmament obligations on Iraq, without calling for regime change in Iraq.

The final argument made by the United States in its March 20 letter to the Security Council is that the coalition's actions against Iraq in 2003 were "necessary steps to defend the United States and the international community from the threat posed by Iraq and to restore international peace and security in the area." The US appears to argue it may use force in self-defense because it perceived a threat of future harm from Iraq. The pre-emptive use of military force absent an armed attack violates the plain terms of the United Nations Charter and the prevailing interpretation of those terms. Under the Charter, states may use force in self-defense if an armed attack occurs. [11] For all other security concerns, states are to go to the Security Council. The Council may then authorize all necessary means to respond to what it determines is a threat to international peace and security. [12]

About the Author:
Mary Ellen O'Connell, William B. Saxbe Designated Professor of Law, The Ohio State University

The problem here is that some people, including some who read this blog, have either failed or refused to recognize that our goverment has committed a serious crime, and have not yet begun to work through the political/moral implications.

Posted by: Josh on June 11, 2006 09:14 AM
50. barcroft, jason, et al,

This will probably come as a complete surprise to you (based on your, rather fanciful commentary), but words have meaning. When you string them together, they can be used to proffer an opinion, allege a notion, or state a fact.

Just because you say something doesn't make it true!

I can't believe that anyone would be so foolish as to continue to doggedly hold to the thoroughly disproved notion that the WOT (or more specifically the war in Iraq) is in any way illegal or illegitimate. No, the Constitution still "means what it says" (although liberals regularly attempt to in order to thwart the true intent of the document and the spirit in which it was crafted) Just because you don't understand the Constitution, do you really believe that chanting it over and over again will somehow magically make it different? Oh, and BTW: despite the unnatural longings of a nit like Ruth B Ginsburg, we don't look to international law to interpret the US Constitution!

Congress gave the President the authority to conduct the WOT (Really! You can read all about it in a book!) Fait Accompli.

How this affects Watada is simple - he is refusing a legal order in wartime. However you would like it to go, it will go down as a straightforward court martial, followed by imprisonment and eternal dishonor.


Posted by: alphabet soup on June 11, 2006 09:38 AM
51. Josh and Barcroft,

Two central points remain clear and rationally indisputable.

Q 1. The U.N. is a corrupt feckless joke and anyone (YOU) that recognizes their existence as a legal power or their executive discretion as superior to, or even on a par with, that of the President of the United States is an idiot.

Q 2. The President of the United States has the LEGAL Constitutional power and authority as well as the solemn responsibility to make war. Legality is not the axiom of legitimacy, but pragmatic political influence.

The U.N. is an international debating society with no sovereignty and Kofi Annan is nothing but a third world, tin horn, half baked, corrupt pseudo-diplomat. The U.N. resolutions were constructive diplomatic tributes to the opinions of international community leadership and reflected nothing more. They gave us the opportunity to broker favor for our plans and they DECLARED TO THE WORLD who’s with us and who isn’t, and thus they lent the substance of the resolutions international political legitimacy.

NEVERTHELESS, our national interests trump those of the international community and the U.N., or the U.N. would not go along with us as they have in the current Iraq situation. Without the support of America, the U.N. would die on the vine and fall away into obscurity because they are not sovereign and have no war making ability. They try to use (and abuse) us as much as possible, but they make good international political tools for us or we would immediately discard them with impunity.

Secondly, the president of the United States has both the irrevocable power but the absolute and inarguable responsibility to make war on anyone that threatens America. While it is a solemn decision, it is a political -- NOT A LEGAL judgment based solely on practical political considerations. That is why Bill Clinton was able to avoid war when he was technically required by constitutional law to make it. Presidents can choose to be courageous as GW Bush and do his job, or cowardly as Bill Clinton was and leave serious life and death decisions for the next guy to handle.

While the president’s war powers are immense, the only real power the congress has in making war is political as well -- the power of the purse. Political legitimacy is the balancing feature of any decision to go to war, not the supporting invocation of a salutary “power to declare” war under Article 1, Section 8. Acts of Congress in support of the Presidential war powers have always been the mechanism by which wars were prosecuted from before the constitution and the existence of a president as the Commander in Chief. Every president in American history has been faced with the specter of sending military forces into harms way. The president, as commander in chief, has the right to send troops where he wishes, when he wishes and gave them orders that lead to hostilities, and he is under no obligation – other than political discretion – to obtain formal congressional approval. Congress’ countervailing power to cut funding, is the balancing influence.

Barcroft misses the whole point of the Congressional declaration clause. Imagine a Congressional Declaration of War under Article 1, Section 8, made without the agreement of the President of the United States. Who will prosecute the war? Wise-up!!! The fact that Congress overwhelmingly supported the Iraq war laid to rest any nonsensical claim that the Bush administration acted unilaterally or without pragmatic political authorization and endorsement.

Ans 1: Josh, it is apparent that you are entranced with the notion of international (or one world governance) but it doesn’t exist and it never will. Citing the U.N as a legal body of justification for treason and sedition is plain stupid. Thanks for the demo.

Ans 2: Barcroft, if you don’t like what is going on – tell your congressman to cut funding – but don’t pretend that the president is breaking any laws, because no cognizable laws (especially U.S. Constitutional laws) are being broken.

Watada is a treasonous coward, this war is completely legal and legitimate, and you guys are both witless fools.
Thanks for the op.

Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 11, 2006 10:50 AM
52. Josh & Barcroft,

Since you are enamored of a strict literal interpetation of the Constitution let's go there.

Article. I.
Section. 1.
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Let's remove all judges who legislate from the bench instead of ruling on the constitutionality of a law.

Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Remember Section 8 it will be important later.

Section. 9.
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

Tax in proportion to census, nothing about taxes based on income.

Section. 10.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

All those silly little agreements towns like Berkeley, San Fransisco make, out the window.

Article. VI.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

No religous test, no more complaining about Religous people running for office.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

No more PC speech codes, campaign finance reform, hate speech laws.

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Bye, bye to assualt weapons bans, waiting periods.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Remember Section 8?

The only Federal Departments allowed are:
Internal Revenue Service
Post Office
Running the District of Columbia
Department of State

Everything else, goes away.

Posted by: JCM on June 11, 2006 11:18 AM
53. It's worth noting the overall direction of this discussion:

After an initial attempt to defend the invasion as legal, supporters have beat at well-advised retreat to position that international law is irrelevant--"Amused by Liberals" (ABL) is the most articulate advocate of this position.

What I find interesting is how did that. Note that have neither LEGAL case for his belief that domestic law trumps international law, nor a MORAL case for why we ought to regard domestic law as trumping international law.

Rather, his claim is that "might makes right"!

In his view, our interests trump those of the international community because it the UN has no war making ability! Congress supposedly does not even have the [legal] power to declare war because the President runs the army.

The President on the other hand is restricted only by "political legitimacy" [not law]in his ability [ABL says "right"] "to send troops where he wishes, when he wishes and gave them orders that lead to hostilities, and he is under no obligation [practical or legal?] other than political discretion to obtain formal congressional approval."

Again he confuses having no practical obligation with having no legal or Constitutional obligation.

From the fact that the war had "pragmatic political authorization" [from some people] he then draws the false inference that that war is therefore legal or morally appropriate.

This argument would not have gotten you very far at Nuremberg. And there is no place for it in any modern liberal democracy.

Posted by: Josh on June 11, 2006 01:53 PM
54. Josh,

I have made the legal case, apparently you have trouble reading dissenting points of view with dismissing them ad hoc.

Congress authorized the use of force, the only thing missing is the word "war."

The Legislative and Executive branches agree on the legality of the use of force. While the Judicial branch has determined the issue is between the Legislative and Executive Branches.

The UN:
How many Iraq resolutions?
Where is the resolution condemning US action?
Is the UN feckless?
Passing resolution after resolution while taking billions under the table. How many died in Iraq due the UN's corruption? All those children the left cried over because of sanctions, while Saddam feathered his nest with the money intend for the children.

Just when would the UN have gotten around to it's duty? When Saddam's oil bribe money ran out?

I've shown you the legal standing for the use of force Resolution show me the case law that says otherwise.

Posted by: JCM on June 11, 2006 05:27 PM
55. JCM - Simple fact is he can't and he knows it. You and Amused have more than reiterated the reality of it, and for any of these trolls to continue to stick to their positions is irrational and deluded.

That's fine with me, too! I've come to recognize that rampant BDS has rendered virtually all of the hard left completely insane. It obviously doesn't make them happy to harp on delusional crap such as this (rather, I liken it to a kid picking a scab until they are bleeding profusely - they know it hurts, they know it isn't helping anything, but they just can't help themselves!).

All in all, it must suck to be a liberal these days!

Posted by: alphabet soup on June 11, 2006 05:56 PM
56. I known, but I am an optomist! I always have hope that something might tip the balance and start them on the road to recovery.

Posted by: JCM on June 11, 2006 06:00 PM
57. I never really knew about Section VI before. Thanks to Josh for providing the "America last" version.

This argument has been around for a while, but SCOUTUS seems to have been clear that nothing within treatise can change or amend the Constitution.

If, as Josh argues, a treaty becomes the supreme law of the land, then he seems to give the treaty priority over any other article of the Constitution. I find this nonsensical.

Rather than follow the pattern of cut and paste, I'll just point to this argument of a few years ago: http://www.freedomdomain.com/un/un01.html

Basically, if a treaty had articles that were the exact opposite of the Bill of Rights, which would be considered the "Supreme Law of the Land"? Josh's argument would indicate that the treaty prevails. Since this can not happen, then it is obvious to people who think America is good, that the treaty would have a much lower primacy than the actual words of the Constitution.

Since Congress approves treaties, and thus can choose to withdraw from treaties, then treaties still carry less weight than the Constitution.

At any rate, Lt. Watada swore an oath to the Constitution and his refusal to follow the orders of the Constitutionally mandated Commander in Chief is a violation of his oath. He does not have the power to individually impeach, convict and remove the President from office, and since Congress has not done it, President Bush is still the legal CinC. Watada is wrong.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on June 11, 2006 07:25 PM
58. Let's flip the argument:

Where in the Constitution is a use of force resolution prohibited.

Unless it is prohibited, it is up to the three branches. They all have decide it is legal.

Posted by: JCM on June 11, 2006 08:37 PM
59. Josh rejoins that my view holds that America’s ”interests trump those of the international community because it the UN has no war making ability! Congress supposedly does not even have the [legal] power to declare war because the President runs the army." The lazy liberal writing abilities match the superficial comprehension skills.

Might . . . certainly and quite demonstrably . . . makes right; it always has, and it always will. Josh further says, ”This argument would not have gotten you very far at Nuremberg.” Abstract philosophical niceties aside, the might to overcome evil through the use of sheer force was the sine qua non of Nuremberg’s very existence.
America and its allies outfought those of the Axis powers, thus we retained the “right” to impose our moral and legal views on those we defeated. Josh . . . how stupid are you??

Only through force and/or the threat of force are laws EVER legitimated. America exists because of force and/or the threat of force and without both it will cease to exist just as many sovereign nations have throughout history. The U.N. can make up rules all day long but they are only as powerful as the collective will of the co-signators willingness to use force and/or the threat of force to make them credible. See most significantly, Mogadishu (1993). Clinton’s reluctance to back his tough talk with action in defiance of the U.N. allowed Al Quaida to witness his cowardly unwillingness to use force to defend American interests abroad.

Clinton had the executive discretion to be a coward and encourage terrists to kill Americans, but if you are actually foolish enough to believe that the U.N. has the right to command America to do anything against its own best interests, you are beyond being just foolish and into the mildly (albeit humorously) insane category.

The simple matter of fact is, the “power to declare” war under Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution has nothing to back it up, and it is therefore merely salutary in nature. Article 1, Section 8 was put in the Constitution to prevent Presidents from acting like King George, but it is feckless and inapt and it does not mean what you feeeeeel that it does. In every attempt to enforce it, the Supreme Court of the United States has disagreed with your shallow opinion repeatedly for well over 200 years.

The Supreme Court applies the "political question doctrine" where conflicting issues of separation of powers overcome the right of the SCOTUS to consider ruling. It acknowledges that the court does not have the power to address a question involving the limitation of power granted to one branch of government under the constitution in favor of another when the question is one that clearly mandates a political solution. The executive branch is both responsible to protect America from its enemies and capable of doing so with Congressional approval and funds and . . . . . the Congress is clearly not.

Hey Josh, "Imagine a Congressional Declaration of War under Article 1, Section 8, made without the agreement of the President of the United States. Who will prosecute the war?" Which Senator or Congressman will run the military and under what constitutional grant of power . . . moron???

It is all there for anyone who can read to see, Marbury v. Madison (1803), Baker v. Carr (1962), Mora v. MacNamara (1967), DaCosta v, Laird (1972), Ange v. Bush (1990) just to name a few that are still effective law in this regard. They are effective under American Constitutional law established SOLELY by our willingness to use force and/or the threat of force to defend the Constitution and to make it credible. Otherwise you can continue to claim that you are smarter than everyone else by making the same idiotic claims based on shallow liberal hogwash.

Watada is a treasonous coward, this war is indeed more legal and legitimate than any and all of the wars started by Kennedy, Johnson, and Clinton, and you Josh are a witless fool.

Posted by: Amused by liberal shallowness on June 11, 2006 08:55 PM
60. According to what I have read, 1957 case Reid v. Covert. 354 U.S. 1, interpreted the Supremecy clause as holding treaties inferior to the Constitution. This case is the current law of the land as far as Article VI goes.


Posted by: SouthernRoots on June 11, 2006 09:00 PM
61. another upate to the national spelling bee for 2007; turncoat; judas; now we have someone who--in the face of the enemy or when called on to serve--turned and watada'd; or maybe he watada'd his pants; get him a camo baby pacifier, i hear 'waaaaaahhh-tada'

Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on June 12, 2006 10:05 AM
62. Josh--nice how you can eloquently pontificate; why? because you can do it in America, for all the faults you find in it, because at many times might DID make right--at least for our survival; try your blog in Cuba, Mogadishu or Saudi Arabia; Michael jackson moved out; so did Madonna; why not follow your these 'american idols?' obviously THEY are much more well informed than conservative peons;

Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on June 12, 2006 10:12 AM
63. Josh,

Your ability to simply repeat words from the Constitution is not the equivalent of understanding it. Leave it to a liberal to feeeeeel that the decisions of the Supreme Court of the Unites States confuses having no practical obligation with having no legal or Constitutional obligation. I am not commenting about my opinions alone, but those of the majority of legal scholars since the first test of the Constitution and judicial review in Marbury v. Madison. Obtaining pragmatic political authorization in accordance with the Constitution -- is -- abiding legal and Constitutional obligations.

I don't waste time commmenting for your sake, but because it allows me to put issues like these into proper perspective using authoritative sources of information and scholarly lines of reasoning. I prefer to understand things the way they are rather than the way I might simply "like" them to be.

If you wish to argue about law and morality, you might start by obtaining some "practical" as well as "theoretic" knowledge of the subject. When you decide to argue with a full deck, come back and debate. Until then your comments only show your ignorance.

A little hint: Easy answers (make believe) are not therefore correct ones.

Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 12, 2006 02:13 PM
64. since we're talking traitors and terrorists, ever notice the latest p.c. hurricane names do NOT follow certain ethnic patterns? when is Hurricane Abdul? perhaps the funky names screw up the radar screen visibility;

Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on June 12, 2006 04:05 PM
65. This POS is a disgrace. He knew ahead of time what he was doing. He let his troops down. Hell, he betrayed his troops!

The only thing this cowardly, treasonous POS deserves is a 5.56 round betewen the eyes as his reward for treason.

Posted by: ERNurse on June 13, 2006 03:23 PM
66. ERNurse,


Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 15, 2006 12:13 AM
67. I am a recipient of the Purple Heart OIFII. I am so bloody tired of people saying the war is wrong and that we are murderers from their couch. These people must be the ones that buy shit from infomercials. If you havent been there then shut the hell up. Because all you know of this war is what the TV tells you. Idiots. Your just repeating what someone else says its not even your own damn opinion. He is NOT an Infantryman. He is in Finance. His father evaded Vietnam. So we know where he learned this behaviour. He WILL be jailed. He WILL pay for breaking his oath. He had NO PROBLEM cashing his checks before being told he was being deployed to War. Liberals have weakended this countrys security posture so much it makes me sick. We are always so damned politically correct. I am a wolf among sheep. Disgusting. I kept my word he MUST keep his.

Posted by: Sgt F on July 7, 2006 09:11 PM
Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember info?