Will media note US Constitution requires "imminent" threat for war? impeach

[papau]

must be the response followed by trial is Bush did not think it was an "imminent" threat meaning he chose to violate the US Constitution.

U.S. Constitution
Article I.
Section. 10.
Clause 3:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such IMMINENT Danger as will not admit of delay.


Indeed the UN Charter says without "imminent" threat you have a war crime - not that we pay attention to the Charter we signed.

But this is really serious under US Constitutional Law - will the media pick-up on this - or are they all GOP whores?

Does anyone in the US Media ever read the Constitution?

The IWR vote by Congress gave Bush the ability to go to war if necessary - but the Constitution still limits him to "imminent" threats.

So when Tenet says they never said "imminent" threat, and Bush says he never said "imminent" threat - why does the media not move to a discussion of impeachment.

Our not right wing GOP controlled Media - they just act like they are!

Forget the logic of if the threat was not imminent, then why did we HAVE to invade, and RIGHT AWAY? Why did we have to give Hussein a 48-hr deadline? Why did we cut off the U.N. inspections process? Explain the violation of the US Constitution to the 500-plus dead soldiers.

Forget that the Bush staff used many synonyms and phrases which meant that the threat was imminent ("immediate", "mortal", "mushroom cloud"...), since if he did not believe it was imminent, he was and is in violation of his oath of office. To the Bush statement/question about no WMD being found - namely "Does it matter" - perhaps not - but you had to have believed there was an imminent threat, or you violated your oath of office.

, he is admitting that he overstated the case for war when he repeatedly said, in other ways, that it was. Which begs the question: Why did you exaggerate the case for war, Mr. Bush?

Is Bush now saying he took us to war for false reasons, but they were still good reasons? Is he asking to be impeached and removed?

The rest of the world thought Saddam a threat because we - the US - told the rest of the world he was a threat - Latvia had no special knowledge that Saddam was a threat!

For years we used intelligence to prevent wars, you can never use intelligence to go to war unless you are convinced there is an imminent threat - good grief - that is what it says in the US Constitution!

Everything they say contradicts something else they say or have said - and this last one is asking for legal/Congressional action.

Bush made the decision to pre-emptively invade and conquer a nation, the CIA didn't, and that requires per the US Constitution, the thought that you are under an imminent threat.

Is Bush trying to say he suckered the public by not using the word immanent - and that as long as the media does not call him on it, it is OK?

The Westpoint speech that Bush gave that discussed the justification for a "preemptive war policy" certainly relied on "Imminent".

How does the media get to pretend that this president - Bush - has any credibility, when his CIA Director George Tenet said this morning that intelligence "analysts never said there was an imminent threat" from Iraq before the war!

http://www.misleader.org/daily_mislead/Read.asp?fn=df02052004.html

http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1338421&l=17046

White House communications director Dan Bartlett was asked before the war whether Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat, and he responded, "Of course he is." When White House spokesman Scott McClellan was asked why NATO (and thus the United States) should support Turkey's request for defensive troops, he responded, "This is about an imminent threat." When White House spokesman Ari Fleischer was asked whether the invasion of Iraq was because Iraq was an imminent threat, he responded, "Absolutely."

Is the media allowed to forget the past so as to spin for the GOP?

[Caution]

1. the clause from the constitution

Clause 3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

There is wiggle room there thanks to the IWR but not a lot of wiggle room.

[papau]

2. That is the clause I am referring to - where is the wiggle room?

U.S. Constitution
Article I.
Section. 10.
Clause 3:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such IMMINENT Danger as will not admit of delay.

Does the use of a State Militia - the National Guard - not mean their is no wiggle room?

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion

Article. I. Section. 10.
Clause 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
Clause 2: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
Clause 3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

And then:

Article. II. Section. 2.
Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

[KuroKensaki]

9. Approval of congress...

Even if we aren't invaded and it isn't an imminent threat, if he has approval from Congress, he can go to war.

He got approval from Congress. Granted, he got it in a way that I'm sure is making our founding fathers turn over in their graves... But he did get it.

However, there -may- be something here--because the approval he got from Congress was predicated on the basis of an imminent threat. So if Bush* were to now say 'We never thought the threat was imminent', he's basically admitting he lied to Congress. Which would a) be an impeachable offense and b) probably make the IWR null and void.

[codegreen]

3. THAT right there is what we can get them on!

awesome! let's notify Congress and the Investigations as to the wording of the Constitution! these bastards are going down!

[RobertSeattle]

4. This is "State", as in Alaska, Georgia, etc

Here is the clause where only congress can declare war:

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

[TheUnknownPoster]

8. Right, this provision was meant to apply to individual states

to keep them from acting like independent countries under the federal government.

It doesn't apply to the President or Congress, which did sign off on the invasion by passing the resolution, though not in an official declaration of war.

That was an abdication of their responsibility, but if they accepted your logic and impeached Bush or other officials over the war, most of Congress would also have to resign their seats for going along with it.

[lovedems]

5. Now wait a minute...

These dumb mother truckers signed away the power of war to the pResident, which, to my understanding is also against the constituation. Now we are bringing this up. I don't think there is a congress person in office who has read the constitution if they are in violation of several clauses. Now, we also have the argument that constitution needs to be changed to clarify that marriage is only between a man and woman.

It is obvious to me these idiots either don't know the constitution or ignore it at their convienience, or change it at their convinience (ex. Patriot Act). That should be the bigger argument, IMHO. Let's not look at one clause, let's look at the bigger picture and what they are doing to the constitution as a whole.

[indepat]

6. To answer one question: far, far too many of the mainstream media are

GOP whores with a capital W for they knowingly support policies and actions they know or should know are extremely detrimental to this country, to we the people, to the common good.

[Brotherjohn]

7. I see you are using much of my wording from earlier posts. I agree...

... with you 100%. However, I don't think in this environment (or for another few decades if things don't change) the media nor Congress are going to pursue this line. Yes Bush probably violated the Constitution in a number of ways, as did Congress by abdicating their war powers to him. But many presidents in recent history have used war powers without consent of Congress (just not to this scale). It's just not going to happen for them to seek impeachment on these grounds.

Lying to Congress, however (in testimony before the IWR passed)... lying in the 2003 State of the Union (which is an address to Congress)... I think those would get more traction. If impeachment got underway, I think the issues you bring up might be pursued as well. Of course, we'd need a Dem House at the least for that to happen.

I repeatedly dwell on the "imminent" / "not imminent" thing, however, because I think it holds more sway with the people and is a more likely route to get Bush booted out. As more people start to ask "Not imminent, eh? Then why did we invade?", more people will switch to the Anybody-but-Bush side.

Again, though, I agree with you on point. This war was clearly a violation of the Constitution, and clearly against the U.N. Charter (which also makes it a violation of the Constitution, since we are breaching a treaty to which we are a signatory; Article VI, I believe).