[CTRL] War Talk the Constitution
-Caveat Lector- http://www.counterpunch.org/hoff0920.html September 20, 2002 War Talk the Constitution Americans used to discuss going to war--at least they did in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. by JOAN HOFF This time honored tradition goes back to the lengthy discussions leading to the War for Independence, before the war of 1812, before the Mexican War in 1845, before the 1898 Spanish-American War, and between 1914 and 1917 when the United States entered the First World War. Then the attack on Pearl Harbor and the North Korean invasion of South Korea prevented discussion before presidents committed the nation to war. At least FDR, unlike his successor Harry Truman, felt obliged to obtain a declaration of war from Congress. From the Korean War to the Gulf War the United States went to war on the orders of various Cold War presidents without any congressional resolutions. Except for the ill-informed debate over the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, there was no discussion of going to war in Vietnam. Only after George Bush, the elder, had committed 500,000 troops did Congress finally debate and approve by a narrow margin the Gulf War--in part because the Bush administration could not disguise that oil and oil alone was the reason for fighting. None of the myriad U.S. military invasions during the Cold War were discussed and approved by Congress except implicitly through passage of CIA and military appropriations. Little wonder some are wondering why there need be a discussion of whether to attack Iraq. U.S. presidents for most of the Cold War did not have to be bothered with obtaining public or congressional approval before committing American troops. So why bother now? Aside from the obvious answer that leaders of a functioning democracy are supposed to obtain legislative and popular support before going to war, it is not so obvious that discussing the pros and cons of going to war produce authentic reasons for justifying military action. I say this because the official reasons given at the time for taking any nation into war are almost always untrue. They represent myth rather than reality, regardless of whether the government is democratic or authoritarian. People need to be convinced they are fighting and dying for a noble, and usually mythical cause--not crass economic or narrow nationalist motivations. Consider the less than truthful official words used by past leaders when taking the nation into war in contrast to their real reasons. "No taxation without representation" really meant no taxation "PERIOD" as self-determination won out over loyalty to England in 1776. President Madison declared in 1812 that violation of trade and territorial water rights, impressment of American seamen, and English incitement of Native Americans required going to war. In fact, desire for land on the part of Anglo Americans living in the south and west, and a grandiose belief in national honor on the part of Republicans who controlled the government but were in a vicious partisan fight with Federalists, actually accounted as much or more for the declaration of war against England. While President Polk told the country in 1846 that Mexico had shed "American blood upon American soil," he neglected to mention that he had ordered American troops into disputed territory and was responding to the regional racist desire for territory that was sparsely populated with Indians or Mexicans. The underlying economic and socio-cultural differences between the North and South and the breakdown of the party system in the 1850s contributed as much to the outbreak of the Civil war as the more publicized one about the moral evil of slavery. President McKinley's remarks in 1898 about going to war to "free" Cuba and to protect American property and trade, belied the role played by the "yellow press" in promoting war, the expansionists views of prominent Republicans, and the fear of the business community that unstable conditions in Cuba were adversely affecting the stock market and retarding economic from the lingering 1894 depression. Woodrow Wilson, probably wins the contest for concocting high-sounding mythical reasons when he took the country into World War I, saying it was because of the violation of U.S. neutral rights (when the country had not in fact been acting neutrally between the belligerents) and, of course, "to end all wars, " and "to make the world safe for democracy." Even though the attack on Pearl Harbor logically prompted U.S. entrance into World War II, it took historians decades to find out how economic pressure on Japan contributed to this attack. The Korean war was also precipitated by a foreign attack, allowing Truman to undertake the first "limited" war of the Cold War in the name of an ostensible multilateral operation and collective security. Both the Korean War and the Gulf War had UN approval, but in truth they represented, at best, the ruse of multilateralism by the United States to conduct
[CTRL] WAR ON THE CONSTITUTION
-Caveat Lector- WJPBR Email News List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Peace at any cost is a Prelude to War! Wed Feb 20 02:10:07 2002 68.3.132.0 WAR ON THE CONSTITUTION By Rafe Husa We have bombing and war yet there is no declaration of war. A new Cabinet position (Homeland Security) has been created yet Congress passed neither enabling legislation nor has Congress appropriated funding of such, nor has the Cabinet Member been confirmed by Congress. NO MONEY SHALL BE DRAWN FROM THE TREASURY, BUT IN CONSEQUENCE OF APPROPRIATIONS MADE BY LAW; AND A REGULAR STATEMENT AND ACCOUNT OF THE RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURES OF ALL PUBLIC MONEY SHALL BE PUBLISHED FROM TIME TO TIME. UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION SEC 9. We have learned of selective suspension of Habeas Corpus yet no martial law or state of emergency has been declared. THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS SHALL NOT BE SUSPENDED, UNLESS WHEN IN CASES OF REBELLION OR INVASION THE PUBLIC SAFETY MAY REQUIRE IT. UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION SEC 9. Thousands of people have disappeared with not even their lawyers knowing their whereabouts.is it protective custody or internment? Congress has passed legislation under duress while it was being attacked by Anthrax mail. The attacks stopped immediately after Congress passed the Patriot Act. The source of anthrax is openly admitted to coming from US defense laboratories. Congress did not even get a chance to read legislation that it has passed let alone debate it. Congressman Ron Paul (RTX) Said IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THE BILL WASN'T PRINTED BEFORE THE VOTE - AT LEAST I COULDN'T GET IT. THEY PLAYED ALL KINDS OF GAMES, KEPT THE HOUSE IN SESSION ALL NIGHT, AND IT WAS A VERY COMPLICATED BILL. MAYBE A HANDFUL OF STAFFERS ACTUALLY READ IT, BUT THE BILL DEFINITELY WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO MEMBERS BEFORE THE VOTE. Violations **The First Amendment right of free speech and association; **The Fourth No searches without warrants, there does not now exist any category called unreasonable searches and seizures all searches are effectively legal, specifically secret searches; THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO BE SECURE IN THEIR PERSONS, HOUSES, PAPERS, AND EFFECTS, AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED, AND NO WARRANTS SHALL ISSUE, BUT UPON PROBABLE CAUSE, SUPPORTED BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION, AND PARTICULARLY DESCRIBING THE PLACE TO BE SEARCHED, AND THE PERSONS OR THINGS TO BE SEIZED. UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION 4TH AMENDMENT. **The Fifth prohibition against seizure of property without due process is gone; NO PERSON SHALL BE HELD TO ANSWER FOR A CAPITAL, OR OTHERWISE INFAMOUS CRIME, UNLESS ON A PRESENTMENT OR INDICTMENT OF A GRAND JURY, EXCEPT IN CASES ARISING IN THE LAND OR NAVAL FORCES, OR IN THE MILITIA, WHEN IN ACTUAL SERVICE IN TIME OF WAR OR PUBLIC DANGER; NOR SHALL ANY PERSON BE SUBJECT FOR THE SAME OFFENCE TO BE TWICE PUT IN JEOPARDY OF LIFE OR LIMB; NOR SHALL BE COMPELLED IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF, NOR BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW; NOR SHALL PRIVATE PROPERTY BE TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE, WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION. UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION 5TH AMENDMENT. **As with the war on drugs, property can be seized be executive order; people, even citizens, can be declared or defined terrorist by executive order; **Organizations, including Citizens, can be declared terrorist or terrorist linked by executive order and have their assets seized and membership list confiscated. **Secret courts disburse secret search warrants, people are charged with secret evidence which even their lawyers can not see and are unable to confront or challenge their accusers. All of the above was actually legal prior to 911 but will now enter mainstream. IN ALL CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS, THE ACCUSED SHALL ENJOY THE RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL, BY AN IMPARTIAL JURY OF THE STATE AND DISTRICT WHEREIN THE CRIME SHALL HAVE BEEN COMMITTED, WHICH DISTRICT SHALL HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY ASCERTAINED BY LAW, AND TO BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION; TO BE CONFRONTED WITH THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM; TO HAVE COMPULSORY PROCESS FOR OBTAINING WITNESSES IN HIS FAVOR, AND TO HAVE THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL FOR HIS DEFENSE. UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION 6TH AMENDMENT. Open permission to kill has been given to intelligence agencies (Death squads organized, financed and run by the US Gov). Who will decide which of the enemies of the US GOV is beyond the pale and need to be exterminated, how long before this horror strikes home as US Government certainly has many opponents both presumed and real both at home and abroad? One of the internees died with an alleged heart attack. When his body was autopsied in
