From: "Gary Britt" 

A FORMAL declaration of war is whatever CONGRESS says it is.  The language
you provide is NOT required by the constitution, and no matter how many
egghead professors say it, doesn't make it so.  There are court cases on
this already Rich.  These same egghead types tried these semantic games for
the Korean and Vietnam wars.  The courts ruled the authorization of force
WAS and IS a declaration of war for purposes of constitutional analysis.

In the Hamdi case O'Connor writing for the court said that the AUMF did in
fact grant Bush lots of powers not expressly stated in the AUMF.  Like
holding enemy combatants indefinitely.

Gary

"Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
news:43b164f0{at}w3.nls.net...
> Nope - Also you've missed the point of the links - The argument that the
use
> of force agreement does not give Bush the right/power  to alter existing
law
> on his whim.
>
> The Congress did NOT include "all of the resources of the country are
hereby
> pledged by the Congress of the United States."  as is stated in a FORMAL
> declaration of war
>
>
> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
> news:43b16369{at}w3.nls.net...
> > 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