SOS/HELP! *'s Lawyers argue no approval needed to invaded Iran- IMPORTANT

Biden tells Couric 2X's that Bush and his lawyers have argued that they have the authority to declare war on Iran without telling Congress. That should be alarming enough.

He quoted this 2X's and sounded like this has been on going argument between the WH and the Senate/House

"This administration's Lawyers argue that president has the right to goto war in Iran, tomorrow without even telling the US Congress, that is what they argue Katie" this was said the second time.



The "tomorrow" part was hypothetical.

War authority & Iran... not so hypothetical.

BTW, you can watch the video. I can't link to it, but go to the Today Show/MSNBC page here: http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?, enter "Biden" in the MSNBC Video Search box & it'll be the first one.


This fact that the administration has argued this and Biden has used this interview to state it 2X's is super alarming to anyone with a pulse.

We all know they want regime change in the Iran and the Middle East and it is not a question of when -

The question is how and under who's authority.

Congress is the voice of the people.

Chilling is an understatement, if this went down it would throw the Middle East in a downward spiral and from there the WH could overide ALL LAW and therefore America descends even further down the rabbit hole taking whatever profit and countries with them. Sorry if this is too much :tinfoilhat:

up his impeachability quotient by about, oh, say, a gajillionbillionfold.

I mean, if he actually did declare war, that is - not just saying that he can.

war in Iran, tomorrow without even telling the US Congress, that is what they argue Katie" this was said the second time.

We or the Israelis (doesn't matter which) bomb Iran. The Iranians know it's use'em or lose'em, launch all of their missiles -- many of which are tipped with chem and bio warheards -- at US and Isreali targets. Simultaneusly, the Iraqi Shia population -- millions and millions -- rise up against US forces in Iraq as the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, hundreds of thousands, come over the Iran-Iraq border.

According to the CIA World Factbook, Iran can put 17 million troops into uniform. They have lots of anti-shipping missiles. They can and will blockade the Straights of Hormuz.

What are we going to do, then? Occupy Iran? Nuke Iran?

Furthermore, Iran provides the Chinese and Europe with a large percentage of their imported oil and natural gas needs. The Russians, Chinese and Indians have signed mutual aid agreements with Iran. What are we going to do when China dumps our bonds, the Russians cutoff our oil, and the Indians and Pakistanis decide they dislike us more than they dislike each other?

No. The Pentagon is not going to let BushCo bomb Iran. The Iran war drums we've been hearing is a covering operation -- a deception campaign -- designed to keep the Iranians off-balance while we withdraw forces from Iraq. It's part of the same package deal as the orderly departure of Cheney and Bush.

A very plausable scenerio. Yet so many things could go wrong and bring on WWIII. If Iran fires missles on Israel wouldn't Israel fire nucs at Iran? If that happens the gates of hell may open on the world. bob

The Generals aren't fools, and they aren't monsters. They went along with BushCo once - never again. Not like that, anyway.

it makes alot of sense.

The alarming question is why the WH arguing for this, afterall it is not beyond them to just ignore everyone including to DoD and do it.

Look at Iraq - 58% of the people in Feb/03 did not want War and they went anyway.

The General's from the DoD said you don't have enough troops and planning - the went anyway.

This WH does whatever it wants.

Was Biden trying to get a message out?

Bush-Cheney have used up all their cards. They have no credibility left. It won't happen.

If someone in Washington tries to create a false-flag terrorist incident to justify an attack, they will be terminated by Special Forces, and it will be made to look like an accident.

The WH does NOT do what it wants.

don't kid yourself. The WH is successfully portraying the nuclear threat as imminent, and a limited "pre-emptive" attack is soon to come.

Dubya is a figure head at this point. This isn't 2003.

The neocons are upset because the WH didn't pursue that line earlier. It's too late for them.

if they say the words "turrist,911,national security, kill them there so we dont have to fight them here, WMD, etc. enough. Facts don't matter. They make reality and they know it.

Even tho they tried to say there was.

after he said it the first time and katie dumbass just ignored him, then he said it again, and once again it went right over her head, or she was trying to change the subject or whatever.

500,000 standing, 250,000 reserves. And their missiles are not even close to being able to reach US targets.

Iraq had lucrative oil deals with Russia and France, and that didn't slow down Bushco one iota.

on the troops, and on the missile facts.

See for yourself: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html#Military

Manpower available for military service:
males age 18-49: 18,319,545 (2005 est.)

Manpower fit for military service:
males age 18-49: 15,665,725 (2005 est.)

****

Until last summer, I also thought that there might be a preemptive strike against Iran. I am happy to say, I think I was wrong about that, too. What's changed my mind? The multiple federal prosecutions of the operational people who were creating a false pretext such an attack. The following is an extract for an article published on 10/2/2004: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0410/S00146.htm

If Iran is attacked, and the country's surviving leaders conclude the U.S. was working hand-in-hand with Israel to bomb its facilities and kill Iranian scientists and officials, the consequences could be extremely grave. Iran shares a 1,500-mile border with Iraq, along with a majority Shi'a Muslim faith. Militarily, Iran is a far more formidable adversary than Iraq, which suffered an eight-year regime of punitive sanctions and dismantlement under UN inspection of its previous WMD capabilities.

The Monterrey Institute, Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS) reports that Iran possesses an undepleted chemical warfare stockpile, and a new generation of medium-range guided missiles that can reach targets in Israel, as well as US military installations in Iraq, Kuwait and Qatar. A recent CNS report, "A Preemptive Attack on Iran's Nuclear Facilities: Possible Consequences", warns that a preemptive attack is likely to result in the end with Iran redoubling its nuclear weapons program, creating an even more formidable opponent: "As the target of an unprovoked attack, Iran gains by pointing to justifications for escaping the constraints of the NPT, therefore becoming a much greater proliferation threat. Unrestrained, the Iranians will have the means and technology to eventually manufacture gas centrifuges and mine, mill, convert, and enrich uranium. Even under IAEA intrusive inspections, Iran has assembled more than 920 gas centrifuges, 120 of which were assembled in just two and a half months, between November 2003 and mid-January 2004. To enrich enough HEU to make one nuclear bomb requires running 750 gas centrifuges for one year. If Iran seceded from the NPT, and increased the size of its nuclear program, it would be able to manufacture and assemble many more gas centrifuges, and therefore rapidly enrich uranium. Once sufficient fissile material is obtained, designing a basic nuclear warhead can be easily accomplished. In the absence of intrusive inspections or threat of UN Security Council (UNSC) sanctions, the only way to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapons capability would be to occupy Iran, a very unlikely occurrence given the serious challenges already faced by the United States in a smaller, weaker Iraq." Iran already has a substantial stockpile of chemical and biological weapons upon which it could draw in the event of a conflict. See, CNS report "Chemical and Biological Weapons: Possession and Programs Past and Present", Ibid., that cites unclassified CIA reports indicating Iran has one of the largest Chemical Weapons (CW) programs in the developing world, including "stockpiled chemical weapons - including blister, blood, choking, and probably nerve agents, and the bombs and artillery shells to deliver them."

For further information on Iran's WMD programs and capabilities, see the CNS country profile on the "Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Middle East" web page at http://www.cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/iran.htm.

Even in a conventional conflict, Iran is a formidable opponent, particularly in a ground war in an area where the Tehran regime would command the loyalty of the vast majority of the population. According to the CIA World Factbook, Iran today can call up 12 million men fit for military service.

U.S. troops in Iraq presently number less than 150,000, a force that is overstretched and exhausted after 15 months of ongoing guerilla war. More than 1,000 American soldiers have already been killed and over 16,000 casualties have thus far been evacuated from Iraq.

U.S. military planners have long feared the regional expansion of the conflict in Iraq risks a repeat of the hell endured by U.S. troops during the Korean War. In 1950, China intervened on the side of North Korea with more than a million troops, forcing a stalemate that half a century later remains unresolved. To deal with casualties in an Iraq war that has lasted far longer than it anticipated, the White House recently announced that it was reorganizing U.S. forces worldwide. The expectation is that if he is reelected, Bush will move to commit a further 80,000 troops to a renewed offensive against the Iraqi resistance, many of them borrowed from U.S. forces in South Korea.

The ratcheting up of pressures has been reflected in recent statements made in Tehran. On Monday, August 23, Le Monde reported the remarks of Iranian Defense Minister Ali Chamkhani, who is quoted as warning:

"We will not sit with our arms folded waiting for others to act against us (...) Some Iranian military officials feel that preventive operations are neither an American invention nor a prerogative of the United States."

The Le Monde story goes on to report growing tensions between Iran and Israel. Over the summer, fears have risen that the Israelis may make a preemptive strike on a Russian-built Iranian nuclear reactor, as they did in 1981 against a similar nuclear installation in Iraq. The Iranians have vowed to retaliate against Israel, should such a strike take place:

"Israel, in any case, has been warned since August 11. That day Iran announced it had made a successful test of the last version of its medium range missile, Chahab-3, capable, according to the minister's explanations, of reaching Israeli territory. Four days later, the commander of the Pasdarans Corps, the army's auxiliary militia, exulted: "All of Israeli territory, including its military installations and nuclear stocks, are now within reach of Iranian missiles and advanced technology."

The nightmare scenario of a regional nuclear war following an attack on Iran is laid out in by UPI editor, Claud Salhani in, "THE FOUR DAY WAR: The Iran/Israel conflagration"

Writing for a general audience, Salhani presents a compelling picture that Iranian Revolutionar Guards would retaliate, as the CNS report predicts, by a bloody assault on US forces in Iraq. The resulting slaughter of Muslims, he writes, would cause a general uprising against U.S. allied regimes in the region, the overthrow of Gen. Musharraf, and the intervention of nuclear-armed Pakistan with the consequence of a nuclear exchange with Israel that kills millions.

THE CHOICE: PREEMPTIVE ATTACK OR A "GRAND BARGAIN"

Even if a preemptive attack does not indeed touch off a wider war, threats of a U.S.-sponsored preemptive attack cast further doubts on the ability of Washington to play a stabilizing role in the region. The Bush Administration's invasion of Iraq, and the "catastrophic success" of its occupation, many believe has greatly undermined the global influence and prestige of U.S. institutions. In an effort to forestall a further slide into foreign policy disaster, powerful pressure has been applied on the White House to hold off a decision on authorizing a preemptive attack. On September 21, The Washington Post reported,

"Some experts call for a "grand bargain" that would involve an across-the-board agreement in which changed behavior by Tehran on all fronts would be negotiated in return for normal relations and investment from the West.

"Still other experts say that such an approach is overly ambitious and that "selective engagement" on a few crucial issues, including steps to stabilize Iraq, should be tried first. That view is advocated by a Council on Foreign Relations committee led by Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter's national security adviser, and Robert M. Gates, a director of central intelligence in the early 1990's."

between the "manpower fit for military service" and actually being able to put them in uniform, in both time and resources. onedit: BTW, your source also says 6 million were available for military service in Iraq. Didn't help them much.

And once they're in uniform, where are they going to go? Are they going to shoot their Kalishnikovs at our F-16s as they fly by, dropping laser-guided bombs?

All sorts of parallels between the tone coming out of Washington these days and that of Fall 2002.

Iran would be a far larger, more difficult adversary. Think Iraq times ten. At least.

there won't be. It will be dropping bombs from the sky, and Iran will be virtually defenseless.

Iraq is 60 percent Shi'a, overwhelmingly so in the south. It's not hard to foresee the outcome in terms of US casualties of a generalized Iraqi insurrection in which the Shi'a join the Sunnis. While there are still U.S. forces in large numbers in Iraq, we can't bomb Iran with impunity.

IMO the real danger lies in Iran physically invading Iraq on the ground and joining forces against the US.

we could outfit an army of almost 110,000,000 soldiers.

Obviously a simple headcount of the fit population isn't a good estimate of military power.

..in IRAQ, and Navy targets in the Gulf.

The Naval cruise missles (Supersonic Silkworms) are reportedly very accurate and capable of sinking a large carrier with one hit.
They are Mach3 supersonic (IIRC) , and near impossible to intercept or down with close in defensive weapons.

US forces would have to control twenty-five hundred square miles of Iranian coastland to really effectively screen against anti-ship weapons. Tankers would also be targeted. That means boots on the ground inside Iran. That isn't going to happen.

Are you ready for $5-10/gal. gas? Is the US economy prepared for another oil price and supply shock?

Look, the CIA, the Pentagon, and the WH know this, so do the Iranians, the Chinese, the Russians, the Saudis and the Europeans. Some of them -- particularly oil exporting states -- would like to see us shoot our wad by an unprovoked attack on Iran. We have nothing to gain, and a lot to lose. It would be downright treasonous to force such a clearly foreseeable disaster on the American people.

between some Russian Oil Companies so to help ease our strain on the black gold

and then when take into account how we are meddling with all of the countries with "stan" in their names, which when you get down to the meddling could and is for Oil.

"further murky corner of where oil politics is leading the US and the UK is given by the brave former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray who was appalled at the by the behaviour of the US backed Government of Islam Karimov and spoke out to the great displeasure of the UK government."


Is this too far out there???

With Ariel Sharon at the helm, I think * would have no problems keeping this "show" orchestrated. With Sharon out of commission, all bets are off. If one of the far-right members of Likud ends up running the country, their idea of a show of strength might include airstrikes on Iran. This would put us in the unprecedented position of having to turn our back on Israel.

Would * do this? Not on your life.

I have always found it really curious that we the US have our interests so far up Israel's butt. I know that war profiteering is one of the answers but I have always felt that it was a little more complicated than that.

Meaning we can War profiteer almost anywhere in the world some places better than others.

Maybe some people in Israel are really crazy enough to go nuclear in the Middle East and that may be why based on WH statements saying that the WH has a keen/great/involved interest in Sharon's outcome.

***********************

here is one of the 2 times and this is me responding to Peace Patriot:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=109553&mesg_id=115001


******************************

and then this one in response to some more research:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=109553&mesg_id=114892

They never mentioned Israel as far as I remember, but I remember two characters talking about how they would continue to make a profit "as long as we don't have peace in the Middle East".

So, yeah, war profiteering is my best guess.

Nothing too dramatic is going to happen there soon, I believe. We may have one too, before too long, if political events and prosecutions unfold as I expect.

populous think that they can depend on bush* to do everything in his power to protect us from all those evil Iranians and the Democrats will be too chicken/weak to do the job. They will never get back in office unless we have a dangerous enemy at large and they will see to it that there is. The plan is unfolding as we type.

Don't doubt that ** would resort to this if the military weren't sufficiently cooperative. You only need to get to two guys in a silo to launch a missle, and once one is up, you can't stop the fireworks.

:hi:

what the hell law school they attended and they sure as hell must not have been paying any attention during their constitutional law classes. If indeed true, this is beyond frightening, chilling, and any other similar adjective you can think of.

:puke:

how would he finance it?

...to troops in combat?

And that's aside from Shrubco just (illegaly) shifting funds from elsewhere in the executive branch.

this could be the middle east's chance to bring down the usa. who would defend us?

ellen fl

I can't remember the story, is it frogs or lobsters who are sitting in the pot while someone turns up the heat so slowly they don't notice that they are being boiled? These people so and say such outrageous things day after day that after a while we don't even notice.

It went totally over her head

Maybe in Maine they say lobsters. lol

and with nukes. Why is this a surprise to anyone? The information has been out there for quite some time. Unless we get him and it's cabal out of there we will see nuclear war against Iran. I pray I'm wrong but I don't think so. check out any of Scott Ritters work or talks. He lays it out with plenty of facts.

IMPEACH NOW

and the WH/Lawyer's on if they can do this without anyone's approval.

That is the surprising part not out intent we all know that the WH wants Iran changed.

I think Israel is going to go after Iran as soon as the secession to Sharon is figured out.

:hi:

That guy is really scary!

To anyone except his perpetual campaign, I mean.

Keep talking about this, Joe. Make a difference. This must be known.

Biden may be speaking broadly, probably referring to the Yoo memo.
Yoo: "We think it beyond question that the president has the plenary constitutional power to take such military actions as he deems necessary."

The part about "tomorrow" was definitely hypothetical. Biden may have even been using Iran as a hypothetical example, although it is certainly not far-fetched.

So, it is not new that * believes he can invade anyone he wants, any time, with out getting congressional approval or even notifying Congress. According to Yoo, all * needs to do is use the phrase "war on terror."

WH Lawyer's on the whether * needs approval to invade. We all know that the WH would love a regime change in Iran, so we know it is just a matter of time whether it is tomorrow as in Friday or as next year.

The important part is that they are arguing, Biden said argue 2X's and that is the important part.

the president has the power to start a war of aggression.

That Alito would not answer. Not only a war of agression, but a war without congressional approval - or even notification!

the want to start another one without any Congressional approval.

We all know they want regime change in the Iran and the Middle East and it is not a question of when -

The question is how and under whose authority.

Congress is the voice of the people.

I'm surprised the man admits to his name.

It's funny how someone who has no problem invading the most personal aspects of individual privacy, is so reticent about revealing information about his past. Typical bushbot behavior. Speak evasively, and carry a big stick of authority.

from what i am reading (on du), schumer sees that too.

ellen fl

We know what is left unsaid is as telling as what is said, but you can't interrogate someone by reading between the lines of what they have said or not said.

Alito is infuriating, a smarmy little smart-mouth who thinks he's fooling everybody.

issues he evades just by virtue of his evasions. it may not be on record but the senators will vote on what they know and what they surmise. they won't have to be specific to validate their vote.

ellen fl

Of course, Nelson is a DINO.

That's the problem, Alito was so greasy and slippery that the Dems can't point to anything specific that he said. As for Alito's history, hey, it was just job interviews. His swiss-cheese memory? Ain't no big thing. :sarcasm:

check this out.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=109553&mesg_id=109553

.

and ask if he was speaking in a broad sense on the Today show and referring to the Yoo memos or if there have been specific discussions between members of Congress and the administration's lawyers about authority for an invasion of Iran.

to at least attempt to get people talking about this

du's media blaster
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cu/cu.php

Alito in the thread and then maybe more people would have Scooby Doo'ed - rrrhhhggghh

tion from congress because they already did with the Iraq War passage. They argue that it covers any country in the Middle East.)

that will make our argument a little more credible.

and also here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=109553&mesg_id=109553

as part of the negotiations.

I doubt those senators and congressmembers doing the negotiating will sit quiet on this - I expect them to tell EXACTLY what was said in those negotiations.

Ole Hairplugs will grandstand and say anything that sounds sensational enough to get him a clip on the 6PM news.


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans,
family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."--- Senator Paul Wellstone

In EVERY case, "Barriers to Trade" and "Restrictions on Corporations" were created to protect something valuable!

The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

deserves our attention, while silly attempts to discredit him and distract attention from the issue should be dismissed as nonsense.

Everything Joe Biden says in front of a camera SHOULD be verified.

This issue IS serious, and should be investigated.
Joe Biden should NEVER be taken at face value.

So if Biden says he breaths air, you wouldnt believe it unless you verified it??

Of course Bush is looking to legally justify invading Iran. To think its not happening as we speak is totally ridiculous!

that got all of this started I think that this a Major development today.

yet?

it's powers (and responsibilities) to the President over the last few years. Bush and his administration have advertised their tendency to dictatorship over and over again.

The question is; "Can a President legally initiate military aggression with neither congressional approval or notification?"

The answer is; "Maybe". I'll try to answer neutrally and factually, without regard to the bozos currently in office.

The Constitution divides power over the military between both the President and the Congress.

First; "The Congress shall have power" .. "To raise and support Armies"
Second; "The Congress shall have power" .. "To declare War"
Third; "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States"

A strict reading of the constitution tells us that only the Congress can raise (i.e. authorize and pay for) an Army, and that only the congress can declare war. However, the constitution also tells us that the President is the supreme command of the Army.

The first power I mentioned, to raise armies, was one of the key checks on Presidential power created by the framers. Put simply, the assumption was that the Union would not have an army unless one had been raised by the Congress. Assuming Congress was raising an army, it would probably be implicitly clear for what purpose that Army was being created - for example, to fight the revolutionary or civil war. Once an Army had been raised, control of that Army was in the hands of the President.

Today, we keep a standing army. By doing so, Congress has weakened one key check against the President, because as long as their is an Army the Constitution allows the President to order it as he sees fit.

That leaves us with the power of the Congress to declare war. This power is absolutely reserved to the congress, but there is nothing that prevents a president from using the military without a declared war. In fact, the last declared war the Union has been involved in was World War II, and all military actions since then have taken place under the authority of the President as commander in chief.

So, on the surface, the Constitution tells us that only the Congress has the power to create an army, but once one exists the President can use it however he sees fit. Only congress has the power to declare war, but their is no constitutional constraint on the president using the army outside of a declared war.

This leads us to the War Powers Resolution of 1973. In 1973, Congress passed a law that requires the President to consult with the Congress prior to the start of hostilities unless congress has either declared war or passed a resolution authorizing force. This law was an effort by Congress to constrain the President from using the army without Congressional oversight.

However; no President has ever accepted this law as constitutional, nor has the Supreme Court ever ruled directly on the War Powers Resolution. All presidents since 1973 have held that the War Powers Resolution is an unconstitutional infringement on their duty as commander in chief, although they have all gone through "the formalities" of consulting with congress first.

In closing, the answer to the original question is "maybe". If the War Powers Resolution were to be found constitutional by the Supreme Court, then it would be illegal for a president to initiate hostility without congressional approval. However, if the War Powers Resolution were held to be unconstitutional (as all Presidents since 1973 have maintained), then it is completely legal for a President to initiate hostility.

Force? So he may only wage a ground war? What about the Marines?

It may sound facetious, but I'm serious. (I may be thinking of "originalist" -- whichever group it is that thinks the Constitution is fixed in time and that we should roll back to that point).

The first time he said it, I had to rub my sleepy eyes and say, "Did he just say IRAN?" I thought perhaps he said Iraq. (I just woke up) Then, right as I was thinking that can't be right, Biden said it again, very deliberately.

Considering what Wes Clark said about Iran, I would say the possibility of airstrikes is highly likely.

up thread - and as you know by now this ties in with the Rawstory thread that you started yesterday.

I would be interested to see what you think based on what of the other posters are saying about this.

Right now I am the point that I really don't know what to expect next.

several times already.

What did you think about what he had to say? He seems pretty credible, with a lot of inside info.

I read the piece he did in the New Yorker in Jan of last year and this topic has been on the forefront of my mind ever since. Any way you look at it, there are several avenues Bush & Co. can take to invade Iran, or Syria, et al if they want to. Granted, we can sit and argue, with good reason, why that wouldn't be wise, or how, ultimately, we would do great harm to ourselves if he does invade. God, I hope they are not that stupid, greedy, power-hungry, full of hubris, or whatever the reason behind all of this really is!

An Audience With Seymour Hersh (March 2005)
http://www.conjur.com/blog/2005/03/04/an-audience-with-seymour-hersh/

sources and how accurate the information is/ends up being.

I also heard Hersh say pretty much the same things in regards to Iran(commando units) when he was on DemocracyNow with Amy Goodman last year, has published anything more recent on this subject????

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=unitary+executive&btnG=Google+Search

It will likely have a lot to do with Bush & Co.'s case for invading any other countries, if they choose to. It has been brought up in the Alito hearings, and Bush has included the term in several cases:

From the Media Watch link above:



Here's John Yoo, discussing unitary executive in relation to Presidential war powers:



We can argue effectively and rationally at how dangerous and stupid it would be for them to invade or bomb Iraq. Bottom line is, though, if that's what they want, that's what they will do.

Alito said it didn't mean what the questioner said and whoever asked that didn't press it.

In that link to Media Watch (re-posted below), it has a question and answer on the matter.

Here's Alito's answer. I happened to catch part of this on a re-play on TV (didn't see it in its original). When Alito was giving the analogy of the table thing, it just made such little sense, I thought, "WTF?" Now, looing back on this partial transcript, it just confirms my initial response. I'm still thinking, did he really even answer the question? It's just prolixity. I don't know if Kennedy pressed him any further. Maybe Kennedy was confused by Alito's answer, too. Anyway, also, now that I have read up about 'unitary executive,' and understand how circular and evasive the theory is, I think Alito's response was just evasive bs.



http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:XfH_WoQbcCYJ:www.users.muohio.edu/kelleycs/mediablog.html+Kennedy+Mr.+Alito,+you+referred+to+%27unitary+executive+theory%27+as+the+gospel&hl=en


On edit, let me add, Alito says "the concept of the unitary executive doesn't
have to do with the scope of executive power. It has to do with who
within the executive branch controls the exercise of executive power.
And the theory is, the Constitution says the executive power is
conferred on the president."

He's just adding confusion to Kennedy's question, which was:

"So, Judge Alito, the president is saying he can ignore the ban on
torture passed by Congress, that the courts cannot review his conduct.
In light of your lengthy record on the issues of executive power --
deferring to the conduct of law enforcement officials, even when
they're engaged in conduct that your judicial colleagues condemn --
Judge Chertoff, Judge Rendell; subscribing to the theory of unitary
executive, which gives the president complete power over the
independent agencies, the independent agencies that protect our health
and safety; believing that the true independent special prosecutors
who investigate executive wrongdoing are unconstitutional; referring
to the supremacy of the elected branches over the judicial branch, and
arguing that the court should give equal weight to a president's view
about the meaning of the laws that Congress has passed -- why should
we believe that you'll act as an independent check on the president
when he claims the power to ignore the laws passed by Congress?"

Alito is not saying anything in his response to the question other than that the theory holds that the Constitution says the executive power is
conferred on the president. What he conveniently omits is that the theory also says that that doctrine gives the president "license to overrule and bypass Congress or the courts, based on his own interpretations of the Constitution -- even where that violates long-established laws and treaties, counters recent legislation that he has himself signed, or (as shown by recent developments in the Padilla case) involves offering a federal court contradictory justifications for a detention. "
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:fsnH_vQCq0oJ:writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060109_bergen.html+unitary+executive&hl=en

she just keeps going on and on, dumbass, does she even know how important what he's saying is, jeebus she's a dumbass.:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

This will not stand.

I can't watch that it just makes me pissed off..

But i think Biden handed her ass to her! So good on him

with Iran?

If that does happen, watch some talking head say, "unlike Iraq, there were NO protests before this war."

She sucks! She had absolutely no response to the "going to war with Iran" thing, nada, nilch. How obtuse.

I just wrote Katie Couric and hammered her about how obtuse she was, and, how, tx to this kind of 'reporting,' we all lose in the long run!

She is indeed a rethug tool.

of Office?!! IMPEACHMENT NOW!!!

:grr:

...basically that Congress gave him the right to attack any country participating in, or harboring, terrorists.

Now do you understand why Herr Busch has tried so hard to link Iraq with terrorism and now Iran?

But, if NO link to terrorism exists, Herr Busch is violating the tenets of the Patriot Act...and NO link exists with either nation no matter how hard the NeoCons try to establish those connections.

of Alito....Made several references to whether or not the President has the authority to invade Iran tommorrow....I thought this was very interesting....Later on, he said the same about Syria...Don't know if that's because he wanted to shift focus away or on to another possible country on the Bush Invasion Hit List....Me thinks Biden knows exactly what is going on and is purposely trying to draw attention to it...

Also to get a better idea about why we want Syria, Iraq, and Iran go here: PLAME= IRAN/CONTRA REDUX - Planted WMD from Ghorbanifar & Ledeen.-robertpaulsen is the author.

Really it is Michael Ledeen that you are looking for and this dude takes orders from Rover.

this is one of a few situations where I would love to read an "in depth" analysis of a militarily knowledgable freeper's (You know, the war-mongering ex military type.) view on the strategy and the outcome of such a situation.

I have a feeling that it would be MUCH more rosy than the theories being put forth here, not that I would believe his/her rosy outlook mind you. But I think it would be interesting to see how they spin what would actually happen.

Anyone else?

If there are any lurking freepers that fit the above profile, please feel free to comment.'


thanks

During her confirmation hearing, a Senator asked her if she believed that Bush needed a new resolution to attack Iran or Syria, or if the Iraqi war resolution extended to allow such an attack. Her response: "I'm not going to restrict executive authority." Meaning - he can attack whoever under the old Iraq war resolution. I guess it's less of a stretch than claiming the Afganistan war resolution somehow allows domestic spying. :eyes:

Oooh - here's the video of that: "Can Bush Invade and Attack Other Countries without explicit Congressional Authorization?" http://www.canofun.com/blog/videos/2005/ricecongressauth.asx (thanks Can-o-Fun!)

and have always wanted since the early 1980's

Man if if you didn't tell me when this is from - one could easily assume that this was said any between yesterday and the last 2 years.

see these related threads on where the theory of the WHIG comes from:

PLAME= IRAN/CONTRA REDUX - Planted WMD from Ghorbanifar & Ledeen.

Ledeen, Ghorbanifar, and the strategy of tension

Red Lines in the Iranian Sand--surprise nuke attack on Iran??

thanks once again..

I wrote a bit about this when Syria was in the scopes. (not Chris this time)

Yes he can.



http://www.chris-floyd.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=247&Itemid=5