The (LMAO) "LIBERAL" MSM

[Michael Tee]

from the Daily Kos today - - some stories you won't find in your "liberal" MSM - -

Another story you won't read in the press
by Kagro X
Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 11:50:20 AM PDT

The story as it appears in the traditional media:

    Federal prosecutors are investigating whether employees of the private security firm Blackwater USA illegally smuggled into Iraq weapons that may have been sold on the black market and ended up in the hands of a U.S.-designated terrorist organization, officials said Friday.

The story as it would be happening if the perpetrators didn't have federal contracts, fancy suits, and a PR firm:
Federal prosecutors Military intelligence officials are investigating whether torturing employees of the private security firm Blackwater USA, a suspected terrorist cell that illegally smuggled into Iraq weapons that may have been sold on the black market and ended up in the hands of a U.S.-designated terrorist organization, officials said Friday.

Actual story:

    The U.S. Attorney's Office in Raleigh, N.C., is handling the investigation with help from Pentagon and State Department auditors, who have concluded there is enough evidence to file charges, the officials told The Associated Press. Blackwater is based in Moyock, N.C.

What it should be:
Intelligence operatives in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba are handling the investigation with help from the Pentagon and National Security Agency, who have concluded there is enough evidence to hold the suspects indefinitely, the officials told The Associated press. Blackwater is based in Moyock, N.C.

Once again, the actual story:

    In Saturday's editions, The News & Observer of Raleigh reported that two former Blackwater employees ? Kenneth Wayne Cashwell of Virginia Beach, Va., and William Ellsworth "Max" Grumiaux of Clemmons, N.C. ? are cooperating with federal investigators.

    Cashwell and Grumiaux pleaded guilty in early 2007 to possession of stolen firearms that had been shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, and aided and abetted another in doing so, according to court papers viewed by The Associated Press. In their plea agreements, which call for a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine, the men agreed to testify in any future proceedings.

No midnight arrests. No disappearances. No extraordinary rendition. No torture. No military commissions.

Just a straight up arrest, questioning, guilty plea, and agreement to cooperate with normal, everyday, routine federal investigative authorities.

But these guys were using your tax dollars to finance an arms-smuggling ring for terrorists, who were using the guns to kill American soldiers.

Seen it on the news? Heard about it from your Congressman? Watched FOX News jackass mouthpieces tear their hair out about it?

Of course not. Because in Republican Bizarro World, privatizing the armed forces "saves money" and "makes sense," even though Economics 101 (which Bush claimed to have gotten a B in, but really got a C-) tells you that a private army makes more money when demand for its services increases, and selling arms to the "enemy" makes sense both as a straight-up commercial transaction and as a way to increase demand.

Modern Republicanism is not a governing philosophy. It is legalized banditry. And you are supposed to wave a flag and give them medals while they rob you and kill your children.

[Lanya]

Isn't  war profiteering a crime?  Isn't selling arms to the enemy a crime?  isn't trying to make a war zone a neverending chaotic stew that will always need your weapons...treason?

Oh well, I'm sure it's not nearly as important as HILLARY HILLARY HILLARY!

[BT]

Let me get this straight. Individuals employed by a company hired by a Republican administration go astray and that means the GOP party is demonic.

So when i read about a crooked cop, and then realize that most cops belong to a union, and most unions support the democratic party, then am i to assume that the dems suck?

just trying to get the rules straight.

[Michael Tee]

<<Isn't selling arms to the enemy a crime? >>

Probably the recipients are on some U.S. government "terrorist" list, so selling arms to them would be a crime.  Since the U.S. never declared war, I don't think there's an official "enemy" (how convenient - - it allows the U.S. to occupy the country indefinitely.)

It's a crime that actually kills U.S. soldiers.  Now wait for Congress to issue a resolution condemning this like they did with the "General Betray-Us" ad.  Oh, wait - - they won't.  Apparently bad-mouthing some sycophantic Bush ass-kissing general is a much more serious crime than killing working-class grunts who are actually fighting Bush's war.

[Amianthus]

Since the U.S. never declared war,

Sure we did.

[Lanya]

Ami, are you referring to the AUMF or was there an actual formal declaration of war? I don't remember there being one.

[Amianthus]

Ami, are you referring to the AUMF or was there an actual formal declaration of war? I don't remember there being one.

The Authorization for the Use of Military Force is a declaration of war. The War Powers Act says that Congress has to authorize the use of military force, so all declarations since then have used those words. Actually, even Korea and Vietnam didn't have Congress use the words "declaration of war."

Besides, there was even a court case about it. Doe vs. Bush. The court found that Congress and Bush followed the Constitution and subsequent laws properly.

[Michael Tee]

Doe v. Bush made no finding at all on whether or not the use of force authorization or the Presidential action taken under its authority was or was not a declaration of war.  The case was concerned only with the Constitutionality of the resolution and in fact Judge Lynch, who wrote the court's opinion, stated expressly that if Congress HAD authorized the President to declare war at his own discretion, it might well have been an unlawful delegation of a Congressional prerogative.

At no point did the Congress or the President indicate that war was being declared on Iraq.  Since the wording of a declaration of war is simple and unambiguous, requiring, as the name itself indicates, only a simple declaration (such as "The United States of America declares war on the Republic of Iraq,") the failure of Congress and the President to use such readily available and unmistakeable language clearly indicates that the U.S. has NOT declared war on Iraq.

[Amianthus]

At no point did the Congress or the President indicate that war was being declared on Iraq.  Since the wording of a declaration of war is simple and unambiguous, requiring, as the name itself indicates, only a simple declaration (such as "The United States of America declares war on the Republic of Iraq,") the failure of Congress and the President to use such readily available and unmistakeable language clearly indicates that the U.S. has NOT declared war on Iraq.

Then I guess we didn't declare war in Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, the first Gulf War, Afghanistan, etc...

The Barbary Wars weren't wars, either, huh?

[Amianthus]

Since the wording of a declaration of war is simple and unambiguous, requiring, as the name itself indicates, only a simple declaration (such as "The United States of America declares war on the Republic of Iraq,") the failure of Congress and the President to use such readily available and unmistakeable language clearly indicates that the U.S. has NOT declared war on Iraq.

Oh yeah, please quote the relevant section of the US Constitution that requires the use of the wording "Declaration of War" in the legislation passed by Congress...

[Michael Tee]

Well, you are right about Korea.  It was a UN "police action."

Right about Viet Nam, too.  There was no declaration of war, and in fact it was hard to see who war could be declared against, since both North and South Vietnam were not countries but separate zones of one country, which by international agreement was supposed to have free elections to determine a single leader prior to the removal of all foreign troops and the restoration of national sovereignty for the first time since the French colonization of the 1860s or 1870s.

As far as I know, the last time the U.S. declared war was on the Japs after Pearl Harbor, following which Germany and Italy (and I believe other Axis satellites like Hungary and Romania) declared war on the U.S.A.

[Michael Tee]

<<Oh yeah, please quote the relevant section of the US Constitution that requires the use of the wording "Declaration of War" in the legislation passed by Congress...>>

Trick question.  Obviously the precise wording of a declaration of war would not be specified.  Why tie the hands of future Congresses?  More significantly, the Constitution does not PREVENT the use of simple, declarative language.

<<ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8  "The Congress shall have Power:  To declare War . . . >>

There is no required formula for a declaration of war, nor should there be.  However, the absence of readily available, and in fact obvious and unambiguous language showing a clear intention to declare war, should be an indication, first, that Congress at least had no interest in making its intentions (as to declaring or not declaring war) plain and obvious and second, that (unless they are extremely poor communicators) they did not wish for their resolution to be interpreted as a declaration of war.

[Amianthus]

As far as I know, the last time the U.S. declared war was on the Japs after Pearl Harbor, following which Germany and Italy (and I believe other Axis satellites like Hungary and Romania) declared war on the U.S.A.

There were times before the War Powers Act, but since that act was passed, legislation just needs to include the statement "Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution." The Iraq War Act (AUMF) does so.

[Amianthus]

There is no required formula for a declaration of war, nor should there be.

The War Powers Act makes such a definition.

[Michael Tee]

Not only does the War Powers Act NOT define any formula for a declaration of war, but it specifically recognizes that there are ways for the U.S. military to participate in armed conflict other than as a result of a declaration of war.

SEC. 5. (b)
    Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

Nowhere in the War Powers Act will you find a formula saying "This is what a declaration of war has to say," or "This is how a declaration of war should be worded."