Forums | MacLife

Sternum · 2003-02-14 8:41 am

From CNN:

BOSTON, Massachusetts (AP) -- A group of U.S. soldiers, parents of soldiers and six U.S. House members filed a lawsuit in federal court Thursday seeking to stop the president from launching a war against Iraq without a declaration of war from Congress.

The lawsuit seeks an immediate injunction against Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to prevent them from launching an invasion of Iraq.

Reps. John Conyers, D-Michigan, and the other plaintiffs in the lawsuit say a resolution passed by Congress in October did not specifically declare war and unlawfully ceded the decision to Bush.

Conyers cited an excerpt from Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution that states, "Congress shall have power ... to declare war."

"Get it? Only Congress," Conyers said Thursday at a news conference in Washington.

John Bonifaz, the Boston attorney who filed the lawsuit, said Bush is rushing to war without seeking approval or even a thorough debate by Congress.

"We have a message for President Bush today -- read the Constitution," Bonifaz said.

"The president is not a king," he said. "He does not have the power to wage war against another country absent a declaration of war from Congress."

Congress has not formally declared a war since World War II.

This is doomed to fail, but I feel they make a good point: The Executive Branch of our government has been wielding far too much influence on the United States' ability to go to war for the past 50 years, and the War Powers Act, which was originally drafted to curtail such abuse, has proved to be useless.

Therefore, I think it would be in our nation's best interest to put an end "Presidentially mandated policing actions" forever. They're nothing more than a quasi-legal way to end-run past Congress. If we're going to go to war, let's call it a war and stop tip-toeing around the Constitution.

registered_user · 2003-02-14 8:45 am

Oh, I don't know. I think the War Powers Act that limits the President's ability to enact military action is fine. The pres gets 90 days. After that, he needs Congress, or at least that's how I understand it. It's a good system, IMO. It's just that occassionally, you get a yahoo that is going to abuse it, and he's not doing so well because of all the opposition. His war is political suicide.

But yeah, that law suit is doomed to fail, much like Al Gore's attempt to retroactively change the election rules.

hillbilly · 2003-02-14 8:45 am

under such a strict interpretation, the executive branch would be hamstrung and prevented from having rapid reaction at their disposal since such actions could be considered "waging war," especially if such actions are needed when Congress is not in session.

Sternum · 2003-02-14 8:59 am

under such a strict interpretation, the executive branch would be hamstrung and prevented from having rapid reaction at their disposal since such actions could be considered "waging war," especially if such actions are needed when Congress is not in session.

Good points, but has the Executive Branch ever used this power in context under which it was given? There haven't been any cases in which those conditions were met during the past 30 years since the War Powers Act was signed, yet we've committed more "policing actions" than I have fingers to count with. It's power that is being abused.

Perhaps we could amend the law to give the President those 90 days ONLY when rapid deployment is required AND Congress is not-in-session.

hillbilly · 2003-02-14 9:01 am

Perhaps we could amend the law to give the President those 90 days ONLY when rapid deployment is required AND Congress is not-in-session.

and that would tell the enemy that all they have to do is hold out for 90 days.

Sternum · 2003-02-14 9:14 am

and that would tell the enemy that all they have to do is hold out for 90 days.

Another good point.

What would you suggest, sir? As the law currently stands, there's absolutely no reason for the President to acquire Congressional approval prior to waging war (i.e. "commit a policing action"), and thanks to our superior military, there's very few opponents left in the world that would take more than 90 days to conquer. I see that as a loophole in the democratic process that needs to be fixed.

One man is not supposed to wield the majority of our military might. That responsiblity ultimately rests in the hands of our Congress, which directly represnts the voice of the American people. In by-passing them to wage war, the President is effectly thumbing his nose at us all.

hillbilly · 2003-02-14 9:19 am

The status quo is fine. Otherwise, you'd be taking the "Commander" out of "Commander In Chief."

Congress can always yank funding since they have the power of the purse.

registered_user · 2003-02-14 9:25 am

and that would tell the enemy that all they have to do is hold out for 90 days.
Another good point.

What would you suggest, sir? As the law currently stands, there's absolutely no reason for the President to acquire Congressional approval prior to waging war (i.e. "commit a policing action"), and thanks to our superior military, there's very few opponents left in the world that would take more than 90 days to conquer. I see that as a loophole in the democratic process that needs to be fixed.

One man is not supposed to wield the majority of our military might. That responsiblity ultimately rests in the hands of our Congress, which directly represnts the voice of the American people. In by-passing them to wage war, the President is effectly thumbing his nose at us all.

It's political suicide to abuse military power. That's the deterrent for a politician. There is no glory, there is only shame. Shame that will forever live in the histroy books. Shame to the pres, shame to his family.

Also, the people voted for the Pres, just like they voted for Congress (let's not do the 2000 rehash -- we all know it already) so technically, it should work. And as for the 90 days thing, I think you might be surprised. It really isn't that long if the populace of the enemy state is willing to resist.

Azizza · 2003-02-14 9:41 am

If I remember my UCMJ correctly then these troops just set themselves up for a court martial.

KHannon · 2003-02-14 10:00 am

Azziza you would be correct. The very fact that they are named as "soldiers" put them in violation. If they filed a suit as private citizens that would be one thing, but it appears as though they are playing up the fact they are soldiers and thus are in violation of the UCMJ.

Azizza · 2003-02-14 10:21 am

Azziza you would be correct. The very fact that they are named as "soldiers" put them in violation. If they filed a suit as private citizens that would be one thing, but it appears as though they are playing up the fact they are soldiers and thus are in violation of the UCMJ.

Thanks I wasn't 100% sure. I wonder if that fact alone would invalidate the lawsuit. Many interesting points brought up by it. However Bush is acting within his authority at the moment and I really don't see this going anywhere.

KHannon · 2003-02-14 10:25 am

Hmm The government could argue that the soldiers do not have standing to sue, but the fact that others (members of the House and parents of soldiers) co-filed the suit, I doubt that fact alone would make the suit invalid.

I would say however that the only filers of the suit who have any standing are the members of the House.

Sternum · 2003-02-14 11:40 am

The status quo is fine. Otherwise, you'd be taking the "Commander" out of "Commander In Chief."

Congress can always yank funding since they have the power of the purse.

The President is indeed the Commander-in-Chief, but his powers only come into effect once the military has been called into service by Congress. According to the Constitution, it is the Legislative Branch's reponsibility to decide when and where to go to war, and the Executive Branch's responsibility to direct the military once they've been deployed.

From Article II, Section II:

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States....

From Article I, Section IIX:

Congress shall have the power...

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress....

Therefore, I would argue that deploying our armed forces without the approval of Congress is basically Un-Constitutional. I realize that situations will arise in which there won't be time to hold a meeting of Congress -- such as an invasion -- but that should be the exception, not the rule.

There has been plenty of time to get approval for an invasion of Iraq, and Congress is currently session, so I see no need for a "policing action" in lieu of an actual war should the current confrontation devolve into armed conflict.

hillbilly · 2003-02-14 11:43 am

Well, it's moot since Congress gave Bush the authorization. For Congress to specify a specific date would be trying to play general. Best to leave the gerneralship to the generals.

so · 2003-02-14 11:53 am

hillbilly, are you or are you not the one that suggested helping North Korea in attacking Berkeley California with nuclear weapons?

Sternum · 2003-02-14 12:06 pm

Well, it's moot since Congress gave Bush the authorization. For Congress to specify a specific date would be trying to play general. Best to leave the gerneralship to the generals.

I don't believe that Congress has given the Executive Branch permission to mount an attack on Iraq. You may be referring to their endorsement of the "War on Terrorism" that was passed in the Fall of 2001, but that was focused on combatting independent organizations -- such as Al Quaida -- and not globally recognized nation-states.*

Either way, I'm not suggesting that Congress be given control over the military, but I would like to see military action voted on and approved before the fighting starts. That way -- whether I agree with it or not -- there would at least be a sense of democracy. Let the people, as represented by Congress, speak.

* - Afghanistan didn't fall into this category because very few countries accepted the Taliban's government as legitimate, due primarily to the fact that they controlled only a small fraction of the country.

hillbilly · 2003-02-14 12:10 pm

Authorization was given:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/ … 5165.shtml

Here's the full text, since gnomonous has a thing against clicking on links:

House Resolution Against Iraq

WASHINGTON, Oct. 10, 2002

(CBS) Text of a resolution passed by the House and Senate:

Joint Resolution to Authorize the use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations' (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material an unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al-Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq'.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- 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.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the Wap Xnwers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

Blueboy626 · 2003-02-14 12:14 pm

Interesting that this is only coming up now but not during previous administrations like President Reagan's, (Grenada, Panama), Clinton's (Somalia, Kosovo), Bush #41 (Iraq). In fact I think we could back thru just about every previous administration (except Carter's-he was such a pussy) and find some sort of "illegal police action" that should have had the authorization of congress but didn't.

If the US is going to "police the world" then the Chief needs his force readily at hand not across the street and 3 blocks down.

hillbilly · 2003-02-14 12:18 pm

Clinton also initially claimed he didn't need Congressional authorization to bomb Yugoslavia. Presidents down the line have been consistent in arguing that the War Powers Act doesn't apply to their individual circumstances.

Sternum · 2003-02-14 12:20 pm

Authorization was given:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/ … 5165.shtml

Here's the full text, since gnomonous has a thing against clicking on links:

<snip>

Excellent stuff, but did it pass?

It seems odd that Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Illinois), Jim McDermott (D-Washington), Jose Serrano (D-New York), and Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) would attempt to sue the President for by-passing Congress in getting approval for military action when they've apparently already voted on it. What's going on here?

macul · 2003-02-14 12:22 pm

Authorization was given:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/ … 5165.shtml

Here's the full text, since gnomonous has a thing against clicking on links:

<snip>
Excellent stuff, but did it pass?

It seems odd that Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Illinois), Jim McDermott (D-Washington), Jose Serrano (D-New York), and Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) would attempt to sue the President for by-passing Congress in getting approval for military action when they've apparently already voted on it. What's going on here?

It's pretty obvious. Look at their party affiliation.

hillbilly · 2003-02-14 12:24 pm

Authorization was given:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/ … 5165.shtml

Here's the full text, since gnomonous has a thing against clicking on links:

<snip>
Excellent stuff, but did it pass?

It seems odd that Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Illinois), Jim McDermott (D-Washington), Jose Serrano (D-New York), and Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) would attempt to sue the President for by-passing Congress in getting approval for military action when they've apparently already voted on it. What's going on here?

Up at the top:

Text of a resolution passed by the House and Senate:

Sternum · 2003-02-14 1:12 pm

It's pretty obvious. Look at their party affiliation.

C'mon, Macul. I don't always agree with the Democratic party line, but that doesn't mean they're all raving lunatics or dismissable idiots. That's simplifying the issue and pandering to base bipartisanship.

U.S. Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas) reported that the House was forced to vote on the original U.S. PATRIOT Act without being allowed to read the bill beforehand. Perhaps the vote on Iraq is another case of the Executive Branch subverting the democratic process to suit their own needs?

Let's hope there's more to this case than meets the eye. Otherwise our country is truly in the hands of morons.

macul · 2003-02-14 2:26 pm

It's pretty obvious. Look at their party affiliation.
C'mon, Macul. I don't always agree with the Democratic party line, but that doesn't mean they're all raving lunatics or dismissable idiots. That's simplifying the issue and pandering to base bipartisanship.

That's a logical fallacy. I never stated that all Dems are lunatics or dismissable idiots. My point is that this is a publicity stunt being staged by the party opposite of the current president. Much like when Daschle stands up and whines and gets all flustered. They are just doing this to garner points with their voters.

Perhaps these nitwits missed the part about when you join the military you wave your right to criticize the chain of command? It isn't about dismissing the other side. It is about maintaining order in a dangerous situation. Perhaps they also forgot they were signing up for the *armed forces?*

Sternum · 2003-02-14 3:00 pm

Perhaps these nitwits missed the part about when you join the military you wave your right to criticize the chain of command? It isn't about dismissing the other side. It is about maintaining order in a dangerous situation. Perhaps they also forgot they were signing up for the *armed forces?*

I agree. People who enlist in the armed forces with the intention of getting a free ride through college, but refuse to serve when called into active duty are pretty contemptable. Being an adult means living with the choices you make and accepting the risks that accompany them.

Forums | MacLife

#1 2003-02-14 8:41 am

Lawsuit challenges Bush's war authority

#2 2003-02-14 8:45 am

Re: Lawsuit challenges Bush's war authority

#3 2003-02-14 8:45 am

Re: Lawsuit challenges Bush's war authority

#4 2003-02-14 8:59 am

Re: Lawsuit challenges Bush's war authority

#5 2003-02-14 9:01 am

Re: Lawsuit challenges Bush's war authority

#6 2003-02-14 9:14 am

Re: Lawsuit challenges Bush's war authority

#7 2003-02-14 9:19 am

Re: Lawsuit challenges Bush's war authority

#8 2003-02-14 9:25 am

Re: Lawsuit challenges Bush's war authority

#9 2003-02-14 9:41 am

Re: Lawsuit challenges Bush's war authority

#10 2003-02-14 10:00 am

Re: Lawsuit challenges Bush's war authority

#11 2003-02-14 10:21 am

Re: Lawsuit challenges Bush's war authority

#12 2003-02-14 10:25 am

Re: Lawsuit challenges Bush's war authority

#13 2003-02-14 11:40 am

Re: Lawsuit challenges Bush's war authority

#14 2003-02-14 11:43 am

Re: Lawsuit challenges Bush's war authority

#15 2003-02-14 11:53 am

Re: Lawsuit challenges Bush's war authority

#16 2003-02-14 12:06 pm

Re: Lawsuit challenges Bush's war authority

#17 2003-02-14 12:10 pm

Re: Lawsuit challenges Bush's war authority

#18 2003-02-14 12:14 pm

Re: Lawsuit challenges Bush's war authority

#19 2003-02-14 12:18 pm

Re: Lawsuit challenges Bush's war authority

#20 2003-02-14 12:20 pm

Re: Lawsuit challenges Bush's war authority

#21 2003-02-14 12:22 pm

Re: Lawsuit challenges Bush's war authority

#22 2003-02-14 12:24 pm

Re: Lawsuit challenges Bush's war authority

#23 2003-02-14 1:12 pm

Re: Lawsuit challenges Bush's war authority

#24 2003-02-14 2:26 pm

Re: Lawsuit challenges Bush's war authority

#25 2003-02-14 3:00 pm

Re: Lawsuit challenges Bush's war authority

Board footer