US President George W. Bush intends to attack Iran in the upcoming months, before the end of his term, Army Radio quoted officials in Jerusalem as saying Tuesday.
Wouldn't they have to get approval by Congress of such a thing, or is the Constitution a dead letter in the US, and the US President able to order the US military to attack anyone he wants any time he wants?
And if the President does order an un-Constitutional attack which is carried out by the Department of Defense and the military, shouldn't he and the other executive branch officers involved, both civilian and military, be turned over to the victims of that attack for trial by a military tribunal for their lawless aggression, or at least to the World Court, as evidence of good-faith rejection of such executive coup d'etat in and by the United States?
--
Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them.
> US President George W. Bush intends to attack Iran in the upcoming months, > before the end of his term, Army Radio quoted officials in Jerusalem as > saying Tuesday.
> Wouldn't they have to get approval by Congress of such a thing, or is the > Constitution a dead letter in the US, and the US President able to order > the US military to attack anyone he wants any time he wants?
> And if the President does order an un-Constitutional attack which is > carried out by the Department of Defense and the military, shouldn't he > and the other executive branch officers involved, both civilian and > military, be turned over to the victims of that attack for trial by a > military tribunal for their lawless aggression, or at least to the World > Court, as evidence of good-faith rejection of such executive coup d'etat > in and by the United States?
> --
> Find out just what any people will quietly submit to > and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong > which will be imposed upon them.
On Tue, 20 May 2008 10:19:56 -0700, uUGLY2 wrote: > mimus wrote:
>> US President George W. Bush intends to attack Iran in the upcoming >> months, before the end of his term, Army Radio quoted officials in >> Jerusalem as saying Tuesday.
>> Wouldn't they have to get approval by Congress of such a thing, or is >> the Constitution a dead letter in the US, and the US President able to >> order the US military to attack anyone he wants any time he wants?
>> And if the President does order an un-Constitutional attack which is >> carried out by the Department of Defense and the military, shouldn't he >> and the other executive branch officers involved, both civilian and >> military, be turned over to the victims of that attack for trial by a >> military tribunal for their lawless aggression, or at least to the >> World Court, as evidence of good-faith rejection of such executive coup >> d'etat in and by the United States?
> ANY MEMBER of Congress who votes to give your WHITE HOUSE WAR CRIMINAL > the go-ahead to attack IRAN should face immediate arrest!
By whom? Attorney-General Gonzales? who as White House Counsel argued that (a) since the Senate put a reservation in our acceptance of the Geneva Conventions that our adherence to those Conventions would not overrule our Constitution (and in particular our Eighth Amendment, thought until the advent of "strict constructionist" Justice Scalia to ban torture in the US), and (b) since the Supreme Court _later_ (my emphasis) ruled that the US Federal Government was not bound by our Constitution outside the United States, that (c) this meant the Senate intended by their reservation at the time of their approval of the Geneva Conventions to reserve the right to torture outside the United States . . . .
And (d) was rewarded for his Constitutional prowess by being made Attorney-General.
Incidentally, the White House Counsel has no business whatsoever opining on Constitutional matters, this being just another case of "opinion-shopping" by an Administration, just like in Iran-Contra, when the NSC's legal counsel opined that the Boland Amendment banned the involvement of the NSC in aid to the Contras, and so Ollie North and Co. went looking for another and more favorable legal opinion, and of course found themselves one.
A practice so blatantly crooked that those who engage in it have no right to claim they didn't realize it.
I really think we should start thinking about abolishing the Presidency, because what with "party loyalty", even the most crooked and vicious President is all but immune to impeachment and punishment for even the most crooked and vicious acts.
Such as authorizing the torture of prisoners, putting every American citizen, diplomat or soldier captured by an enemy for the foreseeable future at vastly increased risk of torture.
Of course, the Bush class doesn't serve in the military or anything like that, at least anywhere shooting's going on, so maybe it's hard for them to see this sort of thing.
Here is the latest on the coming war with Iran which will be for Israel as well (just as Iraq was in accordance with the 'A Clean Break' agenda - scroll down to the 'A Clean Break' post at http://NEOCONZIONISTTHREAT.BLOGSPOT.COM):
Report: U.S. Will Attack Iran Tuesday, May 20, 2008 12:40 PM
By: Newsmax Staff
Israel’s Army Radio is reporting that President Bush intends to launch a military strike against Iran before the end of his term. The Army Radio, a network operated by the Israeli Defense Forces, quoted a government source in Jerusalem. The source disclosed that a senior official close to Bush said in a closed meeting that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney believed military action against Iran was now called for. Bush concluded a trip to Israel last week, where he said, "The objective of the United States must be to . . . support our strongest ally and friend in the Middle East.” The Radio report, which was quoted by the Jerusalem Post, disclosed that the recent turmoil in Lebanon, where the Iranian-backed group Hezbollah had seized virtual control of the country, was encouraging an American attack. Hezbollah’s aggression in Lebanon is seen as evidence of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s growing influence, and the U.S. official said that in Bush’s view, “the disease must be treated, not its symptoms,” according to the Post. The White House on Tuesday denied the Army Radio report, saying in a statement: “As the president has said, no president of the United States should ever take options off the table, but our preference and our actions for dealing with this matter remain through peaceful diplomatic means. Nothing has changed in that regard.” However, numerous signs point to a U.S. strike on Iran in the near future: A leading member of America’s Jewish community told Newsmax in April that a military strike on Iran was likely and that Vice President Cheney’s March trip through the Middle East came in preparation for the U.S. attack. The Air Force recently declared the B-2 bomber fleet — a critical weapons system in any U.S. attack on Iran — as airworthy again. The Air Force had halted B-2 flights after a February crash in Guam. As Newsmax reported, the Air Force has refitted its stealth bombers to carry 30,000-pound “bunker buster” bombs, needed to destroy Iran’s hardened nuclear facilities. A second U.S. aircraft carrier, the USS Abraham Lincoln, joined the carrier USS Harry S. Truman in the Persian Gulf in May, carrying far more weaponry and ammunition than on previous deployments. Israel is gearing up for war. In April, it conducted its largest homeland military exercises ever. The Jewish-American source said Israel is “preparing for heavy casualties,” expecting to be the target of Iranian retribution following the U.S. attack. Saudi Arabia is taking steps to prepare for possible radioactive contamination from U.S. destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities. The Saudi government reportedly approved nuclear fallout preparations a day after Cheney met with the kingdom’s highest-ranking officials. The USS Ross, an Aegis-class destroyer, has taken up station off the coast of Lebanon. Military observers speculate it is there to help defend Israel from missile attacks. Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at a recent Pentagon briefing that the Iranians are systematically importing and training Shiite militia fighters, who slip back across the Iraqi border to kill American troops. And Israeli intelligence has predicted that Iran will acquire its first nuclear device in 2009, much earlier than previous U.S. estimates.
Additional at the following URL for John McCain supporters!:
McCain, NeoCons, the Israel Lobby Ron Paul Weekly Standard
> US President George W. Bush intends to attack Iran in the upcoming months, > before the end of his term, Army Radio quoted officials in Jerusalem as > saying Tuesday.
> Wouldn't they have to get approval by Congress of such a thing, or is the > Constitution a dead letter in the US, and the US President able to order > the US military to attack anyone he wants any time he wants?
> And if the President does order an un-Constitutional attack which is > carried out by the Department of Defense and the military, shouldn't he > and the other executive branch officers involved, both civilian and > military, be turned over to the victims of that attack for trial by a > military tribunal for their lawless aggression, or at least to the World > Court, as evidence of good-faith rejection of such executive coup d'etat > in and by the United States?
> --
> Find out just what any people will quietly submit to > and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong > which will be imposed upon them.
> Here is the latest on the coming war with Iran which will be for > Israel as well (just as Iraq was in accordance with the 'A Clean > Break' agenda - scroll down to the 'A Clean Break' post athttp://NEOCONZIONISTTHREAT.BLOGSPOT.COM):
> Report: U.S. Will Attack Iran > Tuesday, May 20, 2008 12:40 PM
> By: Newsmax Staff
> Israel’s Army Radio is reporting that President Bush intends to launch > a military strike against Iran before the end of his term. > The Army Radio, a network operated by the Israeli Defense Forces, > quoted a government source in Jerusalem. The source disclosed that a > senior official close to Bush said in a closed meeting that Bush and > Vice President Dick Cheney believed military action against Iran was > now called for. > Bush concluded a trip to Israel last week, where he said, "The > objective of the United States must be to . . . support our strongest > ally and friend in the Middle East.” > The Radio report, which was quoted by the Jerusalem Post, disclosed > that the recent turmoil in Lebanon, where the Iranian-backed group > Hezbollah had seized virtual control of the country, was encouraging > an American attack. > Hezbollah’s aggression in Lebanon is seen as evidence of Iranian > President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s growing influence, and the U.S. > official said that in Bush’s view, “the disease must be treated, not > its symptoms,” according to the Post. > The White House on Tuesday denied the Army Radio report, saying in a > statement: “As the president has said, no president of the United > States should ever take options off the table, but our preference and > our actions for dealing with this matter remain through peaceful > diplomatic means. Nothing has changed in that regard.” > However, numerous signs point to a U.S. strike on Iran in the near > future: > A leading member of America’s Jewish community told Newsmax in April > that a military strike on Iran was likely and that Vice President > Cheney’s March trip through the Middle East came in preparation for > the U.S. attack. > The Air Force recently declared the B-2 bomber fleet — a critical > weapons system in any U.S. attack on Iran — as airworthy again. The > Air Force had halted B-2 flights after a February crash in Guam. As > Newsmax reported, the Air Force has refitted its stealth bombers to > carry 30,000-pound “bunker buster” bombs, needed to destroy Iran’s > hardened nuclear facilities. > A second U.S. aircraft carrier, the USS Abraham Lincoln, joined the > carrier USS Harry S. Truman in the Persian Gulf in May, carrying far > more weaponry and ammunition than on previous deployments. > Israel is gearing up for war. In April, it conducted its largest > homeland military exercises ever. The Jewish-American source said > Israel is “preparing for heavy casualties,” expecting to be the target > of Iranian retribution following the U.S. attack. > Saudi Arabia is taking steps to prepare for possible radioactive > contamination from U.S. destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities. The > Saudi government reportedly approved nuclear fallout preparations a > day after Cheney met with the kingdom’s highest-ranking officials. > The USS Ross, an Aegis-class destroyer, has taken up station off the > coast of Lebanon. Military observers speculate it is there to help > defend Israel from missile attacks. > Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said > at a recent Pentagon briefing that the Iranians are systematically > importing and training Shiite militia fighters, who slip back across > the Iraqi border to kill American troops. > And Israeli intelligence has predicted that Iran will acquire its > first nuclear device in 2009, much earlier than previous U.S. > estimates.
> Additional at the following URL for John McCain supporters!:
> McCain, NeoCons, the Israel Lobby Ron Paul Weekly Standard
> On May 20, 3:39 am, mimus <tinmimu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > US President George W. Bush intends to attack Iran in the upcoming months, > > before the end of his term, Army Radio quoted officials in Jerusalem as > > saying Tuesday.
> > Wouldn't they have to get approval by Congress of such a thing, or is the > > Constitution a dead letter in the US, and the US President able to order > > the US military to attack anyone he wants any time he wants?
> > And if the President does order an un-Constitutional attack which is > > carried out by the Department of Defense and the military, shouldn't he > > and the other executive branch officers involved, both civilian and > > military, be turned over to the victims of that attack for trial by a > > military tribunal for their lawless aggression, or at least to the World > > Court, as evidence of good-faith rejection of such executive coup d'etat > > in and by the United States?
> > --
> > Find out just what any people will quietly submit to > > and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong > > which will be imposed upon them.
On Tue, 20 May 2008 22:51:27 -0700, brushoff wrote: > On May 20, 3:40 pm, jdtmor...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On May 20, 3:39 am, mimus <tinmimu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> US President George W. Bush intends to attack Iran in the upcoming months, >>> before the end of his term, Army Radio quoted officials in Jerusalem as >>> saying Tuesday.
>>> Wouldn't they have to get approval by Congress of such a thing, or is >>> the Constitution a dead letter in the US, and the US President able >>> to order the US military to attack anyone he wants any time he wants?
>>> And if the President does order an un-Constitutional attack which is >>> carried out by the Department of Defense and the military, shouldn't >>> he and the other executive branch officers involved, both civilian >>> and military, be turned over to the victims of that attack for trial >>> by a military tribunal for their lawless aggression, or at least to >>> the World Court, as evidence of good-faith rejection of such >>> executive coup d'etat in and by the United States?
>> Here is the latest on the coming war with Iran which will be for >> Israel as well (just as Iraq was in accordance with the 'A Clean >> Break' agenda - scroll down to the 'A Clean Break' post >> athttp://NEOCONZIONISTTHREAT.BLOGSPOT.):
>> Report: U.S. Will Attack Iran >> Tuesday, May 20, 2008 12:40 PM
>> By: Newsmax Staff
>> Israel’s Army Radio is reporting that President Bush intends to launch >> a military strike against Iran before the end of his term. >> The Army Radio, a network operated by the Israeli Defense Forces, >> quoted a government source in Jerusalem. The source disclosed that a >> senior official close to Bush said in a closed meeting that Bush and >> Vice President Dick Cheney believed military action against Iran was >> now called for. >> Bush concluded a trip to Israel last week, where he said, "The >> objective of the United States must be to . . . support our strongest >> ally and friend in the Middle East.” >> The Radio report, which was quoted by the Jerusalem Post, disclosed >> that the recent turmoil in Lebanon, where the Iranian-backed group >> Hezbollah had seized virtual control of the country, was encouraging >> an American attack. >> Hezbollah’s aggression in Lebanon is seen as evidence of Iranian >> President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s growing influence, and the U.S. >> official said that in Bush’s view, “the disease must be treated, not >> its symptoms,” according to the Post. >> The White House on Tuesday denied the Army Radio report, saying in a >> statement: “As the president has said, no president of the United >> States should ever take options off the table, but our preference and >> our actions for dealing with this matter remain through peaceful >> diplomatic means. Nothing has changed in that regard.” >> However, numerous signs point to a U.S. strike on Iran in the near >> future: >> A leading member of America’s Jewish community told Newsmax in April >> that a military strike on Iran was likely and that Vice President >> Cheney’s March trip through the Middle East came in preparation for >> the U.S. attack. >> The Air Force recently declared the B-2 bomber fleet — a critical >> weapons system in any U.S. attack on Iran — as airworthy again. The >> Air Force had halted B-2 flights after a February crash in Guam. As >> Newsmax reported, the Air Force has refitted its stealth bombers to >> carry 30,000-pound “bunker buster” bombs, needed to destroy Iran’s >> hardened nuclear facilities. >> A second U.S. aircraft carrier, the USS Abraham Lincoln, joined the >> carrier USS Harry S. Truman in the Persian Gulf in May, carrying far >> more weaponry and ammunition than on previous deployments. >> Israel is gearing up for war. In April, it conducted its largest >> homeland military exercises ever. The Jewish-American source said >> Israel is “preparing for heavy casualties,” expecting to be the target >> of Iranian retribution following the U.S. attack. >> Saudi Arabia is taking steps to prepare for possible radioactive >> contamination from U.S. destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities. The >> Saudi government reportedly approved nuclear fallout preparations a >> day after Cheney met with the kingdom’s highest-ranking officials. >> The USS Ross, an Aegis-class destroyer, has taken up station off the >> coast of Lebanon. Military observers speculate it is there to help >> defend Israel from missile attacks. >> Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said >> at a recent Pentagon briefing that the Iranians are systematically >> importing and training Shiite militia fighters, who slip back across >> the Iraqi border to kill American troops. >> And Israeli intelligence has predicted that Iran will acquire its >> first nuclear device in 2009, much earlier than previous U.S. >> estimates.
> We were additdicted to oil, so the war of oil.
No, the owners of the politicians-- including in OPEC's secret member, Texas-- are addicted to the "profits" from oil price-gouging, so another war to take more oil off the market in pseudo-justification of still more price-gouging.
Regardless of what the previous drooling anti-Semite thinks.
Follow the money!
--
When was the last time you heard an American politician use the word "plutocracy"?
consortiumnews.com An Appeal to Admiral Fallon on Iran By Ray McGovern May 19, 2008 Dear Admiral Fallon, I have not been able to find out how to reach you directly, so I drafted this letter in the hope it will be brought to your attention. First, thank you for honoring the oath we commissioned officers take to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic. At the same time, you have let it be known that you do not intend to speak, on or off the record, about Iran. But our oath has no expiration date. While you are acutely aware of the dangers of attacking Iran, you seem to be allowing an inbred reluctance to challenge the commander in chief to trump that oath, and to prevent you from letting the American people know of the catastrophe about to befall us if, as seems likely, our country attacks Iran. Two years ago I lectured at the Naval Academy in Annapolis. I found it highly disturbing that, when asked about the oath they took upon entering the academy, several of the “Mids” thought it was to the commander in chief. This brought to my mind the photos of German generals and admirals (as well as top church leaders and jurists) swearing personal oaths to Hitler. Not our tradition, and yet … I was aghast that only the third Mid I called on got it right – that the oath is to protect and defend the Constitution, not the president. Attack Iran and Trash the Constitution No doubt you are very clear that an attack on Iran would be a flagrant violation of our Constitution, which stipulates that treaties ratified by the Senate become the supreme law of the land; that the United Nations Charter – which the Senate ratified on July 28, 1945, by a vote of 89 to 2 – expressly forbids attacks on other countries unless they pose an imminent danger; that there is no provision allowing some other kind of “pre-emptive” or “preventive” attack against a nation that poses no imminent danger; and that Iran poses no such danger to the United States or its allies. You may be forgiven for thinking: Isn’t 41 years of service enough; isn’t resigning in order to remove myself from a chain of command that threatened to make me a war criminal for attacking Iran; isn’t making my active opposition known by talking to journalists – isn’t all that enough? With respect, sir, no, that’s not enough. The stakes here are extremely high and with the integrity you have shown goes still further responsibility. Sadly, the vast majority of your general officer colleagues have, for whatever reason, ducked that responsibility. You are pretty much it. In their lust for attacking Iran, administration officials will do their best to marginalize you. And, as prominent a person as you are, the corporate media will do the same. Indeed, there are clear signs the media have been given their marching orders to support attacking Iran. At CIA I used to analyze the Soviet press, so you will understand when I refer to the Washington Post and the New York Times as the White House’s Pravda and Izvestiya. Sadly, it is as easy as during the days of the controlled Soviet press to follow the U.S. government’s evolving line with a daily reading. In a word, our newspapers are revving up for war on Iran, and have been for some time. In some respects the manipulation and suppression of information in the present lead-up to an attack on Iran is even more flagrant and all encompassing than in early 2003 before the invasion of Iraq. It seems entirely possible that you are unaware of this, precisely because the media have put the wraps on it, so let me adduce a striking example of what is afoot here. The example has to do with the studied, if disingenuous, effort over recent months to blame all the troubles in southern Iraq on the “malignant” influence of Iran. But Not for Fiasco Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen, told reporters on April 25 that Gen. David Petraeus would be giving a briefing “in the next couple of weeks” that would provide detailed evidence of “just how far Iran is reaching into Iraq to foment instability.” Petraeus’s staff alerted U.S. media to a major news event in which captured Iranian arms in Karbala would be displayed and then destroyed. Small problem. When American munitions experts went to Karbala to inspect the alleged cache of Iranian weapons they found nothing that could be credibly linked to Iran. News to you? That’s because this highly embarrassing episode went virtually unreported in the media – like the proverbial tree falling in the forest with no corporate media to hear it crash. So Mullen and Petraeus live, uninhibited and unembarrassed, to keep searching for Iranian weapons so the media can then tell a story more supportive to efforts to blacken Iran. A fiasco is only a fiasco if folks know about it. The suppression of this episode is the most significant aspect, in my view, and a telling indicator of how difficult it is to get honest reporting on these subjects. Meanwhile, it was announced that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had formed his own Cabinet committee to investigate U.S. claims and attempt to “find tangible information and not information based on speculation.” Dissing the Intelligence Estimate Top officials from the president on down have been dismissing the dramatically new conclusion of the National Intelligence Estimate released on Dec. 3, 2007, a judgment concurred in by the 16 intelligence units of our government, that Iran had stopped the weapons-related part of its nuclear program in mid-2003. Always willing to do his part, the malleable CIA chief, Michael Hayden, on April 30 publicly offered his “personal opinion” that Iran is building a nuclear weapon – the National Intelligence Estimate notwithstanding. For good measure, Hayden added: “It is my opinion, it is the policy of the Iranian government, approved to the highest level of that government, to facilitate the killing of Americans in Iraq. … Just make sure there’s clarity on that.” I don’t need to tell you about the Haydens and other smartly saluting generals in Washington. Let me suggest that you have a serious conversation with Gen. Anthony Zinni, one of your predecessor CENTOM commanders (1997 to 2000). As you know better than I, this Marine general is also an officer with unusual integrity. But placed into circumstances virtually identical to those you now face, he could not find his voice. He missed his chance to interrupt the juggernaut to war in Iraq; you might ask him how he feels about that now, and what he would advise in current circumstances. Zinni happened to be one of the honorees at the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention on Aug. 26, 2002, at which Vice President Dick Cheney delivered the exceedingly alarmist speech, unsupported by our best intelligence, about the nuclear threat and other perils awaiting us at the hands of Saddam Hussein. That speech not only launched the seven-month public campaign against Iraq leading up to the war, but set the terms of reference for the Oct. 1, 2002 National Intelligence Estimate fabricated – yes, fabricated – to convince Congress to approve war on Iraq. Gen. Zinni later shared publicly that, as he listened to Cheney, he was shocked to hear a depiction of intelligence that did not square with what he knew. Although Zinni had retired two years earlier, his role as consultant had required him to stay up to date on intelligence relating to the Middle East. One Sunday morning three and a half years after Cheney’s speech, Zinni told “Meet the Press”: “There was no solid proof that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. … I heard a case being made to go to war.” Gen. Zinni had as good a chance as anyone to stop an unnecessary war – not a “pre-emptive war,” since there was nothing to pre-empt – and Zinni knew it. No, what he and any likeminded officials could have stopped was a war of aggression, defined at the post-WWII Nuremberg Tribunal as the “supreme international crime.” Sure, Zinni would have had to stick his neck out. He may have had to speak out alone, since most senior officials, like then-CIA Director George Tenet, lacked courage and integrity. In his memoir published a year ago, Tenet says Cheney did not follow the usual practice of clearing his Aug. 26, 2002 speech with the CIA; that much of what Cheney said took him completely by surprise; and that Tenet “had the impression that the president wasn’t any more aware of what his number-two was going to say to the VFW until he said it.” It is a bit difficult to believe that Cheney’s shameless speech took Tenet completely by surprise. We know from the Downing Street Minutes, vouched for by the UK as authentic, that Tenet told his British counterpart on July 20, 2002, that the president had decided to make war on Iraq for regime change and that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy” Encore: Iran Admiral Fallon, you know that to be the case also with respect to the “intelligence” being conjured up to “justify” war with Iran. And no one knows better than you that your departure from the chain of command has turned it over completely to the smartly saluting sycophants. No doubt you have long since taken the measure, for example, of Defense Secretary Robert Gates. So have I. I was one of his first branch chiefs when he was a young, disruptively ambitious CIA analyst. When Ronald Reagan’s CIA Director William Casey sought someone to shape CIA analysis to accord with his own conviction that the Soviet Union would never change, Gates leaped at the chance. After Casey died, Gates admitted to the Washington Post’s Walter Pincus that he (Gates) watched Casey on “issue after issue sit in meetings and present intelligence framed in terms of the policy
Former Chief UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix on the US Rush to War in Iraq, the Threat of an Attack on Iran, and the Need for a Global Nuclear Ban to Avoid Further Catastrophe
> US President George W. Bush intends to attack Iran in the upcoming months, > before the end of his term, Army Radio quoted officials in Jerusalem as > saying Tuesday.
> Wouldn't they have to get approval by Congress of such a thing, or is the > Constitution a dead letter in the US, and the US President able to order > the US military to attack anyone he wants any time he wants?
> And if the President does order an un-Constitutional attack which is > carried out by the Department of Defense and the military, shouldn't he > and the other executive branch officers involved, both civilian and > military, be turned over to the victims of that attack for trial by a > military tribunal for their lawless aggression, or at least to the World > Court, as evidence of good-faith rejection of such executive coup d'etat > in and by the United States?
> --
> Find out just what any people will quietly submit to > and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong > which will be imposed upon them.
