15-02-2003 22:41									#1
	Suit challenges right to wage Iraq war Tired of ads?

quote: Accusing George W. Bush of acting like a monarch, not an American president, a group of US soldiers, their parents, and six members of Congress sued the White House yesterday to block any invasion of Iraq unless Congress issues a declaration of war. ''The president is not a king,'' said John C. Bonifaz, the lead attorney in the lawsuit filed in US District Court in Boston. ''He does not have the power to wage war against another country absent a declaration of war from Congress.'' Both President Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld are named as defendants in the suit. The White House did not express any major concern about the lawsuit, which asks a federal judge to issue an injunction barring a war in Iraq. ''The Constitution grants the necessary authority to the president in his role as commander in chief,'' spokesman Ken Lisaius said yesterday evening. ''Furthermore, Congress has spoken on this matter.'' US District Judge Joseph L. Tauro scheduled a hearing for next Thursday morning. A spokesman from the US Department of Justice, which will defend the president, would not comment on the case. Congress passed a resolution in October authorizing President Bush to use force in Iraq, but the plaintiffs in the lawsuit maintain that the Constitution requires an outright Congressional declaration of war. Specialists in constitutional law said yesterday that they believed the October congressional resolution passed the threshold established by the 1973 War Powers Act. ''In my own view, the formalities of calling something a declaration of war ought not to matter,'' said Richard H. Fallon Jr., a professor at Harvard Law School. ''Congress has concurred in authorizing the president to put troops in harm's way.'' Similar federal lawsuits challenging the 1991 Gulf War and the Vietnam War failed. The Korean, Vietnam, and Gulf wars all were fought without declarations of war, and Fallon pointed out that federal courts are hesitant to interfere with executive branch powers. ''I would be astonished if it worked,'' Fallon said of yesterday's lawsuit. ''No matter how much you might think this forthcoming war is a bad idea, you might have some qualms about a court issuing an order to stop it once hostilities are underway.'' The plaintiffs in yesterday's complaint include a US Marine stationed in the Persian Gulf; a recently-activated member of the Massachusetts National Guard; and an Air Force reservist from Massachusetts. They are identified in the complaint as John Doe to protect them from harassment or retribution, Bonifaz said. Four of the six parents of military personnel are identified by name in the suit. The six members of Congress who joined the lawsuit are John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat; Dennis Kucinich, an Ohio Democrat; Jesse Jackson Jr., an Illinois Democrat; Jim McDermott, a Washington Democrat; Jose Serrano, a New York Democrat, and Sheila Jackson Lee, a Texas Democrat. Charles Richardson and his wife Nancy Lessin, of Jamaica Plain, have actively protested the lead-up to another Gulf War. Yesterday, the couple said they joined the lawsuit in part out of concern for Richardson's son Joe, a US Marine stationed in the Persian Gulf. ''We notice that those who say we've got to go to war aren't going anywhere themselves,'' Lessin said. Added Richardson, ''If my son is killed, will someone be able to tell me that there was a full and fair debate about the decision to go to war? Not now, not yet.'' The other named plaintiffs are Susan E. Schumann, of Shelburne Falls, whose son serves in a recently-activated National Guard unit, and Jeffrey McKenzie, of Gasport, N.Y., whose son is a US Army officer stationed in the Gulf. McKenzie, Richardson, and Lessin are cofounders of the anti-war group Military Families Speak Out. Bonifaz said it was not illegal for active duty members of the military to sue their commander-in-chief. ''These soldiers are not violating any orders,'' he said, adding, ''They do not want to fight in an illegal and unconstitutional war.'' In December 1990, a federal judge threw out a similar lawsuit by 54 members of Congress who argued the president needed a formal declaration of war before launching an invasion in the Gulf. In that case, the judge ruled the lawsuit was premature because the president had not yet clearly committed to a war. Judges ruling in similar Vietnam-era cases found that Congress had effectively authorized that war through resolutions or through military appropriations. Bonifaz is director of the National Voting Rights Institute, no stranger to political lawsuits. After filing the lawsuit yesterday, Richardson and Lessin said they planned to travel to New York to take part in an antiwar march. ''We've had people come up to us and say we're unpatriotic. A former Marine said we were a disgrace,'' Richardson said. ''Well, we're not a disgrace to our son.''

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/0...Iraq_war+.shtml

	15-02-2003 22:45									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I don't know all the exact particulars of the lawsuit or if its even worth the paper its written on. Having said that, I think in order for there to be an attack, there needs to be a formal declaration of war by Congress. Whether or not a war is justified or not, it needs to be carried out in a legal manner in terms of how the Constitution defines it.

	15-02-2003 23:13									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

They must be European, or at least their parents must be, and they are also pro-Saddam. I wouldn't cry if they happened to get bumped by car, twice.

	15-02-2003 23:14									#4
	Got spare money?

apparantly they did the same thing 12 years. ago. It didn't work out then, and it won't work out now.

	15-02-2003 23:15									#5
	Get a bigger avatar today!

oh and there is the tiny detail that we haven't actually went to war yet

How can you sue for going to war when we aren't at war? I can see sueing after we go to war though...

	16-02-2003 00:12									#6
	Full PM-box? Change here!

In regards to the soldiers, the impression I get is that they enjoy all the benefits of being either full-time members of a peacetime military or part-time members thereof, but when push comes to shove — i.e., the actual possibility that they might be sent off to face death on a battlefield — their stomachs can't take it.

I thought it was drilled into every recruit's head that, hey, war is always a possibility if you become a soldier. It's something that's *not* wanted, but *can* happen. Is that a mistaken impression on my part?

Gatekeeper

	16-02-2003 00:32									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I never got this. Isn't that what being a soldier is all about.

I understand fully conscripts that refuse to go to war, though I don't support them morally.

But, people, COME ON! you're in the army, what do you expect to do?

	16-02-2003 00:35									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I thought you couldn't sue the government?

	16-02-2003 00:39									#9
	Increase Your PM Length

No, but Ken Starr taught us you could abuse the system and waste millions trying.

	16-02-2003 01:05									#10
	Increase Your PM Length

I say kick these wussies out, and lets get that Foreign Legion thing going on!

	16-02-2003 01:05									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

That was different...impeachment.

	16-02-2003 01:08									#12
	Increase Your PM Length

Pekka, you're so eager to go to battle.

	16-02-2003 01:14									#13
	Remove this text

Azazel, Well not THAT much, but sure if opportunity came, I might think about for 0000.3 seconds.
It's just that I can't understand why this is not being implemented already. It is relatively easy to dodge the bad things and publicity, and make sure it's safe, cheap, effective and serves the purpose of the US.
THat's all I have to say about it... for now

It would be kind of cool to put every man in the line now and say 'every man/woman who don't want to fight, raise your hands and you're excused, and can go home', and then get volunteers to replace them. They'd have 2 choises, either give up the benefits they had and pay back the money they were given as salaries etc, or keep the benefits but get a tattoo to their forheads saying 'I dodged the war because I was a *****'.

	16-02-2003 01:16									#14
	Remove this text

Besides, when was it the duty of the soldier to think about if the war is good or bad? Only if it's clearly illegal etc.. but this is not illegal, or at least it's not CLEARLY illegal.. so what are they doing? They should just keep their mouths shut. THey can't do politics etc.

	16-02-2003 01:26									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Lancer That was different...impeachment.

Sure it was different. This suit actually has merit. Starr's investigation didn't and was a bigger waste than this suit will ever hope to be. Unless you think that the executive branch potentially violating the constitution, unconstitutional "Patriot Acts" steal our civil liberties, and a corrupt, corporate driven administration is better than a guy who can't keep his Willy in his pants.

	16-02-2003 01:36									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Besides, when was it the duty of the soldier to think about if the war is good or bad? Only if it's clearly illegal etc.. but this is not illegal, or at least it's not CLEARLY illegal.. so what are they doing? They should just keep their mouths shut. THey can't do politics etc.

I don't know how they teach you in Finland, but here they say that there are 3 possible legal statuses for a command:
1)Legal- A command that is not against the law, you must follow through with the command, as a soldier.
2)Illegal- A command that is against military procedural law, like the commanded is abusing his powers and forcing soldiers to do illogical tasks, for his own amusement as such. You must comply, and file a complaint afterwards.
3)A thoroughly illegal Command- A command that is clearly illegal, according to military, and general law., like killing a POW or a civilian.- Not only that you don't have to follow through, YOU MUST NOT FOLLOW them, you must disobey your commander, and you must report him.

	16-02-2003 02:21									#17
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Azazel, I recall we have exactly the same way.. yep. Also it's pretty much against the rules to state political stuff etc, at least now in the peace time it is. I think it's even tougher in war time. So, these guys haven't been mistreated, or anything illegal has happened? Right?
These guys are heading for a world of kaka, these guys are soldiers, not greenpeace florists. I reckon they choose the wrong job to begin with, only to exploit the goods. And the parents? I bet they thought it was a good idea to get the benefist and enlistment money and all that, but when it's war they cry 'what if our son gets killed' ? If you can't do the time, don't do the crime would fit in here too. Also, if they were so worried about getting killed, I bet there are lots of 'safer' places like water cleaners, what ever.. I bet they went to the infantry to impress the ladies too. I mean sure, I might cry a little and lose my breakfast, but not at this point!!

Oh, and I didn't read the full story, so if I'm barking at the wrong tree.. sorry about that

	16-02-2003 02:54									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Azazel I never got this. Isn't that what being a soldier is all about.

No. Being a soldier in the United States Army is not about protecting Israel, which is the only way I can think of this as making any sense.

	16-02-2003 03:00									#19
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Yes, tandee, the USA is doing this to protect Israel.

Look, I know that your husband is Lebanese, but Lebanon is a mess that was there much before Israel. and Israel certainly was disliked by all the people there, esp. since we were allied with many of them, so please. I am sure he knows that as well.

	16-02-2003 04:19									#20
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

DinoLoh, if you hate USA you can return to your motherland. Aren't you Sweden?

2All: USA is trditionaly ruled by president democratic country. Congres is also important part of goverment and it protects USA from politycal "monolineness". War is needed to prevent using MDW by Iraq.

	16-02-2003 04:36									#21
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

yes the absence of conflict with Iraq for 10 or so years by the US and the fact that Bush is now trying to ensure it happening within weeks is clear sign that Saddam Hussein is just plain overusing those weapons of mass destruction he's got.

Sheesh. Give it a rest. Tell me why the US is so keen to invade Iraq now and didn't over the last 12 years when Saddam has had WoMD in all that time...

	16-02-2003 06:15									#22
	Inflate your Upload Space

Piss off if you insist on talking about Israel or Clinton.

	16-02-2003 06:53									#23
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Interesting, according to Bush's supporters - those who claim the October resolution constitutes a congressional declaration of war - we are already at war. So, what do you think these people would say if Saddam could, and did, drop some bombs on Washington, D.C.? I'll bet they would accuse Saddam of launching a "pre-emptive" strike, a sneak attack. If Congress already declared war, Bush has a funny way of playing CinC. Their argument is bogus on it's face, we are not at war and Congress does not have the authority to tell other people they can declare war if and when they want, although I have little expectation a court will uphold the Constitution. The courts seem to think the War Powers Act of '73 supercedes the actual Constitution...

	16-02-2003 07:36									#24
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Azazel Yes, tandee, the USA is doing this to protect Israel.

If I were you, I would be protesting against the war. Last time Saddam was hurling Scuds at you. If he has BCN weapons, don't you think he will use them against Israel?

	16-02-2003 07:45									#25
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I can see this suit not only being thrown out of the court, but the Judge would most likely fine the plaintiffs for wasting the court's time.

The plaintiffs might as well challenge the existence of the government.