Mr. Dirickson:
           The President of the United States of America has the ability to
take military action for a total of 40 days before he must have a
declaration of war from the Congress. This is partly to give him the
latitude to take the action he needs in time of an emergent situation (with
respect to protecting US national security interests), and to make sure our
Congress has the time to appropriately debate and consider the aspects and
limits of declaring war on a particular party.

            I am a member of the United States Navy Reserve, and as such, I
can not say that I am proud of military failures of the past. However, I
proudly stand ready to defend even the freedoms of those people whom wish to
voice their disgust for the military and action we may take. While I am not
proud of such [anti-patriotic] attitude within the scope of American
society, I am willing to work to defend every American, even if our
political views are divergent.

There is no legal precedent which demands that a declaration of war must be
against a particular country. While I cannot myself recall an instance where
war has been declared on a particular party or organization (absent the
pirates at sea at one point during our history), I also have no reason to
believe that such a declarant statement would be contrary to constitutional
or congressional legislative intent. Even if such a declarant statement were
made against an individual party (or parties), organization, or country, any
actions taken under its powers will surely be quite devastating to the party
receiving the brunt of such a military attack.

            Terrorists have performed what amounts to a "civil invasion"
against US nationals (and other non US nationals). Since we have been
invaded, a declaration of war is both proper and warranted, even absent UN
approval. Predicated upon the presumption that the US military forces will
taken decisive and punitive action against the invading forces to the US, it
is the very use of such military force which protects the freedom of those
NOT in favor of using US military forces for such purposes to have the
freedom to object to it at all. How ironic, and paradoxical that is!

            We have come to a time where we must combat terrorists in
manners they understand. I mean in a manner more than killing them, or
putting them in jail. We need to do things to disgrace these terrorists, and
disgrace them on their terms, not ours. I am actually in favor of capturing
Osama bin Ladin prior to his being purged from this earth. We must device
methodologies of punishment, which far exceed our normative thinking for the
US criminal element. For example, killing bin Ladin is not good enough. We
must find out what it is that will disgrace and disturb his element and do
that. Just as a US citizen would find it inhumane to punish a murderer by
tieing his body to the back of a truck and dragging him around until
complete dismemberment has taken place, we must find those things which
bring his kind similar disgust, and then take those actions against him once
caught. Since I am Jewish, I well understand the hatred he has for the Jews
and the State of Israel. I think perhaps we ought tatoo a Star of David on
his chest, and let him go to jail with that, or worse yet be burried with
it. Perhaps feeding his dead body to sharks or some other nasty and
insulting action to depict to his people what our desire and resolve is with
respect to such dastardly people.

            Every person is partners with G-D in the creation of the world,
G-D created the world and left it to us to perfect it. Now we must do our
job, and perfect it by removing this scourge from our universe, while making
every effort to continue such efforts against (G-D forbid) future offenders
of (G-D forbid) an equal or greater nature in their deeds against the United
States of America, the Universe, and G-D.

 Stuart B. Tener, IT3, USNR-R

Beverly Hills, CA, USA




"Steve Dirickson" <[log in to unmask]> wrote in message
news:9nsbsj01r40@enews2.newsguy.com...
> > The United States is at war,
>
> With whom?
>
> > To apply a stupid and pitifully-inadequate analogy, American
> > is about to
> > engage in a global street-fight, and in case you've missed
> > the signs, the gloves are coming off.
>
> "global street fight" <> "war". Don't agree?  Tough.  Deal with it.
>
> > Americans in uniform will soon, very soon, be sent in harm's way.  Dan
> > Rather and Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings will be reporting
> > the arrival of
> > body bags.  American mothers and fathers will be burying
> > their sons and daughters.
>
> You mean like happened in Grenada? The failed Tehran Embassy rescue? The
> Lebanon "support" action? The Tripoli raid? Panama? Somalia? Haiti? Boy am
I
> out of touch: I had no idea that we've been "at war" for most of the past
> two decades.
>
> > the world, but regardless, the United States of America is
> > once again at war.
>
> With whom?
>
> * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
>

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *