From: "Gary Britt" 

No, in other words there *IS* a formal declaration of war and its name is
AUMF.  The AUMF *IS* a formal declaration of war.  It even says war in its
terms.  The constitution does NOT contain any suggested language for a
declaration of war.  It merely says only congress can declare war.  An AUMF
*IS* a formal declaration of war under the constitution, and the courts have
so held.  Joe Biden even made this statement that the AUMF *IS* a
declaration of war under the constitution during one of his MSNBC rants
last week.  This being one of the rare times Biden is actually correct
about something.

Gary

"Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
news:43b14ea7{at}w3.nls.net...
> In other words Bush never sought a FORMAL declaration of war from Congress
> because he knew he would never receive it. All this chest beating (we're
at
> war) and lessening of our liberties is the paranoid bleating of the far
> right sheep of Bush
>
>
http://encarta.msn.com/guide_whocandeclarewar/Who_Can_Declare_War_Backgrounder_
and_Research_Guide.html
> The current president Bush also never sought a formal declaration of war
> from Congress. Instead, he requested, and received, the authority to use
> armed forces "as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate" to defend
> American interests against "the continuing threat posed by Iraq."
>
> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
> news:43b145ad$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> > You have it already I suspect the AUMF *IS* a declaration of war.  As
far
> > as
> > the Supreme Court is concerned an AUMF fills the constitutional
> > requirements
> > of a declaration of war.  Those who argue that an AUMF isn't a
declaration
> > of war because it doesn't use the same language as the WWII declaration
> > are
> > attempting to draw semantical differences and turn that into a
> > constitutional difference.  They are wrong, and the courts have so ruled
> > previously during the Vietnam war among others.
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
> > news:43b0bc31$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> >> Really? Please provide a link to the FORMAL Declaration of War by
> > Congress.
> >>
> >> As far as I know the United States has only FORMALLY declared war 11
> >> times
> >> in it's history and IRAQ is not part of the 11
> >>
> >>
> >> A military engagement as Congress authorized in 2002 is not considered
a
> >> formal declaration of war.
> >>
> >> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HJ00114:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "Gary Britt" 
wrote in message
> >> news:43b0b6f5$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> >> > To show that the war on drugs wasn't a *military* war. 
I thought the
> >> > context in the original post was pretty obvious.
> >> >
> >> > It is a war, Congress declared war.  If you don't like Congress'
> >> > actions
> >> > then campaign for a different point of view and Congress
critters who
> > will
> >> > pass a resolution declaring the war over and rescinding their
> > declaration
> >> > of
> >> > war/AUMF.
> >> >
> >> > Simple.
> >> >
> >> > Gary
> >> >
> >> > "Rich Gauszka" 
wrote in message
> >> > news:43b0b048$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> >> >> You are the one that brought up napalm and yes we've
used it more
than
> > to
> >> >> just clear a battlefield.
> >> >>
> >> >> And what was your point to bring up napalm to justify Bush's
mythical
> >> >> war?
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes we have a conflict with some nasty people but in
NO way is it
> >> > justified
> >> >> to declare it a war. Bob's example of a the 'war on
drugs' while not
a
> >> >> military conflict gives us way more fatalities than
your bogeyman
and
> >> >> even
> >> >> it doesn't justify the abuse of liberty that you espouse..
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> "Gary Britt"
 wrote in message
> >> >> news:43b0a656$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> >> >> > And what's the point?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Gary
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Rich Gauszka"
 wrote in message
> >> >> > news:43b03e34$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> >> >> >> We use/have used   napalm type weapons much
more than any
> > terrorists.
> >> > Oh
> >> >> >> I
> >> >> >> forgot it's ok as we didn't sign the 1980
UN convention banning
> > those
> >> >> >> weapons.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "Gary Britt"
 wrote in message
> >> >> >> news:43b03b9e{at}w3.nls.net...
> >> >> >> > We aren't discussing criminals killing
criminals and police
> > killing
> >> >> >> > criminals.  You're changing subjects. 
We were discussing
whether
> >> >> >> > its
> >> > a
> >> >> >> > war
> >> >> >> > or not, and it isn't a military war.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Terrorists aren't using napalming
because of some heartfelt
> > ethical
> >> >> >> > concern
> >> >> >> > over that particular method of
clearing a battlefield, so to
make
> >> > such
> >> >> >> > a
> >> >> >> > statement reveals more about errors in
your thinking versus us
or
> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> > terrorists.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Gary
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > "Robert Comer"
 wrote in message
> >> >> >> > news:43b036e6{at}w3.nls.net...
> >> >> >> >> > When they start napalming
fields and people, then its a war.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> You'd be surprised how many are
killed every year in the drug
> >> > trade --
> >> >> >> >> I'd
> >> >> >> >> bet more than terrorism.
Terrorists never napalmed anyone yet
> > btw,
> >> >> > that's
> >> >> >> >> our specialty. :|
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> >> Bob Comer
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> "Gary Britt"
 wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> news:43b0202e$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> >> >> >> >> > When they start napalming
fields and people, then its a war.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Gary
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > "Robert Comer"
 wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> > news:43af989e$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> >> >> >> >> >> > The war on drugs
isn't yet a military conflict.  It
remains
> > a
> >> > law
> >> >> >> >> >> > enforcement issue,
so not the same as a real war.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> You do know that the
military has been in on the war on
> >> >> >> >> >> drugs,
> >> >> >> >> >> don't
> >> >> >> > you
> >> >> >> >> >> Gary?  The national guard
has been active for many years
> > looking
> >> >> >> >> >> for
> >> >> >> >> > growing
> >> >> >> >> >> pot, not to mention the
fighter jet scrambles for  drug
> > running
> >> >> > planes
> >> >> >> >> >> and
> >> >> >> >> >> the coast guard doing the
same on the water...
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> - Bob Comer
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> "Gary Britt"
 wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> >> news:43ae8245{at}w3.nls.net...
> >> >> >> >> >> > The war on drugs
isn't yet a military conflict.  It
remains
> > a
> >> > law
> >> >> >> >> >> > enforcement issue,
so not the same as a real war.
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> > Gary
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> > "Geo"
 wrote in message
> >> >> >> > news:43ae4f98$2{at}w3.nls.net...
> >> >> >> >> >> >> does that make
it ok to use the same reasoning for the
war
> > on
> >> >> >> >> >> >> drugs?
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> Geo.
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> "Gary
Britt"  wrote in
message
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
news:43ae3c2a$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > The war
time threats we face make things different.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Why surprised?
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Gary
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > "Dave
Ings"  wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
news:43ae0c3c{at}w3.nls.net...
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > Bush
may be the President with a capital P, but at
the
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > end
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > of
> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> >> > day
> >> >> >> >> >> >> he's
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > just a
career politician, which IMHO means he is
more
> > or
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > less
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > untrustworthy
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > and
should have parental supervision on sensitive
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > matters.
> >> >> > You
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > seem
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > to
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > have
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > a
great amount of faith in him, which all things
> >> > considered
> >> >> >> >> > surprises
> >> >> >> >> >> > me
> >> >> >> >> >> >> a
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > bit.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > And
yes I would offer up the same opinion of
Clinton.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > A
> >> >> > little
> >> >> >> >> >> >> skepticism
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > goes a
long way, sunshine is the best disinfectant,
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > etc
> >> > etc.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > --
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > Regards,
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > Dave Ings,
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > Toronto, Canada
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
"Gary Britt"  wrote in
> > message
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
news:43adffce$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >
As judge Posner said, the President would be
> > criminally
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > negligent
> >> >> >> >> >> > had
> >> >> >> >> >> >> he
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > NOT
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >
instituted this surveillance.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > Gary
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5