When the order was given for American military personnel to attack Yugoslavia, it was not issued following a declaration of war from Congress. Nor was the order given by the President as a means of repelling a sudden attack on America by a foreign aggressor, or as a measure intended to rescue Americans abroad from unexpected peril. In fact, the order to attack Yugoslavia didnt even follow the pattern set in Korea and Vietnam, in which our nation was committed to protracted foreign wars through unilateral presidential action. On March 23rd, the order to commence hostilities was given to an American general by a Spanish Marxist  NATO Secretary-General Javier Solana.

What a sad day when the USA is ordered to a stupid war by a marxist. When are you Americans going to wake up and smell the coffee?

-- hamish (hamish@sprint.ca), April 05, 1999

Answers

Believe it or not, I don't think I've heard anyone mention this specifically (the illegality of this war) --- but you are absolutely right. I suppose this has been "implied" by some of the critizisms by Rush l and others (Imhoffe on meet The press). but it appears that most of us are being lulled by the propaganda.

You are absolutely right ... how could we be so stupid not to all be outraged? How dare Bill commit our troops on his whim?

-- Jon Johnson (narnia4@usa.net), April 05, 1999.

I know many others who recognize what is happening to America.

-- DianeR (takeheart@notall.stupid), April 05, 1999.

The NATO/Kosovo "peace-keeping" "humanitarian" act of agression is unConstutional from the word go. The US can't commit acts of violence against any sovreign nation without a formal Declaration of War. We never could do so before and we certainly can't do so now. So much the worse as part of an unthreatened, supposedly defensive, multi-lateral force. The US Constitution is become little more than idealistic scribblings.

-- Nathan (nospam@all.com), April 05, 1999.

Please read

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/April1999/040599/clinton040599.htm

Why aren't we screaming instead of being sheeple?

-- Sylvia (home@wood.com), April 05, 1999.

Sorry, hamish, you're a bit confused on this. The actual NATO attack order, for the alliance was given by the NATO S-G. The U.S. military orders would have already been given, pending NATO concurrance. You need to talk to someone who understands US command and control structures - hint: our folks do NOT function under a ministerial structure such as is common among you commonwealth countries - our chain of commnad is substantially different.

More to the point, the person in our white house - I have a very difficult time thinking of him as president of much of anything - is very much responsible for the commitment of troops, and under current US federal law he has 60 days before he either has to get congressional approval, or withdraw the troops.

Note that I did not in any way say that I support the intervention in Yugoslavia, merely that US troops were committed in a manner consistent with US federal law. This will remain true, at least through the 60 day limit.

Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), April 05, 1999.

"The US can't commit acts of violence against any sovreign nation without a formal Declaration of War. We never could do so before and we certainly can't do so now."

Whether or not it's "legal", it's certainly possible.

Did we declare war against North Korea? Against Vietnam? Against Iraq? Did I miss something?

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), April 05, 1999.

Tom,

Korean WAR
Vietnam WAR
Gulf WAR

No, you didn't miss anything. You've listed some notable, recent "police actions" or whatever weenie euphemism was in vogue and used at the time they were begun. We proceed to wage war but don't call it that in the early stages. That way everything is "nice and legal-like" until we're in so far over our heads that we can't exit. This militant adventurism and voluntary entangelment is blatantly extra-Constitutional and therefore illegal in both the spirit and letter of the law.

-- Nathan (nospam@all.com), April 05, 1999.

The reason the Prez can get away with commiting troups to a "War" without congressional approval and without repercussion is that we are still living under the War Powers Act of 1939 (year?). The War Powers Act was supposed to automatically end at the end of the WWII conflict. The WPA gave the President un-constitutional powers which allowed him to act without congressional approval.... basically a "State of Emergency".

The WPA however was not rescinded at the end of the WWII conflict and we are still living under this FAUX Constitution.

This answer was provided to me by a recent democratic candidate for Congress who has a masters degree in Constitutional law.

Just one more example of the sheeple being led by the goat to the slaughter house.

-- WebRNot (webrnot@ncap13k.com), April 05, 1999.

You have a better argument saying this is an illegal NATO action than an illegal action by the President. Regardless, I expect Congress to come back early from their break and vote their support for the current NATO action and even that argument will be moot.

Personally, I still believe the most relevant reason for the current action by NATO is the preservation of NATO itself. They backed themselves into a corner and they're fighting their way out.

If NATO fails then Europe becomes further destabilized, including NATO countries themselves.

If NATO fails the U.S. faces even greater and looming dangers from China, North Korea and other areas.

NATO cannot afford to fail or lose face. They utilize the most sophisticated weapons on the planet and if they do not make a good show here then their credibility in the world will become very difficult.

What is really a shame is seeing how the politicians are playing a role in the buildup and use of forces. I'm positive the military is hampered by this.

Also, it's interesting to see how many in the U.S. view our own security as only being important within our borders. We always revert to an isolationalist view when our economy is booming and our lives are going well.

Unfortunately, a whole lot of Americans died this century to try to bring peace to Europe and the world and one jerk dictator is all it takes to destabilize that peace. I really wonder how it is that anyone can support that Serb tyrant and those that support him. At one time the Serbs faught against Nazi Germany and now they are guilty of the same kind of madness they faught against.

It's a strange world.

Mike =============================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), April 05, 1999.

WebRNot,

I'm well aware of the WPA. Unfortunately, most Americans aren't. The WPA is the mechanism by which the "nice and legal-like" war-mongering gets over the wall, which is to mean it's pure deception and totally illegal. Congress could overturn the WPA at any time, but, since they're mostly bought and paid for to turn the other way, I wouldn't hold my breath. Heaven forfend that the People actually control its government.

Michael Taylor,

Constitutionally, we ARE isolationists. Maybe if the international monetary elites were quite certain the USA were unable to join in every conflagration great and small that occurs on this orb, we wouldn't have quite so many wars? See the puppets dance, oops, now they're shooting at each other...

-- Nathan (nospam@all.com), April 05, 1999.

I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but since I appear to be alone in that respect, I have a question.

My understanding is that when a law is passed (and signed) it is legal by default, until declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. If a law is never challenged in that court, it remains legal so long as it remains in force (a political, not a legal decision).

When everyone says these 'police actions' are 'blatantly illegal', is this because the Supreme Court said so, or is that just a personal opinion like other things you have one of?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 05, 1999.

Excuse me, but I thought that this was a Y2k forum !

-- Yan (no@no.no), April 05, 1999.

Nathan,

"Constitutionally, we ARE isolationists".

Can you please expand on this a bit?

As for what I meant it's simple. As a nation the country typically becomes more focused on internal issues during times of prosperity. That's historical fact and what's really scary about it is that we've been pushed out of that focus by major wars in the past. My fear is that this is exactly what is about to occur at this time.

I think this is one of those times when no answer is an easy one, no action is without cost and no position is without a failing of one form or another. People are going to get hurt and die because, as a race, we haven't figured out a way to solve our differences short of war. If that were the case then Slobadan Milosevic wouldn't have massed his troops and tanks outside villages in Kosovo and shelled the them as a way to flush out the KLA. He would have addressed, peacefully, the differences between the KLA and his government and then formed an agreement which was based upon a mutual interest in peace. Oh, and I know, the KLA are a bunch of drug smugglers and terrorists. However, that is Milo's reason for his actions, not mine. He didn't want to work with the peaceful leaders of Kosovo either.

Regardless, I do see this as being much less about the humanitarian issues regarding this conflict and much more about the credibility of NATO. Remember, the allies that make up NATO are some of our closest allies and to leave them without our leadership and cooperation at this time would destroy us.

You didn't address anything regarding the position and the future of NATO and in turn the future of Europe. If Europe falls into a bloody heap of death and distruction and armed conflict can the U.S. sit by and watch, unaffected? If Europe suffers from disruption and economic chaos as a result of the actions of Slobandon Milosevic should the U.S. sit by and watch? Also, can the U.S. sit by and watch thinking it can remain an island of prosperity and not suffer adverse affects?

Frankly, I can't see how the U.S. wins if it sits by and does nothing but I can see how the U.S. loses. I think it's better we act now and fight to win under terms we dictate rather than sit by and see what history brings to us from the sidelines.

It is interesting though how this whole tragedy seems to have parallels to y2k all over it.

Mike ======================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), April 05, 1999.

Yan,

Since the Y2K issue could, in the Opinion of some, lead to martial law, the validity of our constitution could come into play. When we start hearing "How could this happen in America" at least we will understand. When Clinton declares martial law and cancels the Y2000 elections, at least we will know how he did it.

IMHO the events of the next 2-3 years may give us an opportunity to re-structure this country, starting at the local level and working out. Just the way it was meant to be.

The more we understand our mistakes, the better we will be prepared to correct them during our somewhat questionable future.

Sincerely, WebRNot

-- WebRNot (webrnot@ncap13k.com), April 05, 1999.

Flint,

You are a fucking idiot.

Here's the proof: >>>>>My understanding is that when a law is passed (and signed) it is legal by default, until declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. If a law is never challenged in that court, it remains legal so long as it remains in force (a political, not a legal decision).

When everyone says these 'police actions' are 'blatantly illegal', is this because the Supreme Court said so, or is that just a personal opinion like other things you have one of? <<<<

I guess you've never heard of the Constitution Flint? It's restrictions in how our military is used is quite clear. Go read it.

Because based on what your post above suggests, Clinton is King and decides policy by the stroke of his pen, and if America is outraged enough by his actions....The Supreme Court can declare his EO's "Unconstitutional".

I know we're on the road to serfdom, and that the media and moronic elites like yourself want to crown Clinton our nation's first monarch...but until that time...this nation is governed by the Constitution.

Something you obviously know NOTHING about.

Go back and watch Jerry Springer or Rivera live or something.

-- INVAR (gundark@aol.com), April 05, 1999.

Flint,

The Supreme Court has largely ignored the spirit and letter of the Constitution for decades, which is most interesting, since their job description is just the opposite. They prefer instead to "interpret" the Constitution as a "living document', i.e., they turn it on its head whenever it suits them.

Article I Section 8.11 (Powers of Congress) - "To declare war". Unilateral Presidential action that has the clear possibility to lead the US into de facto war, as it has so many times lately, is plainly a violation of the Constitution and an usurpation of Congressional authority and duty. Yet the Supreme court stands quietly in their nice black robes.

We've got the Executive branch writing unconstitutional law via regulation, and acting clearly outside its Constitutional mandate. We've got Congress encroaching on the Executive branch through legislation, turning its duties over to private, unaccountable corporations, creating and sanctioning extra-Constitutional agencies, and passing unconstitutional laws with regularity. We've got the courts writing law via ruling and ignoring overreach of both the Executive and Legislative branches. And the rate of accretion of these violations is not exactly slowing down, either. The clear separation of powers is a joke, and its a joke because The Supreme Court appears to have both lost its independence and its will to obey the Constitution itself.

So yes, in my opinion, and more pointedly, in the unambiguous wording of the US Constitution, these "police actions" are "blatantly illegal".

Michael Taylor,

The US is Constitutionally isolationist because there is nothing in the Constitution to allow for unsanctioned offensive or defensive action toward sovereign nations. This is no accident. The first steps toward the act of war are a serious matter. They are so serious that it was specifically placed in the hands of the deliberative Legislative body and not at the Executive level to ensure that all sides were heard and debated prior to taking that step.

The US was previously considered isolationist because the US once had a much better appreciation of this country's founding documents.

As for NATO, they've betrayed THEIR own founding documents. Once, the premiere defensive pact of Europe, they've turned the aggressor. There is no defending their response on any ground, much less the trumped up one they've produced. They've even bypassed the formality of the UN's sanction because they knew it wouldn't be forthcoming, as Russia would have most certainly vetoed. This is a criminal act on NATO's part and we should have no part of it, much less lead it.

Who the hell wants war? Not the elderly, not the women, not the children, not the average working stiff, in fact, NOBODY in their right mind! Let's not play this game anymore. Let the generals and presidents and bankers have their guns and rhetoric of hate and destruction.

When the issue of global conflict arises, I always ask two question: Who is financing the combatants? Who stands to gain most from the conflict, apart from the combatants, regardless of the outcome?

-- Nathan (nospam@all.com), April 05, 1999.

OK, I understand. If your opinion differs from the Supreme Court, then that Court is wrong and you are right.

I have often disagreed with Supreme Court decisions -- much more often than not, with some Courts we've had. Nonetheless, I respect the legal *process*. I may agree entirely that these police actions are unconstitutional. But even more, I fear a breakdown of the legal process itself.

And that seems to be the main complaint here -- that Clinton is violating the *process* the Constitution is meant to safeguard. The Court should examine these issues and make a decision. If the Court decided what Clinton (and Bush, and Johnson, et. al) is doing or has done is constitutional, then the process is satisfied. Even if we don't happen to support this particular police action.

And if we don't like what the Court decided, the process is to elect someone who will appoint better judges.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 05, 1999.

The American Media, a Sorry Lot.

=================================================

MIA: DAN, PETER AND TOM ROUGH IT OUT FROM NEW YORK

Could America's million dollar anchormen -- Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings and Dan Rather -- be afraid of Yugoslavia?

Wars and disasters -- natural or otherwise -- are TV magnets for The Big 3. But this time around, the network anchors are missing in action, so reports Gail Shister in Tuesday editions of the PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER.

Shister pins NBC hotshot Brokaw to the wall.

Why isn't Brokaw, author of the book THE GREATEST GENERATION, personally going to Yugoslavia to cover the war?

While refusing to discuss NBC strategy, Brokaw tells Shister that this war "is very difficult to cover."

"It's in a complex part of the world. These are not familiar players to the American people. From a military and political point of view, the administration only wants to say so much. It's not black and white."

Does he want to be there? How will NBC decide?

"I'm not going to give that away. I'm in a hotly competitive environment here. I'm not going to share with Peter, Dan or CNN, for that matter, how we make those decisions."

Besides, broadcasters "ought not to get in the business of group therapy, taking you [TV columnists, we assume] through our decision-making. We have to reserve some privilege."

Fearless Dan Rather, who has looked into the eyes of hurricanes, is ready to go. Sort of.

CBS News' vice president for news coverage, Marcy McGinnis, tells Shister that if there was a "huge reason" to send Rather, such as nabbing an interview with a key player, he'd be on the next plane.

The story "never stops being in play. Dan Rather can go anywhere at any time to do any story," says McGinnis.

Fearless Peter Jennings, author of THE CENTURY, staying away from "Camp Diarrhea?"

"We're getting reports from major European capitals, the U.N., Brussels, Yugoslavia," says an ABC spokeswoman. "As managing editor, Jennings is doing his job by pulling together all the information from New York."

===================================================

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 05, 1999.

Flint,

Your solution would be a good one if the system weren't so incredibly rigged, illusory, manipulated, bought, and paid for.

The document is fairly straightforward, it's nothing to do with my opinion. Setting aside complete dereliction of duty, the Court can call black white all day, it's still black.

The solution? Learn, educate, watch, listen, wait, hope, pray. Encourage steps in the right direction, however small. Fight to retain those aspects that have remained true. Complain quickly and vociferously those actions that further erode the Constitution and our Rights. At some future point, a sort of critical mass will be reached. For good or ill, at this time I cannot say.

-- Nathan (nospam@all.com), April 05, 1999.

Nathan,

Thanks for your view of the Constitution. However, you write that the document is fairly straighforward and I disagree. While the language may be viewed as straightforward the interpretation is always up for discussion, thus the "living document" and the role of the Supreme Court. I agree with Flint's interpretation. But heck, I'm no lawyer, just a citizen.

Also, I'm sure those much more intelligent with knowledge of prior conflicts can point to actions the U.S. has taken where war was not declared but the military was utilized to further the interests of the country. What about Manifest Destiny and the push of Indians off their tribal lands?

Anyway, as for this...

"As for NATO, they've betrayed THEIR own founding documents. Once, the premiere defensive pact of Europe, they've turned the aggressor. There is no defending their response on any ground, much less the trumped up one they've produced. They've even bypassed the formality of the UN's sanction because they knew it wouldn't be forthcoming, as Russia would have most certainly vetoed. This is a criminal act on NATO's part and we should have no part of it, much less lead it. "

I actually agree with much of what you've written. However, I cannot agree with the way you end your paragraph.

You've chosen not to address any point I made in my prior post as to the importance of NATO in Europe and how that alliance allows the U.S. to remain in relative peace. NATO may well be a flawed alliance but without it where would we be? Where will we be if NATO fails now?

That's why these are gonna be hard decisions. The initial action and the way we got there may well have been illegal and even blantantly wrong, horrific mistakes. However, that was then and this is now and we should think much more about the world tomorrow than the world a few weeks ago.

Mike =============================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), April 06, 1999.

Nathan,

Amen

=========== Mike, The disturbing fact is that the corruption and distorion of our constitution has reached the point where this country barely resembles the united republics envisioned by our founding fathers.

Example: Sometimes, we are quick to take rights away from those we consider to be criminal. However, we CANNOT deplete the rights of one American without depleting our own rights.

If we continue to allow the degradation of our constitution, someday all of our rights and freedoms could be relinquished. =========

Flint,

According to the constitution the Judicial Branch has nothing to do with the declaration or "non-declaration" of war. As Nathan said, any act of war must be approved by the congress IN ADVANCE OF ANY ACTIONS ! The congress's only recourse would be to IMPEACH the President again !

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I am stating facts.

-- WebRNot (webrnot@ncap13k.com), April 06, 1999.

Web -

"Mike, The disturbing fact is that the corruption and distorion of our constitution has reached the point where this country barely resembles the united republics envisioned by our founding fathers."

I agree with you. Furthermore, I place much of the blame on the citizens of this country and their apathy. I know that Thomas Jefferson faught against incorporation in this country and that much of the evil he foresaw is now rampant within our borders.

Even so, what does this have to do with NATO or any other actions taken by this country "for the good of the republic" where war was not declared by Congress? We've had a "war on drugs" in this country for years utilizing assets from the military yet Congress has yet to make that official.

For the record, I am very disturbed by what NATO and the U.S. began in Yugoslavia a few weeks ago. I don't think we should have ever become involved directly in this action. However, now that we are there and knee deep in it, along with our NATO partners, the ONLY way we can get out, save face and save NATO is to win. If we don't win, we lose much more than we can even imagine right now.

Mike =======================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), April 06, 1999.