Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mannie who wrote (12931)	2/13/2003 3:29:04 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

s1: I do too...Senator Byrd truly is a class act... Here are some interesting comments from a friend (who is a foreign policy expert) who used to work in the prior administration... Message 18576831

To: Mannie who wrote (12931)	2/13/2003 3:35:04 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

Suit questions Bush's war powers By David D. Haskell From the National Desk Published 2/13/2003 9:48 AM BOSTON, Feb. 13 (UPI) -- A lawsuit filed in federal court in Boston Thursday seeks to prevent President Bush from going to war against Iraq without congressional approval. A coalition including six House members, several U.S. soldiers and parents of servicemen claims only Congress has that power under the Constitution. "We have a message for President Bush today. Read the Constitution," John Bonifaz, the plaintiffs' lead attorney, said at a news conference announcing the suit. "A war against Iraq without a congressional declaration of war will be illegal and unconstitutional," he said. "It is time for the courts to intervene." The representatives joining the suit, all Democrats, are John Conyers of Michigan, Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, James McDermott of Washington, Jose Serrano of New York, Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas and Jesse Jackson Jr. of Illinois. The U.S. Attorney's office said it had no comment on the suit. The plaintiffs asked for a preliminary injunction against the president and for a hearing on their request that Bush be barred from launching a military invasion against Iraq without a congressional declaration of war. The lawsuit cites Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which reads: "Congress shall have power... (to) declare war." The suit argues the resolution on Iraq that Congress passed in October did not declare war and unlawfully ceded the decision to Bush. The suit contends the framers of the Constitution sought to ensure that U.S. presidents would not have the power of European monarchs of the past to wage war. "The Founding Fathers did not establish an imperial presidency with war-making power," Conyers said. "The Constitution clearly reserves that for Congress." "The president is not a king," said Charles Richardson, a plaintiff whose Marine son is stationed in the Persian Gulf. "If he wants to launch a military invasion against Iraq, he must first seek a declaration of war from the United States Congress. Our Constitution demands nothing less," Richardson said. Richardson and two other plaintiffs -- Nancy Lessin and Jeffrey McKenzie -- are co-founders of Military Families Speak Out, an organization of people opposed to war against Iraq and who have family in the military. "A full and complete congressional discussion of the issues and all options must precede any move towards war," Lessin said, "because of the irreparable harm that would result." At the news conference, Lessin said she worried about her son, Joe, a Marine stationed in the Gulf. "We worry about Joe," she said. "We don't want him to be wounded or die. We don't want him to be forced to wound or kill innocent Iraqi civilians. That would kill part of him and part of us."

To: Mannie who wrote (12931)	2/13/2003 7:31:40 PM
From: Crimson Ghost	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Why France must use its veto Pascal Boniface, Le Figaro 13 February 2003 As public opinion all over the world mobilizes against a possible war in Iraq, American leaders and the press are focusing their attacks on France. Statements in the press and on television could make one think that Paris has become the fourth capital in the Axis of Evil. Anti-Americanism has been much debated in France, with the inclusion under this rubric of what is often no more than opposition to the policies of George W. Bush. Various public opinion polls confirm that there is no anti-Americanism among a majority of French. From the Kosovo war, to 11 September to the war in Afghanistan, French leaders and the public supported U.S. military actions when they considered them justified. There is, on the other hand, real Francophobia in the United States, along with a surge of generalized aggressiveness towards the French. France is considered to be essentially a country made stubborn by its past grandeur, whose only goal is to prove its presence by opposing the United States, before finally rallying round in order to preserve its grubby and mediocre interests. That Paris' policy is in tune with world opinion has apparently passed without notice. So, if the British present a second resolution at the end of the week, what, in the absence of major revelations about the the extent of the Iraqi arsenal, could France do in such a situation? It appears impossible that France could totally change its position and follow the Americans. The choice, therefore, is either to abstain, or to use the "nuclear option" of the veto. If until now France could legitimately be ambiguous, in order to preserve the maximum room for manoeuver, and if France as a permanent member of the Security Council could not rule out in advance the use of force, today, the veto would be the lesser evil. Certainly a veto risks provoking more American hostility towards us. It also risks temporarily distancing us from those European governments favorable and/or subject to Washington. A vast campaign of denigration would be launched towards us. And one also hears that we would be better off abstaining in order to avoid a final rupture with the United States or too great an isolation. But if using the veto has its disadvantages, an abstention would be even worse. We would give the impression that our protests were louder only so that our concessions could be all the greater. This would vindicate the American view that France protests only to quietly submit later on. Even the extent of American criticism leaves us almost no choice. If we do not use our veto to block a second resolution permitting the use of force in the absence of extra evidence, it will be the end of our credibility should we ever again want to provide an alternative voice to American policy. Our voice will simply be inaudible in future. We would lose all the capital of sympathy and even admiration we have gained around the world, without bringing the Americans to respect us more. Quite on the contrary. A veto would not only be logical, given the approach French diplomacy has taken on the Iraqi file since September, but it would reinforce the global image of France as a country that stands firm. An abstention would be seen in the United States and elsewhere, not merely as rallying to the cause, but as abject submission. The best response to the torrent of Francophobia in the United States is coherence and dignity. We know well that a French veto would not stop the war if the United States has decided that its vision of a multilateral world is one where national decisions are imposed on/ratified by the rest of the world. At least France, with the support of Germany -- without which nothing would have been possible -- and other countries in Europe and the world would be a beacon of hope for those who believe that right must not yield to might, even if this might is clothed in good intentions. Pascal Boniface is director of the Institute of Strategic and International Relations (www.iris-france.org) The above is an EI translation of an article that appeared in Le Figaro on 12 February 2003, under the headline "Le veto, un moindre mal."

To: Mannie who wrote (12931)	2/15/2003 4:00:11 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

Byrd Warns War Will be a Disaster for the Nation By Paul J. Nyden Charleston Gazette Online Thursday 13 February 2003 truthout.org Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., had harsh words Wednesday for the "haunting silence'' of the U.S. Senate in the face of a possible war with Iraq. "I truly must question the judgment of any president who can say that a massive, unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50 percent children is 'in the highest moral traditions of our country.' "This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time,'' Byrd said. Byrd, the Senate's most senior member, has served longer than all but three senators in U.S. history. Sen. Richard J. Durbin, D-Ill., compared Byrd's recent role to that of Winston Churchill in England during World War II. "He has taken leadership in the Senate, time and time and time again, to warn us of the looming crisis. Thank you for your leadership,'' Durbin said. "To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences,'' Byrd said. "On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war. "Yet, this chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing,'' "Only on the editorial pages of some of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.'' Reflecting on the Senate's own founders, Byrd asked, "What would Alexander Hamilton say about the silence in this chamber? What would Dr. Samuel Johnson of Connecticut say? What would Benjamin Franklin say about the silence that emanates from this chamber on the great issue of war and peace?'' Byrd specifically questioned the Bush administration doctrine of pre-emptive strikes. "This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world. "The doctrine of pre-emption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self-defense.'' Byrd said Bush's foreign policy may be in "contravention'' of international law and the United Nations charter. Noting the U.S. has spent $37 billion in Afghanistan and failed to capture Osama bin Laden, Byrd warned a war against Iraq war will weaken efforts to fight terrorism. "The alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once-solid global alliance against terrorism that existed after Sept. 11,'' Byrd said. "High-level administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty?'' Byrd said the nation's mood is grim, as people worry about loved ones fighting abroad, a stumbling economy and rising fuel prices. Byrd said Bush's policies call "into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned peacekeeper. This administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come. "Calling heads of state 'pygmies,' labeling whole countries as 'evil,' denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good.'' Byrd warned about dire consequences for nations like Pakistan, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, whose moderate governments could collapse in the wake of an attack on Iraq. "Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? The genie is being released from its bottle. Will it ever get back?'' Byrd asked. "Many of the pronouncements made by this administration are outrageous. There is no other word. Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent.... "On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq ... this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare -- this chamber is silent.... "We are truly sleepwalking through history. In my heart of hearts, I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings,'' Byrd said. To contact staff writer Paul J. Nyden, use pjnyden@wvgazette.com