PDA

View Full Version : Court reaffirms Bush's right to send troops



PhinPhan1227
03-14-2003, 10:57 AM
I'm sure people will ignore this courts ruling, just like they ignore the results of the election, but the LAW is behind Bush.



Appeals court upholds presidential war powers
From Terry Frieden
CNN Washington Bureau
Thursday, March 13, 2003 Posted: 5:18 PM EST (2218 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A federal appeals court Thursday upheld a lower court's dismissal of a challenge to the president's power to use military force in Iraq.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a district court judge who had dismissed a challenge from a group of antiwar lawmakers and activists claiming the president cannot act without a declaration of war by Congress.

In rejecting the plaintiffs' argument unanimously Thursday, the three-judge appeals panel in Boston said, "As the circumstances presented here do not warrant judicial intervention, the appropriate recourse for those who oppose war with Iraq lies with the political branches."

The suit sought a preliminary injunction preventing President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld from initiating a war in Iraq.

The plaintiffs included several outspoken congressional foes of the war: Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio; Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Illinois; Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas; Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Washington; and Rep. John Conyers, D-Michigan. Parents of active duty personnel also were among the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs had argued that the resolution approved by Congress in October backing the possible use of military force against Iraq was unconstitutional because Congress had wrongly handed over to the president its exclusive power to declare war.

But the court said there was no evidence that Congress has abandoned its authority to declare war.

"To the contrary," it said, "Congress has been deeply involved in significant debate, activity and authorization connected to our relations with Iraq for over a decade under three different presidents of both major political parties, and during periods when each party has controlled Congress."

Kamikaze
03-14-2003, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
I'm sure people will ignore this courts ruling, just like they ignore the results of the election, but the LAW is behind Bush.

If this is what the law is in this country, I want the **** out. You probably think the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 (http://www.publicintegrity.org/dtaweb/downloads/Story_01_020703_Doc_1.pdf) is a good idea too...

PhinPhan1227
03-14-2003, 12:17 PM
For the most part, no. I think that most of the laws we've got in place are fine. I AM in favor of things like national DNA databases, and immigration registries, but I'm against most innitiatives to expand the powers of domestic law enforcement, and ANY dimunition of Habeus Corpus for US citizens. As for the legal decision at hand, if you don't like the law of the land, you have three choices...work to change it through introduction of a new law, leave the country, or sit and gripe. But the law as it exists NOW supports Bush, just as it's supported every other US President who has sent troops in where no official declaration of war existed. Again, if you don't like it, try and change it. But the law IS behind Bush.

dolfan06
03-14-2003, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
I'm sure people will ignore this courts ruling, just like they ignore the results of the election, but the LAW is behind Bush.



i think he has always had legal precedence, but what is the real reason to do it now!:rolleyes:

PhinPhan1227
03-14-2003, 12:33 PM
Do you mean "now" as in why did he push the UN to put inspectors in now after 12 years? Or why now instead of 1-2 months from now? If it's the first option...maybe because 12 years was enough, and it's expensive in men and materials to maintian the no fly zone. If it's the 2nd, it's because the economy is going to remain stagnant until this is resolved, and you can only leave troops in place so long before THEY go stale. There's also the concern of summer heat and how it impacts the troops use of NBC gear.

dolfan06
03-14-2003, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Do you mean "now" as in why did he push the UN to put inspectors in now after 12 years? Or why now instead of 1-2 months from now? If it's the first option...maybe because 12 years was enough, and it's expensive in men and materials to maintian the no fly zone. If it's the 2nd, it's because the economy is going to remain stagnant until this is resolved, and you can only leave troops in place so long before THEY go stale. There's also the concern of summer heat and how it impacts the troops use of NBC gear. its my opinion that bush is pushing for rhis war, more beacause of what people are saying about his daddy!

and yes, why wasn't something done when he gassed his own people and the turks!

hitler and the jews were a big thing in our history, why did we wait?:confused:

PhinPhan1227
03-14-2003, 01:25 PM
I like George Sr, but he wussed out. He was afraid to go against world opinion and push the last mile to get rid of Saddam. Ditto for Bill. We should have done it then, we ARE doing it now. Some people think we should wait even longer.

dolfan06
03-14-2003, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
I like George Sr, but he wussed out. He was afraid to go against world opinion and push the last mile to get rid of Saddam. Ditto for Bill. We should have done it then, we ARE doing it now. Some people think we should wait even longer. i'm in favor of it, i just wondered if there was any hidden reason!;)

PhinPhan1227
03-14-2003, 01:55 PM
There may be 1/2 dozen hidden reasons. None of which change or invalidate the OBVIOUS reasons which are right under everyones noses.

phinphan
03-14-2003, 03:51 PM
http://www.finheaven.com/boardvb2/images/uploaded/912_photo.jpg

dolfan06
03-14-2003, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by phinphan
http://www.finheaven.com/boardvb2/images/uploaded/912_photo.jpg GOOD ONE!:lol: