Will Busu Attack Iran?

[chicagogato]

Guess I've got more important things to do than worry about a post count. Doesn't mean I'm not reading what goes on here. :smirk:

[chicagogato]

The attention of civil-liberties groups to post-9/11 legislation has focused on the USA Patriot Act and its violation of key aspects of the first, fourth, fifth, sixth and eighth amendments in the Constitutionâ??s Bill of Rights. Some legal challenges to certain sections of the act have been successful. Most notably, Section 505 of the act, the provision allowing the government to issue â??national security lettersâ? for access to customer records from internet service providers and other businesses without permission of the courts, was ruled unconstitutional by a U.S. District Court in September 2004.

 

But a more significant piece of legislation has largely remained under the radar. Seven days after the 9/11 attacks, Congress passed Public Law 107-40. This joint resolution, commonly referred to as the â??Authorization for Use of Military Forceâ? (AUMF), gave Mr. Bush â??specific statutory authorizationâ? to:

 

â?¦ se 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.

 

This was the infamous â??blank checkâ? that Congress wrote to the executive branch, giving Mr. Bush virtually unreviewable, dictatorial powers to carry out his war on terrorism.

 

To date, the most visible judicial challenges of the constitutionality of the AUMF have been the convoluted cases of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Padilla v. Bush. The decisions of the federal judicial branch in these cases have been mixed.

[chicagogato]

And I bet you're the same old hippy from thaipussy. Right?

[chicagogato]

By the way C.S. :question: In all three cases, the defendants were held under military jurisdiction, and U.S. District Courts found for the defendantsâ?? rights to argue their cases in civilian courts under the habeas corpus provision of the Constitution and/or the Geneva Convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war. But all three district court decisions were reversed by U.S. Courts of Appeals. The Supreme Court agreed to hear further appeals in all three cases.

 

The Hamdan and Padilla Supreme Court cases are still pending. Questions exist as to whether the Padilla case will be heard at the high-court level, now that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has agreed to allow Padillaâ??s case to be heard in a lower civilian court. Some observers contend that Gonzales remanded Padilla to civil justice for the specific purpose of avoiding a Constitutional challenge of the AUMF and the Patriot Act in the Supreme Court.

[shygye]

Guess I've got more important things to do than worry about a post count. Doesn't mean I'm not reading what goes on here. :smirk:

 

Yeah, like creating multiple monikers.

[Old Hippie]

And I bet you're the same old hippy from thaipussy. Right?

 

 

No. I use this name on 2 other boards. There is someone else using it on another board last I saw. There are also variations of it floating around.

 

 

Anyway, back to the topic. Rumor floating around the Talk radio shows that China made an ultimatum to GW, and he had to call off some planned action/strikes...supposedly, China would pull money out of our economy, and close the purse strings, maybe not a smart move, but it would have hurt us big time some say.

No idea how true, as most of these shows are full of crap.

[chicagogato]

Sounds pretty believable to me.

By the way, I use this same name on several other boards also.

[chicagogato]

Sorry to tell you your shyness, but I only go by this one name and always have. I live here in Thailand so "pom mai dai kittung" and I don't need to depend on web boards to keep myself informed. When I want to offer input I do. So why don't you show me in the rules where I need to strive for 5 thousand plus posts like you in order to remain a member. By the way, at least 3 posters on this board know me so let's just end this discussion here shall we?.

[shygye]

So what 3 other aliases do you have?

[Steve]

I don't know where you get your faith in congress CS. All Bush has to do is pull the old mushroom cloud gambit...

 

"Congressman X doesn't worry that Iran has a nuclear bomb aimed at you...."

 

As for authorization, the White House already thinks they have it under the original post 9/11 authorization of force and Lieberman took care of the loopholes.

 

And what's with you anyway CS...are you soft on terrorists?

 

I went soft on a BG when the rubber broke once.

 

Nowadays its hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys.

 

Interesting thing is it takes a few people to send a nuke to Iran. He has authorization codes, the head of the Joint Chiefs has them and has to comply, there are at least 2 guys in the bunker or if its by air, sometimes two in the plane and they have to reconfirm. I don't see any general sending one out just because Bush said so. In the middle of a war and under certain circumstances like the russians have their 'birds' (nukes) in the air, sure. But arbitrarily if Bush wanted to? Never. Yes, he's commander in chief but one there is no declard war on Iran and two, they are just as intuned to the politics as Bush is and they'd question him and call a senator or two and say 'Bush is nuts...no, really nuts'.

 

He's not a king or dictator.