Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Oh, THIS has to be treason!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
No2W2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 06:26 PM
Original message
Oh, THIS has to be treason!
Cheney & Rummy call Prince Bandar in and let him know the US is going to invade Iraq....they even show him top secret maps marked NO FORGIN that detail the plan....and they haven't even bothered to tell the fuckin' Sec. of State?????? Why hasn't Powell resigned yet?? Is he that much the "good soldier"?? He's a token! They don't consult with him, the dog damn US Secratary of State, before they start rubbing their hands with the Saudis????

Damn Trators!...All of 'em!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
liberalhistorian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 06:34 PM
Response to Original message
1. Amen to that!
This is just the latest in their long line of treasonous, traitorous acts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
feistydem Donating Member (994 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 06:34 PM
Response to Original message
2. Got a source? Give us a news link on this story, please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. 60 minutes tonight-what all the talk on the board is about
It was just on.
 Add to my Journal Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
never cry wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #2
16. from their web site
But, it turns out, two days before the president told Powell, Cheney and Rumsfeld had already briefed Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador.

Saturday, Jan. 11, with the president's permission, Cheney and Rumsfeld call Bandar to Cheney's West Wing office, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Myers, is there with a top-secret map of the war plan. And it says, Top secret. No foreign. No foreign means no foreigners are supposed to see this, says Woodward.

They describe in detail the war plan for Bandar. And so Bandar, who's skeptical because he knows in the first Gulf War we didn't get Saddam out, so he says to Cheney and Rumsfeld, So Saddam this time is gonna be out, period? And Cheney who has said nothing says the following: Prince Bandar, once we start, Saddam is toast."

After Bandar left, according to Woodward, Cheney said, I wanted him to know that this is for real. We're really doing it."

But this wasnt enough for Prince Bandar, who Woodward says wanted confirmation from the president. Then, two days later, Bandar is called to meet with the president and the president says, Their message is my message, says Woodward.

Prince Bandar enjoys easy access to the Oval Office. His family and the Bush family are close. And Woodward told 60 Minutes that Bandar has promised the president that Saudi Arabia will lower oil prices in the months before the election -- to ensure the U.S. economy is strong on election day.

Woodward says that Bandar understood that economic conditions were key before a presidential election: Theyre high. And they could go down very quickly. That's the Saudi pledge. Certainly over the summer, or as we get closer to the election, they could increase production several million barrels a day and the price would drop significantly.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/15/60minutes/mai...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jane Austin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #16
21. Wasn't Bandar over at the White House the evening of
9-11, out on the veranda smoking cigars with Bush?

Seems like I read somewhere that he was showing sympathy for his friend, Bush.

Doesn't it seem odd that the only friend over that night was the Saudi ambassador?

Gives me the willies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
never cry wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #21
31. No, I think it was bush, sr.
And one of the bin Ladens, but he certainly could have entertained both the same day.

The cozy friendship continued for decades. After a terrorist attack at a barracks in Saudi Arabia which killed 19 Americans, the bin Laden family received a multi-billion dollar contract to re-build. And incredibly, George Bush Sr. was in a business meeting at the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Washington on the morning of September 11th with one of Osama Bin Laden's brothers.


http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/saudi.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No2W2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 06:37 PM
Response to Original message
3. Was on 60 Min...Mike Wallace was
Edited on Sun Apr-18-04 06:38 PM by No2W2004
Disscussing Woodward's book. Shrub gave Woodward interviews and access to tapes and materials, as well as access to administration officials according to CBS.

EDIT: forgot a word.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polmaven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 06:59 PM
Original message
And we can be absolutely sure it is true
because Condoleeza denied it today!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 06:59 PM
Response to Original message
5. linl here
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N18658977.htm

WASHINGTON, April 18 (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell learned about President George W. Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq after Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States had already been informed, journalist Bob Woodward said on Sunday.

Woodward, author of a new book entitled, "Plan of Attack," said in a CBS' "60 Minutes" interview that Bush told national security leader Condoleezza Rice, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld first about his decision to go to war in January 2003.

"He told Condi Rice. He told Rumsfeld. He knew Cheney wanted to do this. And they realized they haven't told Colin Powell," said Woodward, who described Powell as being opposed to the war.

But before Bush called Powell to the Oval Office, he gave Cheney and Rumsfeld permission to inform Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan about his decision for war. They even showed him a top-secret map of the war plan, Woodward said.

"They describe in detail the war plan for Bandar," he told "60 Minutes" reporter Mike Wallace.

more



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AGD4y2357y Donating Member (100 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 07:00 PM
Response to Original message
6. Errr
The right wingers go around accusing everyone of treason. We shouldn't stoop to that level. First of all under the constitution you need witnesses. Second your need treason its self...

treason ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trzn)
n.
Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.

I do not believe Bandar (whoever that is) is waging war against us...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indie_voter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. I disagree. The majority of 9/11 hi-jackers were Saudi
bin Laden is Saudi.

What are in the redacted pages of the 9/11 joint congressional inquiry? There is some suggestion the pages were redacted to shield Saudi funding of terrorists.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AGD4y2357y Donating Member (100 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. Racism anyone?
The 9/11 hijackers were muslim too. Does that mean the next muslim I meet is my enemy? Same logic you know.

If a person who is a German national comes to the states and kills someone, does that mean the German people are therefore our enemy as well?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
never cry wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. I'll bite
The 28 redacted pages show that the suadi royal family, Bandar's family, had a heavy hand in financing bin Laden. On top of that, the map was labeled "TOP SECRET - NO FOREIGNS"

Apparently whoever issued those top secret documents felt that no foreigners should have access to it, be they german or saudi and cheney and rummy violated that and showed top secret information to a foreign national. Seems pretty damn clear cut to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AGD4y2357y Donating Member (100 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. "Apparently whoever issued"
Edited on Sun Apr-18-04 07:36 PM by AGD4y2357y
How do you know it wasn't bush or rummy themselves? Tell me, under US law what person can choose to declassify/classify something above the level of the president? Seems to me it was a legal action.

"The 28 redacted pages show that the suadi royal family, Bandar's family, had a heavy hand in financing bin Laden. On top of that, the map was labeled "TOP SECRET - NO FOREIGNS"

If you have evidence that conclusively shows Bandar financed bin laden with the expressed intent of allowing him to attack the US I might change my position... If you do, please show me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
never cry wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #20
33. Obfuscating
If you have evidence that conclusively shows Bandar financed bin laden with the expressed intent of allowing him to attack the US I might change my position... If you do, please show me.

Oops, sorry. I forgot, I have my classified version of the joint congressional commission right here. Let me share it with you...

Hahahaha, almost had me there, I could go to prison for sharing classified material, just like Bob Graham said about his knowledge of it.

Guess I'll just have to go and out an deep undercover CIA agent, apparently there's no penalty for that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AGD4y2357y Donating Member (100 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #33
38. Hmmm...
Ok, so let me get this right. You just made a claim about something that is classified to support your claims. Then I ask you (even though I KNOW you wouldn't cite something you hadn't actually seen) to show me what you are getting your evidence from. Then you turn around and admit you never even saw the classified version (of course) and you have no way of using it to prove your assertions.

Well I think you just lost this one as you now have about as much credibility as Powell talking about all those tons of WMD in Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
never cry wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #38
41. Anyne who reads, especially alternative sources
has heard the gist of what was in the 28 redacted pages. The information is CLASSIFIED. That doesn't mean that there aren't leaks, it only means that the leakers wish to remain anonymous. The joint congressional commission report was released many months ago and I don't have links handy on the reports, unattributed or not, but they are out there and they have been out there in the mainstream media which means they have for the most part verified with multiple sources.

Where are your sources on the law about revealing classified information to foreign nationals that could potentially harm the interests of the nation? Who makes that determination if it is treason or not? The founding fathers were VERY wary of this sort of thing and created the system of checks and balances to ensure the nation's security. This included a requirement that the POTUS be a native born citizen, for fear he may have allegiances to foreign states.

the BFEE certainly has shown allegiance to a certain foreign state. Show me a source, the law, for treasonous activity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AGD4y2357y Donating Member (100 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #41
43. Hmmm
"Show me a source, the law, for treasonous activity."

First of all I say there is no law indicating the action here is treason. I can't prove a negative. If you want to prove it IS a crime, then by all means show me the law you say exists.

"has heard the gist of what was in the 28 redacted pages"

Oh ok. And will this hearsay and conjecture be more or less credible than the "proof" Saddam was packing WMDs? If you went in to a court room saying this you'd be 100% guaranteed to be ruled against. Why? Because hearsay and conjecture have long been established NOT to be reliable forms of evidence. Of course the fact you accept hearsay and conjecture to be reliable probably explains why you are so far off from the start.

And don't come back with anything from www.conpiracyheory.com or the likes, as that won't hold any more weight either.

"The founding fathers were VERY wary of this sort of thing "

And they were also VERY wary of people such as your self going around accusing people of treason for everything under the sun. Do some research and figure out why treason is the ONLY crime that the constitution its self puts mandates for guilt on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
atre Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #18
37. Exactly!
That's what makes the connection all the more damaging. It is a matter of common knowledge that the Saudi Arabian government is littered with people connected to Bin Laden, even many who continue to help finance his operations. And the S.A. government has done nothing to dispel these people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indie_voter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 07:33 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. ROFL! I am one of those brown people Bush talked about
Edited on Sun Apr-18-04 07:42 PM by indie_voter
Granted I am not Saudi.

It isn't racism to point out that the Saudi government has been less than honest with us (at least in public) and have been turning deaf ears to the clerics who preach the hate which culminated in 9/11.

It is treason to show plans of war to another country, ESPECIALLY one which begat so many of our attackers, before our own Sec of State, not to mention Congress.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No2W2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. I for one
don't say the word "treason" very often...in fact, I really can't remember the last time I used it. But it seems to me that if you show the Ambassador from Saudi Arabia (Prince Bandar) a map detailing the plan of attack in Iraq marked TOP SECRET: NO FOREIGN, not to mention that they do this before contacting the state dept. or the Secretary of State, that this would be showing an allegiance toward Saudi Arabia, thus treason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AGD4y2357y Donating Member (100 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. "showing an allegiance toward Saudi Arabia"
Please show me the law on the books indicating that. I would imagine he was shown it because surrounding nations might want to know WTF US forces were doing in that area. (in other words - so SA doesn't say "WTF? Are we about to under attack? Should we attack the US forces?") Sorry, I agree with the call on this one. You don't go invading a nation with out making aware surrounding nations to avoid misunderstandings that could result in a major war with them.

It is at the discretion of the commander in chief to reveal military info to another nation if he so chooses so long as it is not intended to work against the US gov. (i.e. treason) *IF* he showed it to SA with the expressed intent that the Saudis would use it to better help them attack US forces THEN it would be treason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No2W2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Informing
the Saudis what we were up to is fine. That is probably SOP. But showing their ambassador a file that specifically says TOP SECRET:NO FOREIGN in bold letters on the front page goes beyond just giving them a heads up. And wouldn't giving Iraq's neighbors a heads up be the job of the State Dept.? Oops, the State Dept. DIDN'T KNOW YET!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AGD4y2357y Donating Member (100 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 07:30 PM
Original message
"TOP SECRET:NO FOREIGN"
I would imagine the persons who had authority to classify a document with that would also have the authority to de-classify it (or authorize a party to see it). Same thing happened in WW2.

"And wouldn't giving Iraq's neighbors a heads up be the job of the State Dept.? "

Not necessarily. The constitution specfically authorizes the president to conduct relations with foreign nations.

No law says it must be the state department that provides military info to foreign nations.

Again, the president provided all kinds of military info to foreign nations at his discretion in World War 2. They were marked top secret (at the time) as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No2W2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 07:37 PM
Response to Original message
22. Good points
there, but in my opinion, it still is wrong to consult with the Saudis before even informing the Sec. of State that the decision has been made.

What,in your opinion, is the purpose of the State Dept. in the Bush II administration?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indie_voter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 07:40 PM
Response to Original message
24. However if what Woodward said is true, Bush also by passed congress
So it isn't only his own SoS who was in the dark, so was congress.

Isn't this illegal?

Bush by passes all the people who are supposed to be in the loop(by law) yet includes the Prince.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No2W2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. unfortunately
congress gave shrub and buddies a blank check when they authorized use of force way before invading Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indie_voter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. Wasn't the use of force tied to 9/11 masterminds? To be honest
Edited on Sun Apr-18-04 07:50 PM by indie_voter
I have gotten so confused and haven't read the actual document.

My bad.

If I have the timeline right, this is before the Iraq war act?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AGD4y2357y Donating Member (100 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #24
27. What do you think
the repubs wanted the Iraq resolution so much for?

First of all, under the war powers act the president can basically conduct any foreign military effort anyway he pleases with out consulting congress about it at all for 90 days.

Second, because of the Iraq resolution congress authorized him to use his own discretion in the matter of Iraq. Because of this resolution he was not even required to consult with them after 90 days.

What do you think they passed the resolution for? Just for shits and giggles?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indie_voter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. delete
Edited on Sun Apr-18-04 07:48 PM by indie_voter
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AGD4y2357y Donating Member (100 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. I'm not the one
who wants to ignore history here. Congress authorized it. As Sen Byrd said they washed their hands of it, and said do whatever.

Sorry you don't want to face the reality of the matter. You lost the argument, (that was made on an assertion that completely ignored recent history) and now you resort to mud slinging. Clearly, I must be the troll.

Should they have passed the resolution letting bush do whatever he wanted? Nope. But not a whole lot we can do about it now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indie_voter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. You're right.
Edited on Sun Apr-18-04 07:57 PM by indie_voter
The Iraq war resolution was passed in Oct 2002.

You are also right, if the sequence of events took place after the Iraq resolution ( as Woodward asserts) then this isn't treason just amazingly bad judgement.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
never cry wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 08:18 PM
Response to Reply #30
39. Congress authorized it but with conditions
I sure don't see any authorization for free action after 90 days.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) 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 joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS. (a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).
(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.
(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.


http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=...

Apparently, the timeline says that he made the determination to go to war AND shared classified information with bandar months before he made his determination to "reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq;" or informed congress of such as required under the act.

Sorry, you lose the argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AGD4y2357y Donating Member (100 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. Ummm, read?
Edited on Sun Apr-18-04 08:24 PM by AGD4y2357y
"I sure don't see any authorization for free action after 90 days"

You realize the war powers act is TOTALLY different than the Iraq resolution, don't you? You know, the legislation I cited regarding the 90 days?

And it's not "free action" AFTER 90 days it's BEFORE 90 days, again read.

Now, you go to Yahoo.com and type in "war powers act". Then READ. Then come back and talk to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
never cry wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #40
42. Where in the IWR does it cite the war powers act?
Besides, the IWR was passed on October 10, far before the 90 day limit for when we actually went to war meaning that it was not utilizing the authorization required under the war powers act.

SEC. 5. (b)
Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.


also from the war powers act"

REPORTING
Sec. 4. (a)
In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced--
(1)
into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;

(2)
into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3)
(A)
the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B)
the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C)
the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.
Sec. 4. (b)
The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad.
Sec. 4. (c)
Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six months.


This act also requires complete information to be reported to congress, very similar to the IWR, and again bandar was informed BEFORE congress and the SOS.

BTW: I don't yahoo, I do google and do dogpile.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AGD4y2357y Donating Member (100 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 09:14 PM
Response to Reply #42
44. It doesn't matter
Edited on Sun Apr-18-04 09:35 PM by AGD4y2357y
"Where in the IWR does it cite the war powers act"

The war powers act has NOT been repealed. Therefore rather or not ANY act mentions it or not is irrelevant. It is still law just the same.

"Besides, the IWR was passed on October 10, far before the 90 day limit for when we actually went to war meaning that it was not utilizing the authorization required under the war powers act."

The Iraq resolution served as the consultation and approval from congress, and thus satisfied the requirements of the war powers act. Please quote the relavent clause indicating that approval from congress can not be given prior to the 90 day limit. All it says is that he must get approval within 90 days. He got the approval, and that's all that matters.

IF your assumption was correct, then doesn't it occur to you that congress would have had to give him ANOTHER authorization?

It's the same thing with minimum wage. (not such a great example, but first thing that comes to mind) Federal law says you MUST be paid a set minimum wage. So, is it not possible for a state law to mandate a minimum wage that is higher than the federal minimum wage? Nope. Because fed law says that it must be a minimum, and does NOT go on to say that it can't be higher. Likewise, you can't construe that because an act says something must be done no later than 90 days, then it can't be done earlier than 90 days.

"This act also requires complete information to be reported to congress"

Does the act say WHEN that information must be reported (as in prior to another party being informed), or simply that it must be reported? Since it doesn't say that WHEN must be before other parties you don't have a case. Same logic as above. You can't just construe rules like this. This will be one of the first things you learn if you ever take a class in law.

Some people also call things like this loop holes. If you want a preference for order of divulgence go ask your rep to seek to amend the law.

Also - how do you know congress was NOT told this? How do you know members weren't sent something about it and didn't tell anyone? Or that is was brought up in closed session? Has a senator or rep said anything one way or another? Or is this just another assumption in its self?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wuushew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. War Powers Act is mentioned in the Joint Resolution
(c) 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 joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
never cry wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #45
48. I stand corrected
The IWR does cite the WPA, thanks for the correction, I had not read these previously. That's the great thing about DU, the learning process.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
never cry wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #44
46. No, it has not been repealed, it has just not been followed
And apparently either the IWR was a resolution to envoke the war powers act or it was a separate act allowing the boy king certain actions with certain restrictions. I don't see anywhere where the WPA was envoked.

PURPOSE AND POLICY
SEC. 2. (a)
It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
SEC. 2. (b)
Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
SEC. 2. (c)
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.



SEC. 5. (b)
Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.


Yes, you are correct, as I read the war powers act the congress would have had to make another authorization, which they didn;t proving my point that they were working under the IWR, NOT the WPA. Why would they pass the IWR and not even mention the WPA if the same rules applied. In fact, in either case it was violated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AGD4y2357y Donating Member (100 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 09:54 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. I don't think you fully understand the act
or why people were so opposed to it.

I tell you what... Just believe what Sen Byrd said, which is basically the act was a surrender of congress its war powers to the president. I am sure we can all agree Sen Byrd has the experience to know what he is talking about.

That's essentially what the act did. It was a blank check. In other words, bush can do essentially whatever the hell he wants, just as Sen Byrd said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbyboucher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. Head, meet sand.
I'm sure you can wiggle for days about this and that regarding the definition of "treason" and whatever else you would like, but you are breathing sand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
never cry wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #47
50. Well, I still don't read that into the act
There are restrictions to both acts, it seems to me that the president's actions are specifically limited by this:

SEC. 5. (b)
Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.


I certainly wish that congress had not been pressured into the IWR a month before an election and two months after the repugs "rolled out their new product" based upon false information but I still don't see where any of this authorizes anyone to share classified not-foreign documents to be shared with a foreign national before those documents are shared with congress or the SOS. They stepped over a line, LEAPED over a line. Why did bandar have a "need to know" the details? Why the fuck did we need his permission for this action and feel the need to convince him, as misguided as it was?

Anyway, time for me to blow this popstand and head for home. My research in our discussion has informed me of facts I was not previously aware of regarding the actual laws passed, I hope it has done the same for you. I do not back off, yet I must retire for the evening and go home to see my kids.

Information is truth, keep it dear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Streetdoc270 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 08:04 PM
Response to Original message
36. I'm not gonna dwell on the map...
The misappropriations of 700 million dollars marked to fight the REAL problem ie Afghanistan and the 'dead or alive' capture of OBL is the real story... This is an impeachable offense, and I will be on the phone to my Reps in the AM!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indie_voter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 07:03 PM
Response to Original message
7. You would think wouldn't you?
Edited on Sun Apr-18-04 07:03 PM by indie_voter
I haven't seen 60 minutes yet, I am on the west coast.

I've been reading the comments and I am SHAKING with anger.

These f$#$%^$ labeled those of us who spoke out against the war as unpatriotic, unamerican, even traitors.

Meanwhile they are pulling this?

If the DLC doesn't loudly call for an investigation I fear my head will explode.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peaches2003 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 07:04 PM
Response to Original message
8. Powell
Lost all respect for Powell when he went to the UN defending going to war. He should have stood by his principles if he was against the war and resigned. The hell with this 'being a good soldier' crap. He betrayed the American people and knew what he was saying were lies. Actually I have less respect for him now than I do Bush. Zero respect for Bush, but he is basically a puppet. Powell is not dumb and knew the consequences of his actions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemoTex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 07:14 PM
Response to Original message
11. Plus the "lifting" of $700-mil from the US Treasury.
That, in another day and time, would get the impeachment ball rolling real quickly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wasichu Donating Member (74 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 07:14 PM
Response to Original message
12. either way, Powell is a chump.
Powell reminds me of people who trust politicians.
In their lust for power, they will always be betrayed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No2W2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 07:30 PM
Response to Original message
17. The sources for Woodward's book as described by 60 Min.

Its an insiders account written after Woodward spoke with 75 of the key decision makers, including President Bush himself.

The president permitted Woodward to quote him directly. Others spoke on the condition that Woodward not identify them as sources.

Woodward discusses the secret details of the White House's plans to attack Iraq for the first time on television with Correspondent Mike Wallace.

Woodward permitted 60 Minutes to listen to tapes he recorded of his most important interviews, to read the transcripts, and to verify that the quotes he uses are based on recollections from participants in the key meetings.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/15/60minutes/mai...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
keithyboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #17
25. I told you, Bush has outlived his usefulness to PNAC
He is going DOWN!!! Woodwards book is just the beginning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 07:40 PM
Response to Original message
23. But there will be NO repercussions......
Remember the House, the Senate, and the Executive Branch are all Republicans. Charges MUST be filed by the House. It just isn't gonna happen!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onethatcares Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #23
34. then it's up to the citizens,
if we could only wake em up. I swear they don't fucking care, seems like paddling up jello creek. They don't even care about gas prices, just the ever onward plodding to the end.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SarahB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 08:01 PM
Response to Original message
35. It would sure seem like it
I suppose they figure, though, they've gotten away with tearing the Bill of Rights to shreds and having a bloodless coup, so for them, this is nothing.
I'm sure in their heads, it's something along the lines of, "Move along, folks, watch your reality programs and stick your heads in the sand. Nothing to see here."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leesa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 10:26 PM
Response to Original message
51. Why do you think the Saudis got a pass on 9-11? Why do you think
the Bush family lawyer represented the Saudis against the 9-11 families suing to find the terrorism money trail? I wonder where that trail would lead???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Apr 20th 2014, 10:51 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC