Hacker News Reader

Comment by noarchy | Hacker News Reader

I agree, but if you buy into the idea of the legitimacy of legalized mass slaughter (war), then you believe that there are exceptions. When a country decides to go to war, people throw out all of the usual ethics and morality.In theory there are some rules to be followed (Geneva Convention, etc), but powerful and influential nations often do little more than wink at those (unless it is someone else breaking them).

View on HN

When a country decides to go to war

That's just it, we as a country never declared war. Bush went to war under resolutions. I highly recommend a read of this article "Is Bush's War Illegal? Let Us Count the Ways" by Francis Boyle, a professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law. http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle0917.html

Doesn't this mean every war the US was involved in since WWII was illegal?

Arguably, yes, which is a reason we have such a mess and situations like WikiLeaks. Former presidential candidate, Congressman Ron Paul advocates sensible advice saying that if the people want a war, then declare one; fight it, win it, then come home; when you go to war over resolutions the wars don't end. If John McCain had won the presidency, for example, he was quoted as saying he didn't care if we were in Iraq for the next 100 years.

Yes.

What's your point? The country has been in over a hundred conflicts without a formal declaration of war. The legality of a war should have little to do with the necessity of one. The former seems to be more of a formality than anything else.

The formal difference is great. Without declaring war you get ambiguity, and unpopular wars like Vietnam, where veterans came home to be despised and spat on by their fellow American citizens. Like my comment above says, if the people want a war then Congress has the power to declare one, and be clear about it. Without this level of assured commitment, you get war engagements like Iraq -- a country which never attacked us, and we matter-of-factly invaded.

...and yet it was Congress which passed the War Powers Resolution which was in turn used to legalize the conflict in the first place, which congress didn't seem to complain about much according to their near unanimous vote (1-shy). In regards to the "invasion" itself, it sounds as if you're trying to make some type of moral argument for leaving Hussein in power.

"War Powers Act needs fixing, bipartisan panel says" http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/08/war.powers/

Excerpt:

The United States needs a new law requiring that the president consult with Congress before going to war, a blue-ribbon panel led by two former secretaries of state said Tuesday. James Baker, left, and Warren Christopher led a panel that recommended a new War Powers Act.

The current War Powers Resolution is "ineffective, and it should be repealed and it should be replaced," James Baker said in a joint appearance with Warren Christopher, announcing the results of the study they led.

So they changed their mind, so be it. I don't see what difference it will make though. With 125+ undeclared conflicts under our belt, the trend seems to speak for itself.

That's just it. In the U.S. we the people uniquely can make a difference. The U.S. is currently deployed in over 150 countries around the world; we've been in Korea since the 50's. When Congressman Ron Paul ran for president it exposed many of his ideas to a broader audience, some of which make a lot of sense. I'm not saying I agree with everything he says, but his warnings for straying from the Constitution bear truth, even in recent history when we look at things like the Iraq war. At one point Bush specifically said we were on course for World War 3, presumably with Russia and China, backing up Iran who was in our sights for military action next. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjGX2Gdj2Y4

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Are trying to argue for some type of self-defeating isolationism? What does the nation's current troop deployments and/or geopolitical strategy have to do with the constitution?

Not isolationism, just having a standard we go by -- which is supposed to be the Constitution -- so we don't get into ill-advised conflicts. If war is only fought when declared, we know what we're getting into. Is it really a necessary strategy to be in Korea for 60 plus years? Do we really need to be in 150 countries? While running record deficits? I don't think that's isolationism. I think such questions are common sense.

One cannot forget that the USA is a superpower who has taken on the mantle of world police and has been expected to perform in that role for decades. I don't think either of us are qualified to make a judgment on how many countries we need a presence in. The question of a deficit is mostly a separate issue IMO. Their are plenty of other places to point to in the budget that take up a significant amount of money.

World police? Earlier you alluded to leaving Saddam Hussein in power. Was he the only source of wrongdoing in the world? The only person we needed to police? Do you know what atrocities continue in Saudi Arabia -- our close "ally"? As for being qualified to make a judgment on how many countries we need to be in, the U.S. is the the most powerful nation on the the planet. We can vaporize anyone we choose within hours. What else must one know besides that?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com