NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/deserts/2148

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-28 | 7.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!menudo.uh.edu!menudo.uh.edu!usenet
From: [e-mail] (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
Subject: Re: raid started
Date: 27 Jan 1993 21:31:30 GMT
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Lines: 142
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: uhad2.admin.uh.edu
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20
In-Reply-To: [e-mail]'s message of Wed, 27 Jan 1993 08:31:05 GMT

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
> >In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
> >
> >> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
> >> >It has demanded that the UN use Iraqi aircraft to fly in and out.
> >> >Iraqis have gone into territory ceded to Kuwait
> >> >and removed military
> >> >weapons, which 1) is against the cease-fire agreement and 2) the Security
> >> >Council has demanded the return of said missiles, which has not been done.
>
> >> The demand came after the removal.

   So?  The demand has not been met.  THAT is one of the problems.
>
> >  To my knwoledge, the resolutions and the ceae-fire agreement did not allow
> >Iraq to return to the area to recover their weapons, merely non-military/non-
> >weapon equipment.  And the weapons have not been returned as demanded by the
> >UN.
>
> The cease-fire agreement has nothing to do with this as the territory
> was taken from Iraq long after that agreement.  I do not have the text
> of the resolution taking this territory from Iraq and giving it to
> Kuwait, so i cannot address whether that resolution (assuming it was a
> resolution) specifically banned Iraq from removing its military supplies
> from the region.  Iraq acquiesced in the UN's holding of its military
> supplies pending resolution of other matters, but the situation changed
> when they were threatened with permanent loss of the property.

  The claims are that Iraq was not allowed to retrieve weapons from the
areas.  Certainly they have done just that (silkworms).  Frankly, I find
Iraqi worries about lost property quite amusing vis a vis Kuwait.  Even if
the UN/Kuwait was being snippy WRT permissions, Iraq still had no right
to remove the weapons.

> What sort of demand came from the UN to return the weapons?  Was it yet
> another SC resolution?  Even if it was, only resolutions passed before
> the Nov 1990 resolution permitting use of force can be enforced by the
> US (or other nations) militarily.

  Doug, you argue like a lawyer.  Frankly, I doubt you give a damn about the
niceties of the law involved here.  You just oppose the actions taken by the
US and its allies WRT these violations, and are seeking any technicality
you can find to complain about.

  The tone of the UN SC is clear on this.  Iraq is in violation of SC res-
olutions, cease-fire accords, and just plain good manners.  The SC has had
no complaint about the use of force to obtain compliance.  Do note that
we only have a cease-fire.  Technically, a state of conflict still exists
that dates back to 90/91.  I believe resolution 688 speaks to Iraqi flights,
but my books are at home.  I'll check and post more tomorrow.

[moving missiles]
> >> It may be considered threatening, but it isn't banned.  Missiles on the
> >> ground certainly do not violate a ban on airplanes in the air.
>
> Also, Iraq has never submitted to the no-fly zone;  it specifically
> claims that they are illegal.

> >  Yes, but given the fact that the Coalition (US) patrols the zone to insure
> >it is complied with, the movement of SAM's into it is a threatening gesture.
>
> Threatening gestures are not banned.

  Hmmph.  The only purpose of those missiles is to shoot down aircraft.  The
marsh arabs and kurds have no air force.

> >SAM's are used to shoot down aircraft.  The Marsh Arabs have no air force of
> >their own, so who do you think the missiles were intended for?  Certainly
> >it is not in keeping with the slew of resolutions passed WRT Iraq since
> >August 1990.
>
> Specify a resolution that it violates.

  I said "not in keeping".  It may not violate a specific resolution, but it
sure as hell violates the spirit of them.

[constitutionality of Pres. commiting forces w/o Congressional approval before-
 hand.]
> >> >  The president may have US forces in a combat situation for up to 30(?)
> >> >days before Congress must be consulted.  This is part of the War Powers
> >> >act, the
>
> >> FALSE!!!  The War Powers act specifically grants NO power to the
> >> President, it only puts limitations upon him/her.  It leaves up in the
> >> air the constitutionality of whether the President could act before that
> >> time.
>
> >  I did not state the act GAVE the president this power.
>
> That the president may have US forces in combat for a specified period
> before Congress must be consulted is NOT part of the War Powers act, as
> you falsely claimed.  The War Powers act requires the President to
> notify Congress of certain actions and at certain times, and
> specifically bans the use of military forces in certain conditions (such
> as without specific Congressional authorization after a given period of
> time).  The only part of your statement that is part of the War Powers
> act is that "Congress must be consulted."

  The net effect of which is the pres. is allowed to commit forces before
and without consulting the Congress.  Once again, the constitutionality
of this is questionable.

[wholesale deletions]

> The attitude of Congress or the public (of support for being "tough")
> has NOTHING to do with the Constitutionality of the actions taken.
> Unconstitutional actions can be, and often have been, widely supported.
>
> >  Then it is the mission of the congress to register any protests or force
> >the president to desist.  It has not and is not likely to do so due to the
> >fact that these actions are widely regarded as the right thing and even long
> >overdue.  The president is well aware of these facts.
>
> I would also hope that our president would follow the Constitution as he
> swore to do, not just follow the prevailing winds of opinion.  Let him
> ask Congress for a declaration of war.  If Congress grants it, then
> there is no question of his right to fight.

  Use of force against Iraq was granted by the Congress.  No formal end of
hostilities has ever been declared.  All we have is a cease-fire.  Given
Iraqi actions (part of the cease-fire required NO flights by Iraqi fixed-
wing aircraft -- this has been violated (apparently) a lot.  Question:  Was
this ever offically relaxed, or did the Allies just let it slide as long as it
was not in the no-fly zones?) it is unlikely fromal peace treaties will be
signed anytime soon.  Therefore, the original votes are still valid.

  Two can play barrack-room lawyer.  C'mon Doug, quite hiding behind techni-
calities and tell us WHY we shouldn't be doing what we're doing.


semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!               *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mike Levine: Triumph                        *
********************************************************************************