Can I See Some ID?
"Yeah, I just saw that guy toss a grenade into an orphange, but since I can't see his al Qaeda ID card from here, Harry Reid said I have to let him go."
Determined to challenge President Bush, Senate Democrats are drafting legislation to limit the mission of U.S. troops in Iraq, effectively revoking the broad authority Congress granted in 2002, officials said Thursday. While these officials said the precise wording of the measure remains unsettled, one draft would restrict American troops in Iraq to combating al-Qaida, training Iraqi army and police forces, maintaining Iraq's territorial integrity, and otherwise proceeding with the withdrawal of combat forces. The officials, Democratic aides and others familiar with private discussions, spoke only on condition of anonymity, saying rank-and-file senators had not yet been briefed on the effort. They added, though, that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada is expected to present the proposal to fellow Democrats early next week for their consideration.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:46 AM
Comments
1
"I swear by Allah, the orphanage, it attacked me! I was just defending myself with that 5 kilos of plastic explosive packet with ball bearings! Am I not allowed to defend myself, Mr Crusader?"
Posted by: MunDane at February 23, 2007 12:31 PM (Bi4Gu)
2
Democratic politicians want dictate the Rules of Engagement to soldiers? Why that's absurd. I mean there's no precedent for such a thing!
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at February 23, 2007 01:04 PM (oC8nQ)
3
This opens the door for al Qaeda to wear fake insurgent uniforms and thus be totally protected....
The Dems want a "Commander in Chief Committee". Must be one of those emanations of a penumbra type of things.....
The Dems want a "Commander in Chief Committee". Must be one of those emanations of a penumbra type of things.....
Posted by: SouthernRoots at February 23, 2007 02:42 PM (EsOdX)
4
So, when some Shi'ite militia guy with Iranian backing uses an EFP or is planning to attack US forces, we should ignore him? We should just take the blows because he's not "al Qaeda"?
Or, if the guy is from the Ansar al Sunna or Ba'athi R us and attacks US forces, we should ignore him because his organization swears they are independent and does not have the name "Al Qaeda" or any pledge to support "al Qaeda" in their "manifesto"?
Do these guys have any idea how these groups are organized or how they work in conjunction with each other?
Or, if the guy is from the Ansar al Sunna or Ba'athi R us and attacks US forces, we should ignore him because his organization swears they are independent and does not have the name "Al Qaeda" or any pledge to support "al Qaeda" in their "manifesto"?
Do these guys have any idea how these groups are organized or how they work in conjunction with each other?
Posted by: kat-missouri at February 23, 2007 03:58 PM (RKCKD)
5
The demo over-reaching has been much harder and faster than I ever expected. Another 18 months of this and they'll be out on their butts again.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at February 23, 2007 06:02 PM (ir49f)
6
Incredible! I wonder if Harry could show me in the Constitution where it says that the Senate is tasked with commanding the armed forces....I don't think he could. LOL. But I bet he could show me some great land deals in Nevada or maybe even get me some front row seats for a boxing match. Givmeuhbreak....
Posted by: Specter at February 23, 2007 06:13 PM (ybfXM)
7
There have been countless pixels killed in the defense of the idea that "Congress said we could, even though the reasons we gave weren't fully true, so we can do anything we think it takes to get the job done."
If a large part of the Administration's case rests with "Congress passed the resolution," then doesn't Congress's rescinding the resolution have the same weight?
If not, why not? Congress can pass laws and repeal them; can't it pass resolutions and repeal them? Has any scholarly work at all been done on this topic?
If a large part of the Administration's case rests with "Congress passed the resolution," then doesn't Congress's rescinding the resolution have the same weight?
If not, why not? Congress can pass laws and repeal them; can't it pass resolutions and repeal them? Has any scholarly work at all been done on this topic?
Posted by: Doc Washboard at February 23, 2007 09:20 PM (S25Sh)
8
Has any scholarly work at all been done on this topic?
The US Constitution itself? Article 1 section 9?
The US Constitution itself? Article 1 section 9?
Posted by: Purple Avenger at February 23, 2007 09:34 PM (ir49f)
9
Avenger:
When I look at Article 1, section 9, I'm seeing slave trade, bill of attainder, taxation, appropriations and titles of nobility. Am I missing something?
When I look at Article 1, section 9, I'm seeing slave trade, bill of attainder, taxation, appropriations and titles of nobility. Am I missing something?
Posted by: Doc Washboard at February 24, 2007 04:41 AM (5pxUG)
10
Doc,
Executive branch has control of the military. Period. That is why the President is the Commander in Chief. He calls the shots, not Congress - for any reason. When Congress says that one version of their bill is to restrict the troops from engaging anyone other than Al Quaeda, they are in effect trying to craft the rules of engagement to be used. That is NOT their prerogative. It lies outside their constitutional authority.
What I am seeing is an attempt by the Dims to broaden the powers of the Congress beyond what the constitution allows. Gee - Isn't that what the left was all ablather about over the issue the TSP? And now they seem to think it's OK for their side to do what they accused the President of doing. Get a grip.
Executive branch has control of the military. Period. That is why the President is the Commander in Chief. He calls the shots, not Congress - for any reason. When Congress says that one version of their bill is to restrict the troops from engaging anyone other than Al Quaeda, they are in effect trying to craft the rules of engagement to be used. That is NOT their prerogative. It lies outside their constitutional authority.
What I am seeing is an attempt by the Dims to broaden the powers of the Congress beyond what the constitution allows. Gee - Isn't that what the left was all ablather about over the issue the TSP? And now they seem to think it's OK for their side to do what they accused the President of doing. Get a grip.
Posted by: Specter at February 24, 2007 11:13 AM (ybfXM)
11
In the same vein, only Congress can declare war. The Administration continues to insist that we are at war, yet there was no declaration of war--only a resolution that allowed the President to use force.
Only Congress can write and pass legislation, yet the President continues to perform much the same job by altering legislation as he sees fit by signing statements.
The point I'm trying to make here is that a lot of the assumptions we've had over the years about the separation of powers have been challenged of late. All three branches reach for more power than strict constructionists would give them. In our discussions, we need to deal with the real-world scenario.
Congress has control of the public purse. That's a legitimate use of its Constitutional power. This includes money to be spent on the military.
Only Congress can write and pass legislation, yet the President continues to perform much the same job by altering legislation as he sees fit by signing statements.
The point I'm trying to make here is that a lot of the assumptions we've had over the years about the separation of powers have been challenged of late. All three branches reach for more power than strict constructionists would give them. In our discussions, we need to deal with the real-world scenario.
Congress has control of the public purse. That's a legitimate use of its Constitutional power. This includes money to be spent on the military.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at February 24, 2007 01:44 PM (A1SKF)
12
Ahhh...yes....but not regulating the rules of engagement - that is way beyond their purview. And remember that the President can use the troops without declaring war. Not that hard to understand.
Posted by: Specter at February 24, 2007 10:51 PM (ybfXM)
13
Doc, the Dems have repeatedly said they will not cut off the funding, strictly for political cover. In addition, resolutions authorizing military action have been ruled as the functional and legal equivalent of a declaration.
Posted by: SDN at February 25, 2007 08:17 PM (TIw0n)
Processing 0.0, elapsed 0.0121 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0092 seconds, 21 records returned.
Page size 11 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.