War.... (Historical: 9/11 discussion thread)

[Baron Munchausen]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lisif:
Mainly economic, but not just that. There are also some political obligations and some attempts to coordinate foreign and internal (social) policies.
There's no military involvement - although most of the member states are also members of the NATO.

By the way, there's something I never understood about the American Civil War - had (has?) a member state the right to quit the Union? IOW, had the remaining member states the right to "restore order" through use of force?

---

That's the central issue of the Civil War, actually. It doesn't explicitly say in the Constitution that a state may withdraw from the union after joining, but it doesn't say that a state may NOT either. Many say that the 10th Amendment, which reserves powers not explicitly given to the Federal govt. for the people or the states, gives a state the implicit right to cecede from the union. This would make the war by the North illegal, but since the North won it got to write the history (and law) books.

[shonae]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lisif:
Mainly economic, but not just that. There are also some political obligations and some attempts to coordinate foreign and internal (social) policies.
There's no military involvement - although most of the member states are also members of the NATO.

---

You're forgetting that is changing now. Originally it was just an economic agreement but it is now gradually gaining more powers from the member countries. Also an European Defense/Task force is in the process of being formed using soldiers from the EU countries (mainly from Britain and France I think) and there has been talk of the EU becoming a United States of Europe.

Personally I wouldn't be surprised if by the end of the 21st century it came into being!

Ciao
Shonae

[geoschmo]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
That's the central issue of the Civil War, actually. It doesn't explicitly say in the Constitution that a state may withdraw from the union after joining, but it doesn't say that a state may NOT either. Many say that the 10th Amendment, which reserves powers not explicitly given to the Federal govt. for the people or the states, gives a state the implicit right to secede from the union. This would make the war by the North illegal, but since the North won it got to write the history (and law) books.

---

That's one way to look at it. I think a more valid argument is that by seceding from the Union, the southern states were not exercising their "implicit" rights maintained by the 10th amendment, but actually abrogating the "explicit" rights given to the federal government in all the other articles and amendments that they agreed to when the Constitution was ratified.

Constitutionally the only way the South could secede and form there own confederation was by a recommendation of amendment abolishing the current Constitution would have to be made by 3/4ths of the state legislatures of the various states, which would then have to be ratified by 4/5 fifths of the state legislatures. (Article V)

They would then be free to decide to join a new confederation, stay in the greater union after ratifying a new constitution, or form their own sovereign, independent nation.

Of course they did not have the required number of states to do this, so the result was an illegal action and as such the Federal government had the right to take the action it did.

quote:

---

Originally posted by LazaruLong42:
So the North blockaded Charleston and other major ports to stop trade between the new Confederacy and Britain/Europe, in an attempt to force them to trade with the Union. Frankly, even now that'd be considered an act of war. Follow Harper's Ferry, Fort Sumter, Civil War.

---

Constitionally the Confederate States of America was a non-entity, and the people in and defending it were actually still American citizens bound by the laws set forth in the U.S. Constitution. In that sense it was not actually a war at all but a police action.

Of course that Last point is semantics. The point is moot now.

Geoschmo

[This message has been edited by geoschmo (edited 15 September 2001).]

[This message has been edited by geoschmo (edited 15 September 2001).]

[Kimball]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Puke:
isnt it the same tune as "god save the queen?"

---

The Americanized tune is "My Country tis of Thee" So, they really were playing the National Anthem...I knew I wasn't nuts

[capnq]

quote:

---

isnt it the same tune as "god save the queen?"The Americanized tune is "My Country tis of Thee" So, they really were playing the National Anthem

---

An amusing bit of trivia: The tune to "The Star Spangled Banner" was taken from a British drinking song called "The Halls of Anacreon".

Which makes a lot of sense, actually; you almost have to be drunk to try to hit that high note towards the end.

------------------
Cap'n Q

The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the
human mind to correlate all of its contents. We live on a placid
island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was
not meant that we should go far. -- HP Lovecraft, "The Call of Cthulhu"

[This message has been edited by capnq (edited 15 September 2001).]

[AJC]

I thought some of you may find this article on Afghanistan interesting - especially us Americans.


September 13, 2001

THE AFGHANS
Taliban Plead for Mercy to the Miserable in a Land of Nothing
By BARRY BEARAK






ABUL, Afghanistan, Sept. 12 — If there are Americans clamoring to bomb Afghanistan back to the Stone Age, they ought to know that this nation does not have so far to go. This is a post-apocalyptic place of felled cities, parched land and downtrodden people.

The fragility of this country was part of the message the Taliban government conveyed in a plea for restraint issued late tonight.
It said in part, "We appeal to the United States not to put Afghanistan into more misery because our people have suffered so much."

Whatever Afghanistan's current cataclysm, its next one seems to require little time to overtake it. Wars fought by sundry protagonists have gone on now for 22 consecutive years, a remorseless drought for 4. Since 1996, most of the nation has been ruled by Taliban mullahs whose vision of the world's purest Islamic state has at least as much to do with controlling social behavior as vouchsafing social welfare.

The accused terrorist Osama bin Laden has found a home here, angering much of the world. In 1998, America fired a volley of more than 70 cruise missiles at guerrilla training camps reportedly operated by the Saudi multimillionaire. Now, there seems to be the prospect of another barrage, with Afghan hospitality to the same man as the cause.

As fear of an American attack mounted, the Taliban's senior spokesman in Kandahar, Abdul Hai Mutmain, called the few foreign reporters here to issue the statement, which in part defended Mr. bin Laden:

"These days, Osama bin Laden's name has become very popular and to an extent it has become a symbol. These days, even to the common people, Osama bin Laden's name is associated with all controversial acts. Osama bin Laden does not have such capabilities. We still hope sanity prevails in the United States. We are confident that if a fair investigation is carried out by American authorities, the Taliban will not be found guilty of involvement in such cowardly acts."

The statement also said, "Killing our leaders will not help our people any. There is no factory in Afghanistan that is worth the price of a single missile fired at us. It will simply increase the mistrust between the people in the region and the United States."

Whatever else there is to say about this entreaty, one part that is indisputably true is that this land-locked, ruggedly beautiful nation is in absolute misery.

Here in Kabul, the capital, roaming clusters of widows beg in the streets, their palms seemingly frozen in a supplicant pose. Withered men pull overloaded carts, their labor less costly than the price of a donkey.

Children play in vast ruins, their limbs sometimes wrenched away by remnant land mines. The national life expectancy, according to the central statistics office, has fallen to 42 for males and 40 for females.

The prolonged drought has sent nearly a million Afghans — about 5 percent of the population — on a desperate flight from hunger. Some have gone to other Afghan cities, others across the border. More than one million are "at risk of starvation," according to the United Nations.

Famine is the catastrophe Afghans are used to hearing about. Few yet know of the threat of an American reprisal. The Taliban long ago Banned television, and the lack of electricity keeps most people from listening to radio.

The nation's 100 or so foreign aid workers suffer no such telecommunications handicaps, however, and today many of them began to flee their adopted home, fearing either the havoc of American bombs or the wrath of subsequent Afghan outrage.

Around noon, a special United Nations flight evacuated the first of the expatriates. The remaining foreigners are expected to leave on Thursday, as will three, and perhaps all four, of the American parents here to observe the trial of their children, among eight foreign aid workers accused by the Taliban of preaching Christianity.

As foreigners left, the Taliban took unusual precautions: they began searching every vehicle entering government compounds. Visitors were carefully frisked.

But however much the Taliban hierarchy was beginning to fret, streets and bazaars were a picture of normality. Word has spread slowly about the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. And even when everyday Afghans heard the news, there were no accompanying video images to sear the horror into their memories. Personal conversations only carried the dull stimuli of abstract words: hijacked planes and collapsed buildings.

Khair Khana, a man selling fertilizer in a market, knew just a bit about the attack. He thought a plane had crashed into the White House. And he considered the perpetrators, whoever they are, to be "enemies of God," though he also felt "Americans should look into their hearts and minds about why someone would kill themselves and others" in such a way.

He had not thought much about an American retaliation against Afghanistan. When he did consider it, standing in a ramshackle collection of stalls, he shrugged and said: "Americans are powerful and can do anything they like without us stopping them."

Nearby, a tailor, Abdul Malik, saw God's justice in America's pain because, as he understands it, the United States has armed the Afghan resistance to fight against the Taliban. "So they at least now know how it feels in their own country," he said.

As for Mr. bin Laden, the tailor considered judgment of him to be God's affair. "If Osama is Islam's enemy, he should be gotten rid of," he said. "But if he is a good Muslim and wants Islam to prosper — and if America wants him dead — then we hope he destroys America."

The common people of Afghanistan are often circumspect with their opinions. As one man said today: "Nobody here talks wholeheartedly any more; it can be dangerous."

The Taliban are credited with improving safety. They disarmed the population, they put an end to banditry. But the security has come at a steep price.

Women have been forced into head-to-toe gowns known as burqasand evicted from schools and the workplace. Men are obligated to wear long beards or face jail. Banned are musical instruments, chessBoards, playing cards, nail polish and neckties. Cheers at soccer matches are restricted to "Allah-u-akbar,"or God is great. Freedom of speech has bowed to religious totalitarianism.

Various Taliban police forces patrol the streets. Today, in a derelict building that is used as a precinct office, one 25-year-old constable sat on the floor beneath a single dangling light bulb. His name was Muhammad Anwar. He had heard something about the attack in America but he had no idea how many were killed or what cities were involved. Indeed, it seemed unlikely that he had ever heard of New York.

"Attacks like these are not a good thing because Muslims live all over the world and Muslims may have been killed," Mr. Anwar said hesitantly. By his reckoning, Americans were enemies of Afghanistan, as were Jews and Christians. He thought about this a bit more and retracted it partially. "There must have been all kinds of people in the building, not just bad Jews but good Jews, not just bad Christians but good ones."

He remembered something he had learned in his madrassa, or religious school. "It is un-Islamic to kill innocent people," he said.

[Puke]

well, i was actually working today.. well, after noon anyway, before that i was drinking.. in any event, i am sure that everyone was glad for my absense. Tho late, I must side with LL42 100%.

and just when i was begining to think that everyone was ignoring me in the hopes that i would go away, to the person that said:

"America has been walking on glass a long time now, bearing the torch high. But cracks have appeared in the image, maybe it's time to drop the pretences.
America is an empire and it controls a huge part of the world, why not admit it.
But Someone will allways be on top and we could do a lot, lot worse than being under American domination."

i have to thank, good to see someone who shares my point of view.

Lastly, im hearing alot about American solidarity these days, but whenver i try to merge on the freeway, everyone is like "screw you, you tryin-to-merge-guy."

[Baron Munchausen]

Geoschmo,

Where is this 'process' for arranging secession that you described given in the Constitution? I'm fairly familiar with it, and I don't recall any such process. I think you are quoting something written AFTER the war by a Northern law scholar. I.O.W., Victor's Justification.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Therefore, since the power to GRANT a state the right to secede is not explicitly delegated to the Federal government NOR explicitly forbidden to the states in the Constitution, it is retained by the states themselves. If not for the problem of slavery, the North would have had no justification for its aggression against the South. Actually, since the South seceded before any legislation against slavery could be passed, the North had no legal justification for the war. You must appeal to 'extra legal' moral principles to justify it.

Some people claim, as has been discussed here, that this was merely an excuse and the North just didn't want to lose territory and so political/economic power. But if you examine the history, yes, the war really was about slavery. The Dredd Scott decision threw the Northern states into a panic because it meant slavery could spread everywhere. The Republican party as formed and the Whig Party torn apart. The Republicans got a President into office on their first try after the Dredd Scott decision, Abraham Lincoln, and his platform included the abolition of slavery. As you have noted already, this is the one issue that would have defused the whole situation if it was removed. Most Northerners were determined to end it, and the most Southerners were determined not to let it be ended.

In the long interim between election day and the old inauguration day (March 4th) the various states of the Confederacy decided to secede rather than face the difficult fight in Congress and the courts that they might well lose. They fully realized that they would have had questionable legitimacy if they attempted secession AFTER losing the legal battle over slavery. It's too bad Lincoln chose "political expediency" and didn't outlaw slavery by fiat until he absolutely had to, but he was deeply committed to "due process of law" and wanted to abolish slavery by proper legal proceedings. Have you ever read the Emancipation Proclamation? It does NOT free all slaves! It only freed slaves in the states that were rebelling. This was to prevent Great Britain from intervening in the war. Kentuckians kept their slaves until the 13th Amendment was passed. This is in keeping with Lincoln's principles. Since they did not rebel but respected the law, he wanted to treat them properly under the law. The really firebrand abolitionists felt betrayed, of course, and the controversy has never really ended to this day. Many people still claim the war was "not about slavery" largely because of this distinction that Lincoln made -- and ignore the huge historical record of the election debates of the time.

Your Last line is the most important. Yes, the point is moot now. A latin saying discussed a long time ago in this forum comes to mind. Inter arma leges silent. In the face of arms the law is silent.


[This message has been edited by Baron Munchausen (edited 15 September 2001).]

[geoschmo]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
Geoschmo,

Where is this 'process' for arranging secession that you described given in the Constitution? I'm fairly familiar with it, and I don't recall any such process. I think you are quoting something written AFTER the war by a Northern law scholar. I.O.W., Victor's Justification.

---

Baron, there is no "process for arrnging seccesion" given in the constitution. What I was describing in my post was the process for amendment that would have to have been gone through legally to annul the Constitution as laid out in Article V.

Any part of the Constitution, or all of it for that matter, that was originally written can be removed, or rewritten if the process set forth in Article V is followed.

quote:

---

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Therefore, since the power to GRANT a state the right to secede is not explicitly delegated to the Federal government NOR explicitly forbidden to the states in the Constitution, it is retained by the states themselves.

---

Wrong. By seceding from the Union, the southern states were actually in violation of Article X, because they were trying to take away all the powers specifically delegated to the United tates by the Constitution, as set forth in all the other Articles before it.

Article X was not an "out clause". It didn't and doesn't give any state the right to leave the Union. It doesn't even mention "rights", because States don't have rights. People have rights. States have powers.

Now, if your argument is that the people of the south have a inalienable human right to stand up and say "You no longer represent me. I am forming a new country." I can't disagree with you. That's outside of the bounds of the Constitution. But if they do that, they don't have the right under the Constitution to take the State with them.
That is part of the United States, unless removed from it by an act of Amendment to the Constitution.

Geoschmo

[CNCRaymond]

My mother found this site, take a moment and look at it. Look at the picture with the circle in it.

God Bless The USA