What to do about Cindy Sheehan

[panzwami 0]

Now that's a valid point. I agree that the process by which Congress makes spending decisions is crap, and usually has more to do with getting oneself re-elected than on actually solving a problem. It's rare to find a politician on either side of the aisle that will put self-promotion aside and actually try to accomplish something.

On the body armor thing, that was a definite problem for a while. According to this, the first groups of front-line, combat-ready units were sent over properly equipped with the necessary gear. As more guard and reserve forces were sent, this problem arose. Funds were quickly appropriated in 2003 after the shortage became known. The largest problem, though, was actually manufacturing that many vests and getting them in the hands of deployed soldiers. The Army brought on extra suppliers and worked with existing ones to increase substantially the monthly production rate. It was a pretty high-profile problem when it came out, but Congress and the military did work pretty quickly to fix it.

According to this, by March/April 2004, all troops had been properly equipped.

[shropshire 0]

Nice one. That's proably the best summary that I've read.

.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[panzwami 0]

Quote

As Americans who elect our leaders, it's not only our right, but our responsibility to hold our government accountable for its actions.

As a soldier, it was her son's responsibility to follow orders and go and fight when and where he was told to. However, it is the responsibility of the government to make sure that its soldiers lives aren't wasted. Cindy Sheehan knows what her son agreed to, but as a US citizen and a mother, she wants reassurance that her son's life was not wasted.

The problem is, who determines what is and is not a waste? I don't think there will ever be a cause that 100% of the American population could get behind. It would be much easier if before sending troops it were possible to get the families of all soldiers together in one big room and take a vote as to whether or not it was a good idea, but I don't think that's in the cards.

There has to be someone to decide, and in our system of laws, that person is the President of the United States. Americans vote in the presidential election knowing whoever wins will be granted certain authorities, some of which involve putting other Americans in harm's way.

Does anyone think there is ever a cause noble enough for a mother to say "OK, go ahead and send my son to his death?"

[billvon 2,433]

>The problem is, who determines what is and is not a waste?

The person who loses their legs, or the person who loses a son, is the best person to decide whether that sacrifice is worth it or not. Since free speech is one of the principles our society is based on, you may hear their opinions if you choose listen to them. Doesn't mean you have to take them seriously of course.

>I don't think there will ever be a cause that 100% of the American
>population could get behind.

Definitely true. And sometimes there is no time to get anyone behind it. Say we are attacked by a foreign army; the response must be swift. That's why we have an executive branch that leads the Armed Forces and can take action immediately.

On the other hand, let's say there's a war we just want to fight because it will help us, further our policy objectives, help us economically etc and there is time to discuss it. That's the job of Congress; they have the constitutional duty of declaring war. That way we have the best possible chance of expressing the desires of the people.

>There has to be someone to decide, and in our system of laws, that
> person is the President of the United States.

Not per the Constitution.

--------------------
Section. 8.
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes . . .

Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
------------------

>Does anyone think there is ever a cause noble enough for a mother
>to say "OK, go ahead and send my son to his death?"

We've had a father recently state he would gladly sacrifice his whole family for this war, so apparently there is.

[jdhill 0]

Quote

>There has to be someone to decide, and in our system of laws, that
> person is the President of the United States.

Not per the Constitution.

You have heard of the "War Powers Act of 1973" right? Congress ackowledged that the President has the power to execute the foreign policy of the US, and in doing so, may need to use the military absent a declaration of war... so pan's original statement that under our system of laws the President gets to decide is correct, at least for 60 days... then the congress has to pipe in (which in the case of Iraq and Afganistan they have through authorizing the use of force and contiuing appropriations)

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[panzwami 0]

Quote

The person who loses their legs, or the person who loses a son, is the best person to decide whether that sacrifice is worth it or not.

That's two people. Not to split hairs, my point is simply that there is never going to be a right answer to the question "is the sacrifice worth it?"

Quote

Definitely true. And sometimes there is no time to get anyone behind it. Say we are attacked by a foreign army; the response must be swift. That's why we have an executive branch that leads the Armed Forces and can take action immediately.

On the other hand, let's say there's a war we just want to fight because it will help us, further our policy objectives, help us economically etc and there is time to discuss it. That's the job of Congress; they have the constitutional duty of declaring war. That way we have the best possible chance of expressing the desires of the people.

This goes back to a post I made earlier today. Under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, there are two methods for applying American military force, and one of them does not include declaring war. The latter is the course of action taken in this case. If the inclusion of Congress in the decision-making process is the tacit consent of the American people, that consent is resident here.

There are those that argue that this is a war undertaken in response to a deadly attack on our soil, and those that think it was done purely for financial gain. I don't know the answer to that question. But, both sides have been covered in this case. If this action was taken in response to attack, the President exercised his authority as Commander-in-Chief. If there was another motive, the United States Congress affixed it's seal of approval.

Quote

We've had a father recently state he would gladly sacrifice his whole family for this war, so apparently there is.

Yeah, I'm really glad that guy doesn't have any stars on his shoulders.

[panzwami 0]

Quote

You have heard of the "War Powers Act of 1973" right?

yeah I dunno how this got missed, I posted about it in detail earlier in this thread.

edit: link

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

If the inclusion of Congress in the decision-making process is the tacit consent of the American people, that consent is resident here.

Tacit consent implies silent acceptance, which has not happened. Many people have been very outspoken against the war.

Was there ever a time when the war in Iraq was ever popularly supported by a majority of Americans?

[billvon 2,433]

>so pan's original statement that under our system of laws the President gets to decide is correct, at least for 60 days... then the congress has to pipe in (which in the case of Iraq and Afganistan they have through authorizing the use of force and contiuing appropriations)

The purpose of the War Powers act was to allow the "introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations." In other words, to allow the president to react decisively and quickly to sudden crises. I would argue that since hostilities were not ongoing, there was no sudden crisis, and there was no imminent threat to the US, it does not apply, and the old requirement of a vote by Congress applies instead. I'm sure most Bush supporters will disagree.

[jdhill 0]

Quote

Was there ever a time when the war in Iraq was ever popularly supported by a majority of Americans?

I believe there was...

Quote

Many people have been very outspoken against the war.

There have been a lot of people that have expressed displeasure with the war, but its hard to put all of them in one box... some are just anti-war, others think we are fighting the war too PC... so when you see 60% of a poll are displeased with the way Bush is managing the war, you have to look at how those numbers actually break out among the doves and the hawks... I would venture to guess that more than 10 of the 60% are upset not because we are there, but because it appears to them that we are not fighting hard enough.

There is often a very vocal minority, while the majority often remains quiet...

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[jdhill 0]

Quote

hostilities were not ongoing

Many would disagree... I don't think there was a 30 day stretch from the signing of the armistice in '91 to the invasion that there was not an incident of some sort in the no-fly zone.

Quote

and the old requirement of a vote by Congress applies instead.

If you'll recall, there was a vote by congress before we invaded...

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[panzwami 0]

Quote

Tacit consent implies silent acceptance, which has not happened. Many people have been very outspoken against the war.

Billvon was arguing that the declaration of war was the means through which Congress approves of military action. My point was that there's another way for that to happen, without declaring war.

The tacit consent I'm referring to in this case is that which the American people granted to the President and the Congress by electing them to office. Our system of government is a representative democracy, not a democracy, and as such the general population must grant it's approval to certain elected representatives to govern and make decisions on their behalf. Americans have every right to question and speak out against those decisions they feel are improper, but they are likewise bound by those decisions.

John Locke also argued tacit consent to mean that any person who has accepted the benefits of a government has thus consented to those burdens it has placed upon him.

[panzwami 0]

Quote

The purpose of the War Powers act was to allow the "introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations." In other words, to allow the president to react decisively and quickly to sudden crises. I would argue that since hostilities were not ongoing, there was no sudden crisis, and there was no imminent threat to the US, it does not apply, and the old requirement of a vote by Congress applies instead. I'm sure most Bush supporters will disagree.

This is what I was referring to when I mentioned the President is the one who makes the decision. There is no hard definition of "hostilities" - it's a judgement call. The person making the call is the President.

Again, there are those that argue the President acted in response to hostilities, and those that argue he acted for money. Not getting near that one. But the fact remains that he made the decision and Congress approved. If you disagree with that decision, vote for the other guy.

[billvon 2,433]

>There is no hard definition of "hostilities" - it's a judgement call.

I disagree. If it is truly an individual judgement call, then there is no purpose in describing the purpose of the War Powers act - the purpose would just be for the president to use the military whenever he felt the need to. Since there _is_ a specific part of the War Powers act calling out what situations it may be used in, it's not just a judgement call.

[panzwami 0]

Quote

I disagree. If it is truly an individual judgement call, then there is no purpose in describing the purpose of the War Powers act - the purpose would just be for the president to use the military whenever he felt the need to. Since there _is_ a specific part of the War Powers act calling out what situations it may be used in, it's not just a judgement call.

"SEC. 2. (c)
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

There is no specific listing of what does and does not qualify as "hostilities." Thus, the President has to decide whether or not he believes a situation warrants the use of military force, and then make that case to Congress. Congress can then stop that action by voting it down, or approve it either through declaration of war or specific statutory authorization.

[starkmtn 0]

Quote

By the way if you don't know who she is go to www.foxnews.com and do a search on her name.

Well wait, if people go to that site, they're not exactly going to get an unbiased factual description of who she is. I suggest a news site instead.

"You guys should just do CRW. There are so many more ways to get killed, it makes a CYPRES seem safe." -Kevin Keenan

[Gawain 0]

Quote

I know most of you have heard her name on the news. What does everyone think about this woman and do you think she is disgracing the sacrifice that her son made or not. I want to hear opinions here people.

By the way if you don't know who she is go to www.foxnews.com and do a search on her name.

My issue with her is this: Of the 1800 families directly affected by the loss of their sons and daughters in Iraq and Afghanistan, the media has assured that 99% of the population knows the name of only one. That is a disgrace.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

Quote

Was there ever a time when the war in Iraq was ever popularly supported by a majority of Americans?

I believe there was...

When?

Quote

I would venture to guess that more than 10 of the 60% are upset not because we are there, but because it appears to them that we are not fighting hard enough.

Somehow, I doubt that.

Quote

There is often a very vocal minority, while the majority often remains quiet...

Unfortunately, here in the US we call that Election Day.

[panzwami 0]

Quote

Well wait, if people go to that site, they're not exactly going to get an unbiased factual description of who she is. I suggest a news site instead.

I'm assuming you're not even going to try to back that up...

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

If you'll recall, there was a vote by congress before we invaded...

If you'll recall, Congress authorized use of force as a last resort, certainly not before diplomatic avenues had been exhausted. Since there were no WMD, diplomatic avenues had indeed already been effective. A few more weeks and we would have known that without having to spend hundreds of billions of dollars, destroy a sovereign country and end thousands and thousands of lives.

Do you feel GWB and/or Congress knows better than you how to spend your money?

[cloudseeker2001 0]

Quote

Personaly I think she is doing EXACTLY what we are fighting for....
agree or disagree she has the freedom to do it....

RIGHT ON!

"Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance,
others mean and rueful of the western dream"

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

The tacit consent I'm referring to in this case is that which the American people granted to the President and the Congress by electing them to office. Our system of government is a representative democracy, not a democracy, and as such the general population must grant it's approval to certain elected representatives to govern and make decisions on their behalf. Americans have every right to question and speak out against those decisions they feel are improper, but they are likewise bound by those decisions.

John Locke also argued tacit consent to mean that any person who has accepted the benefits of a government has thus consented to those burdens it has placed upon him.

I don't think Locke's definition is appropriate here. What benefits have we the people accepted from the conflict in Iraq? Nor has there been a ballot referendum on the matter. Elections have been commonly decided by margins much smaller than the margin of error of the vote tabulation methods. There have also been many demonstrations against the war. People have been vocal. Even the Republican Congressmen arelistening, and starting to talk about exit strategy lately. They are afraid for their reelection bids. I would not say the people have given tacit consent.

[f1freak 0]

Quote

Personaly I think she is doing EXACTLY what we are fighting for....
agree or disagree she has the freedom to do it....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


RIGHT ON!

people need to think before they speak, becauseif they dont..... the next thing you say might be against the law....... dont kid yourself It really could become a policed state.....

HAVE FUN...
...JUST DONT DIE

[billvon 2,433]

>the media has assured that 99% of the population knows the name
>of only one. That is a disgrace.

You haven't heard of Camp Qualls? You must not be reading the paper.

And I noticed that ABC refused to show a Cindy Sheehan spot before Bush's visit last week. Sounds like you need an alternative to the "damn biased liberal media" mantra. Fortunately the real source of all the Sheehan noise is easy to find. Check out what's on these home pages, and see if Sheehan is mentioned more often than Qualls:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html
http://www.anncoulter.org/cgi-local/welcome.cgi
http://www.michellemalkin.com/

Conservatives have talked about little else, and have turned one woman's protest into a nationwide issue. Heck, the first mention of her on this board was a right-winger slamming her. You yourself have dedicated a considerable amount of time getting her name out there. And in that, you have succeeded.

[jdhill 0]

Quote

If you'll recall, Congress authorized use of force as a last resort

Get over it, Congress authorized force, and continues to authorize it... and they know it.

Quote

A few more weeks and we would have known

Doubtful...

Quote

Do you feel GWB and/or Congress knows better than you how to spend your money?

I do, and they don't always spend it as I would prefer... but I don't have as much of a voice as I would like either because the undereducated electorate in my district cast their votes based on race, not for who woud better represent their interests...

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke