From: "Gary Britt" 

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