Secret Bush administration legal memos released to public

[Thanis]

...I'm saying congress should do their job and declare war!...

I understand your thoughts, but I don't think there is a clear cut way to declare war on an ism, historically war is declared on a state.

We are trapped by our own concepts. They enemy does not care about our legal terms or concepts. I agree they (the terms and concepts) have value to us, but I'm not willing to scorn a President (aka Bush) or his council's inability to use the right words, for an undefined hypothetical, so we can maintain a perfect image in spite of the potential adverse circumstances they faced. I don't care what the media, or those playing politics, spin about what he might have done. Until events happen, it is the difference between a bluff and fact.

It is news worthy, it is a good thread, but I'm just calling it like I see it, this is politics and media spin.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[hidden]

I'm not susgesting that we break any laws. I'm saying congress should do their job and declare war! We would not need any warants then would we? An enemy on our soil would be a spy, simple. No courts no appeals...shoot him.

Michael

My question is...who would we be declaring war on? And how do we determine who is or is not an enemy on our soil? I've never been happy or comfortable with things like warrantless wiretapping or searches. The whole Patriot Act legislation in response to our fears is crazy. What's the Ben Franklin quote?

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

[mcp1810]

OK a couple of things come to mind while reading this.
First, the enlistment oath each service member swears includes the phrase "foreign and domestic". So it seems to me that the oath anticipates military action within our own borders.
So how do we differentiate a military action (war fighting) within the confines of the U.S. from a law enforcement action? A police (law enforcement) raid is carried out with intent to capture bad guys and secure evidence for their trial. That kind of raid generally requires a warrant.
A military raid (war fighting) frequently has different objectives. If we are talking about non uniformed enemy combatants actively advancing an operation against the U.S. population are we going to impose different rules of engagement on our troops for no other reason than the particular lattitude and longitude of their target?
Is the Global War on Terror global or not? Is it a war or not?

[HotGuns]

Is it a war or not?

It is if you are in it.

[Sig 210]

War is the key word. If Congress would do its job and declare war as the constitution meant it to be they would not need these secret memos.

They might do just that if the president asked for a declaration of war. No president has asked for a declaration of war since FDR.

A piece about declarations of war and authorizations for the use of force.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL31133.pdf

[SelfDefense]

I fully agree. So why not do it and follow the constitution? Best of both worlds. If you prefer to ignore the constitution are we going to be opening up internment camps for American citizens who may have relatives in a muslim country. How bout just the dark skinned ones to start with.

I always find it a bit disingenuous and naive when people dismiss the grave threats to the United States. Defending our nation is the primary responsibility of government. The Patriot Act did not infringe on anyone's rights and thwarted numerous enemy attacks. We know of the plots made public; we will never know the number of enemy maneuvers that were stopped in the planning stages.

It would be irresponsible of government to not intercept enemy communications no matter where it originates.

Personally if I lose my rights, my freedom, I don't really care what government is in control. Don't give up your freedom in the name of safety.

Nothing like the non existent loss of rights to stir emotions. Believing that investigating and capturing the enemy endangers our rights is extremist thinking. And you should very well care what government is in control. Comparing the Constitutional Republic of the United States with the loss of rights in communist nations is harmful rhetoric.

And if it is necessary to go through a metal detector and terrorist security measures to board a plane then that is a small price to pay to prevent the alternative destruction.

We should never underestimate the enemy nor the threats they pose to our way of life.

[langenc]

Holder wont hesitate to take everyones 2A rights!!

as noted HYPOPCRITE

[HotGuns]

We should never underestimate the enemy nor the threats they pose to our way of life.

Especially the ones in the present administration.

[mlr1m]

We should never underestimate the enemy nor the threats they pose to our way of life.

I believe we should protect the constitution from all enemies both foriegn and domestic. Have I said anything about not letting the government wage war? I believe my statement that congress should declare war says otherwise.

I do believe strongly that if we give up our rights over our government then we have lost more than any outside enemy could take from us.
Do we really want to become like the U.K.? To become wards of the state? All i'm trying to say is that there is a delicate balance that we the people must retain control of.

Michael

[bigiceman]

This is scary stuff by anyones standards.
"That legal rationale by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, in a memo written six weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, would have meant that U.S. soldiers could search houses and seize suspected terrorists without a court-approved warrant. "

Our soldiers are not meant to be a police force. They are especially not meant to be a domestic police force. They are meant to be instruments for the destruction of our enemies. Searching and seizing "suspected" terrorists is not their job on our shores. That is the job of the police and other law enforcement organizations, in full compliance with the due process of law. I do not believe anyone here on this board wants to see the military turned loose to run rough-shod over the rights of our fellow citizens. "Suspected terrorist" seems like sufficient justification to some, but to me that is just a catch phrase that will allow them to invade any home at any time without any judicial oversight, and that is wrong. We have enough problems with our own law enforcement agencies following the rule of law without turning the military loose to do it also.

[Loadedtech]

Many great thoughts- After reading- Wow! In our own back yards-Thread, This is what I would think the military would be needed for. As of now LEO cannot do anything because they are of their legal rights, but if an organized attack on our own soil is found, then I would think we have the right to fight back with all means possible, including military. Thoughts?