From: "Gary Britt" 

The people you quote are wrong.  The AUMF is a declaration of war, the
constitution doesn't require specific language or phrases and neither does
the Supreme Court.  The people you quote below are wrong (not the first
time for them I'm sure).

Gary

"Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
news:43b15a45$2{at}w3.nls.net...
> http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2005/12/beyond_his_powe.html
>
> . Congress's September 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF)
> According to today's AP article: "The president said the authority to
bypass
> the court derived from the Constitution and Congress' vote authorizing the
> use of military force after the 2001 terror attacks." Essentially, Bush's
> argument is that he had the power to ignore a law of Congress based on
> Congress' Authorization of the Use of Military Force (AUMF).
>
> As Professor Seth Weinberger observes:
>
>   Today, we learn from the New York Times that President Bush secretly
> authorized the NSA to spy on Americans without a warrant, using the
> September 2001 resolution that authorized the president to use "all
> necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or
> persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided" the 9/11
> attacks. However, this is not a declaration of war. And, in particular, it
> lacks the crucial language that modern delcarations of war have contained,
> which states that "all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged
by
> the Congress of the United States." This language is present in the
> declarations for WWI and II. It is a recognition by Congress that total
war
> is in fact total, and may require the president to act domestically in a
> legislative manner.
>   Absent such language in a formal declaration of war, I highly doubt that
> the president's authorization of domestic spying is legal.
>
>
> Professor Peter Swire (law, Ohio St.) argues:
>
>   [T]he Administration seems to say that the general Congressional
> resolution amended [FISA], without anyone realizing it. That approach is
> contrary to the usual reading of statutes, where there is no "repeal by
> implication" - you have to say you are repealing a specific statute for
the
> repeal to be effective.
> Marty Lederman argues:
>   That the AUMF impliedly repealed the well-wrought scheme in FISA, with
its
> prohibition on warrantless eavesdropping on U.S. persons (a repeal that
only
> the Executive knew about: neither the public, nor even the Congress that
> enacted the AUMF, was aware that it had performed such radical surgery on
> the U.S. Code.
> It is hard to imagine that authorizing military force authorizes the
> President to disregard a litany of laws at the President's whim. If so,
the
> Congress must be extremely careful in authorizing military force in the
> future, because such authorization would turn over to the President the
> right to contravene an unspecified number of laws.
>
>
>
>
> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
> news:43b15749$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> > 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