TexasCHLforum.com

Paladin wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 8:07 am In this day and age I think its pretty common for certain groups to use others as human shields. Examples would be Hezbollah or the Ukrainians storing explosives in populated areas. Other examples closer to home are the ATF and FBI putting their offices inside the upper levels of buildings occupied by daycares and nurseries.

FTYF. But good point none the less

philip964 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 4:22 pm Eight Republicans join Democrats to pass in Senate a resolution limiting Trump’s war powers.

Great! The unconstitutional state of American Warfare for Profit needs to stop.

Constitutional process for a declaration of war is outlined in Article II Section 8 where Congress must declare war.

Declarations of War have historically always included (and LEGALLY must include) (1) The Parties between which the conflict exists, (2) that the President is authorized to act.

As an EXAMPLE: The War of 1812

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That war be and is hereby declared to exist between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the dependencies thereof, and the United States of America and their territories; and that the President of the United States is hereby authorized to use the whole land and naval force of the United States to carry the same into effect, and to issue to private armed vessels of the United States commissions or letters of marque and general reprisal, in such form as he shall think proper, and under the seal of the United States, against the vessels, goods, and effects of the government of the said United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and the subjects thereof.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... ed_Kingdom

As a general rule, neither (1) nor (2) may be properly passed unless the parties are identified. It is logical that there must be some way to win against the stated enemy, and that the enemy must actually exist.

Now looking at the 2001 bill passed on September 18th:

Preamble

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Section 1 – Short Title

This joint resolution may be cited as the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

Section 2 – Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoriza ... ce_of_2001

We see (1) The Parties in which the conflict exists, (2) that the President is authorized to act. Except the parties aren't explicitly named... And after significant evidence that Pakistan as well as Saudi Arabia were heavily involved in protecting and enabling the attackers, we went after Iraq...

We have ourselves in an unwinnable situation because the first time we stepped aside from chasing down the attackers and those that enabled them, we abandoned any final pretense that this was a constitutional declaration of war and instead pursued the politically convenient rather than the militarily necessary.

Explain to me how this war authorization allows us to act in Africa? To quote a filthy rag: "Osama bin Laden is dead. Saddam Hussein is dead. 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is standing trial. Afghanistan is holding democratic elections later this month. We have pummeled Al Qaeda and kept attacks away from American soil." If so, then how are we using the same bill almost 19 years later to carry out activities in Africa and Eurasia? Not to mention the (arguably) dozens of black raids that occur in other places such as Central America or Europe. If there is any chance of identification, then we an just point back to this laughable excuse for a declaration of war and say "Congress Authorized"...

Its time for us to stop. It didn't work in Vietnam despite the great men that were sent there and it won't work in the middle east or anywhere else. If you invade another country and leave their people alive, you will always be the enemy. It just psychology. And the only way to stop is is to get the hell out.