- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
What authority is given in the Constitution for the President to order the US military to intervene in the affairs of another country, as Clinton did in Bosnia?
Perhaps none.
(hint: none whatsoever)
If GWB's actions in the invasion and destruction of Afghanistan and Iraq, or the torture that accompanied them, or the wiretapping of US citizens, are crimes BECAUSE there is no constitutional authority for them, ...
Who said this was the crime?
I tend to be sympathetic to the claim that Congress is the only body that can declare war, and yes, if so, Clinton probably transgressed that power (as I said, I think a clearer case could be made for Tomahawking Iraq). But to claim that Clinton's transgressions are equivalent to the manifold crimes of Dubya is outright nutz.
... then so too are the actions of Clinton in Bosnia, and in Sudan, and at Waco.
How so?
And what did Clinton do in the Sudan. Tell me, I'm interested.
(Your version of events at Waco is unconvincing. The right to bear arms was explicitly enumerated in your Constitution for the purpose of resisting oppresion by your own government. Constitutionally, the benefit of the doubt rests with the citizenry, who are constitutionally entitled to "fire on federal agents" when those federal agents are involved in criminal trespass....
OIC. So if I rob a bank, and make it home, I'm ally-ally-in-free, and they can't touch me in my castle (even with a warrant). Try it some time. Let me know how it turns out.
... Your doctrine seems to be that federal agents are above the law, and the consequences of breaking it. Yet you also seem to agree with Johnsen that GWB should not be. Strange, neh?)
I don't think agents ought to be "above the law". Why do you think I ever said such a thing? What I disagree on is whether the agents were acting lawfully. You seem to think not. Perhaps. But you takes your chances when you fire on them, instead of resolving it in a court of law. That's not legal advice; that's practical advice.
... But don't fret, I understand that almost nobody wants to pay anything more than lip service to the Constitution, which is why neither Glenn nor Ms Johnsen nor you have mentioned the current meetings Mr Obama is having with Congress about stealing another trillion from you all even though there is not one shred of Constitutional authority for doing so, which was my original point.
You're getting way out there in Loony-Toon Land. As Ann Robinson would say, "Goodbye...."
Every post you make further reinforces Glenn's point about tribalism and the associated blindesses it produces ...
To you. But you're so wrapped in your own "tribalism" and pet peeves that you're incapable of seeing anything with even a semblance of objectivity ... or even rationality.
Cheers,
