Trump admits US killed millions in war based on
liesBy Bill Van Auken
October 10, 2019 "Information
Clearing House" - Amid the storm of
denunciations—extending from right-wing Republicans
to the Democratic Party, the New York Times
and the pseudo-left Jacobin magazine—of his
decision to pull US troops out of Syria, President
Donald Trump issued an extraordinary tweet on
Wednesday in defense of his policy:
“The United States has spent EIGHT TRILLION
DOLLARS fighting and policing in the Middle East.
Thousands of our Great Soldiers have died or been
badly wounded. Millions of people have died on the
other side. GOING INTO THE MIDDLE EAST IS THE WORST
DECISION EVER MADE ... IN THE HISTORY OF OUR
COUNTRY! We went to war under a false & now
disproven premise, WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.”
Trump’s Twitter account has dominated the US news
cycle ever since he took office. Tweets have
introduced fascistic new policies on immigration,
announced the frequent firings of White House
personnel and cabinet members and signaled shifts in
US foreign policy.
Last month, amid the mounting of an impeachment
inquiry, which the Democratic leadership in Congress
has focused exclusively on “national security”
concerns stemming from Trump’s July 25 phone call
with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, the US
president set a new personal record, tweeting 800
times.
Yet the corporate media has chosen to ignore
Trump’s tweet on the protracted US military
intervention in the Middle East.
From the standpoint of the bitter internecine
struggle unfolding within the US capitalist state,
the tweet expresses the sharp divisions over US
global strategy. While those around Trump want to
focus entirely on preparation for confrontation with
China, layers within the political establishment and
the military and intelligence apparatus see the
continuation of the US intervention to assert its
hegemony over the Middle East and countering Russia
as critical for American imperialism’s drive to
impose its dominance over the Eurasian landmass.
But aside from these disputes over geo-strategic
policy, the admission by a sitting US president that
Washington launched a war under a “false” and
“disproven” premise that ended up killing “millions”
has direct political implications, whatever Trump’s
intentions.
It amounts to an official admission from the US
government that successive US administrations are
responsible for war crimes resulting in mass murder.
Are You Tired Of
The Lies And
Non-Stop Propaganda?
Trump acknowledges that Washington
launched the 2003 invasion of Iraq on the
“false premise” of “weapons of mass
destruction.” In other words, the
administration of George W. Bush lied to the
people of the United States and the entire
planet in order to facilitate a war of
aggression.
Under international law, this war was a criminal
action and a patently unjustified violation of
Iraq’s sovereignty. The Nuremberg Tribunal, convened
in the aftermath of the Second World War, declared
the planning and launching of a war of aggression
the supreme crime of the Nazis, from which all of
their horrific atrocities flowed, including the
Holocaust. On the basis of this legal principle,
Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top US
officials, as well as their successors in the Obama
and Trump administrations who continued the US
intervention in the Middle East—expanding it into
Syria and Libya, while threatening a new war against
Iran—should all face prosecution as war criminals.
The real basis for the war was the long-held
predatory conception that by militarily conquering
Iraq Washington could seize control of the vast
energy resources of the Middle East—giving it a
stranglehold over the oil lifeline to its principal
rivals in Asia and Europe—and thereby offset the
decline of US imperialism’s global hegemony.
The World Socialist Web Site described
the consequences of the US assault on Iraq and its
people as “sociocide,” the deliberate destruction of
what had been among the most advanced societies, in
terms of education, health care and infrastructure,
in the Middle East (see: “The
US war and occupation of Iraq—the murder of a
society”).
The casualties inflicted by this war were
staggering. According to a comprehensive 2006 study
done by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public
Health and published in the prestigious medical
journal The Lancet, the death toll
resulting from the US invasion rose to over 655,000
in the first 40 months of the US war alone.
The continued slaughter resulting from the US
occupation and the bloody sectarian civil war
provoked by Washington’s divide-and-rule tactics
claimed many more direct victims, while the
destruction of basic water, power, health care and
sanitation infrastructure killed even more. The mass
slaughter continued under the Obama administration
with the launching in 2014 of what was billed as a
US war against ISIS. This war, which saw the most
intense bombing campaign since Vietnam and reduced
Mosul, Ramadi, Fallujah and other Iraqi cities to
rubble, claimed tens if not hundreds of thousands
more lives.
Recent estimates of the death toll resulting from
16 years of US military intervention in Iraq range
as high as 2.4 million people.
The Iraq war has had its own disastrous
consequences for US society as well. In addition to
claiming the lives of more than 4,500 US troops and
nearly 4,000 US contractors, the war left tens of
thousands of US troops wounded and hundreds of
thousands suffering from post-traumatic stress
disorder and traumatic brain injuries.
What of all the families in the United States who
lost children, siblings or parents in a war that
Trump now admits was based upon lies? Together with
the veterans suffering from the wounds of this war,
they should have the right to sue the US government
for the results of its criminal conduct.
The cost of the US wars launched since 2001 has
risen to nearly $6 trillion, the bulk of it stemming
from Iraq, while interest cost on the money borrowed
to pay for these wars will eventually amount to $8
trillion.
These grievous costs to US society are compounded
by the social and political impact of waging an
illegal war, resulting in the shredding of
democratic rights and the wholesale corruption of a
political system that is ever more dominated by the
military and intelligence apparatus.
The media’s silence on Trump’s admission of war
crimes carried out by US imperialism in Iraq, Syria
and elsewhere in the Middle East is
self-incriminating. It reflects the complicity of
the corporate media in these crimes, with its
selling of the lies used to promote the aggression
against Iraq and its attempt to suppress antiwar
sentiment.
Nowhere was this war propaganda developed more
deliberately than at the New York Times
which inundated the American public with lying
reports about “weapons of mass destruction” by
Judith Miller and the noxious opinion pieces by
chief foreign affairs commentator Thomas “I have no
problem with a war for oil” Friedman.
By all rights, the media editors and pundits
responsible for promoting a criminal war of
aggression deserve to sit in the dock alongside the
war criminals who launched it.
The corporate media has also ignored Trump’s
indictment of the US wars in the Middle East because
it speaks for those sections of the US ruling
establishment that want them to continue.
Trump’s cynical nationalist and populist rhetoric
about ending US wars in the Middle East is aimed at
currying support with a US population that is
overwhelmingly hostile to these wars, even as his
administration—backed by the Democrats—has secured a
record $738 billion military budget in preparation
for far more catastrophic wars, including against
nuclear-armed China and Russia.
If the fascistic occupant of the White House is
able to adopt the farcical posture of an opponent of
imperialist war, it is entirely thanks to the
Democrats, whose opposition to Trump is bound up
with the concerns of the US intelligence agencies
and the Pentagon over his conduct of foreign policy.
While there was mass opposition to the invasion
of Iraq, the pseudo-left in the United States,
together with the media, worked might and main to
channel it behind the Democratic Party, which
provided uninterrupted support and funding for the
war. Today, it is the most pro-war party, aligned
with the opposition to Trump by the likes of John
Bolton, Lindsey Graham and Bush.
Trump’s admission about the criminality of the
Iraq war only confirms what the World Socialist
Web Site stated from its very outset. The
struggle that it has waged for the building of a
mass antiwar movement based upon the working class
and armed with a socialist and internationalist
program to unite the workers of the United States,
the Middle East and the entire planet against the
capitalist system provides the only way forward in
the struggle against war. This article was originally published by "WSWS"--
We ask that you assist us in
dissemination of the article published by
ICH to your social media accounts and post
links to the article from other websites.
******************************
Sunday, October 6, 2019
U.S. President William McKinley Road to War Against Spain - Demanding Independence of Cuba 1898 - March 28
U.S. President William McKinley Road to War Against Spain - Demanding Independence of Cuba 1898 - March 28
Review by Amelia Gora (2019)
Another important article was found affecting an unreliable history documented about the beginnings of War Against Spain by the United States in 1898:
1898 - March 28. Telegram regarding the Independence of Cub sent.
- April 28. First discussion exposed in the article about the Archives and the Seizure of the Hawaiian Islands exposing discussion on Cuba's Independence.
SUMMARY
The article below shows an earlier record of the move by the U.S. aggression on Spain to have Cuba made independent.
Once again, lies are recorded.
Thousands died needlessly due to the moves of U.S. President William McKinley who was on the Road of his own, Proclaiming the Hawaiian Kingdom which he called the Territory of the United States of America, disregarding
U.S. President Cleveland's return of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1893, 1894, and 1897.
McKinley moved against Spain since March 28, 1898, then the Archives unwrapped the Seizure of the Hawaiian Islands, posted date a month later or April 28, 1898.
Something stinks and I know it's not me!
This information is posted based on research of a number of articles.
Appears that U.S. President McKinley was a One World/New World Order activist with disregard for persons and viewing them as slaves.
Research incomplete.
aloha.
Reference:
The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, June 26, 1901, Page FIVE, Image 5
Image provided by University of Hawaii at Manoa; Honolulu, HI
Pirate Eyes On Hawaii Series: "Archives takes wraps off 1899 Senate transcript, Secret debate on U.S. seizure of Hawaii revealed"
Pirate Eyes On Hawaii Series: "Archives takes wraps off 1899 Senate transcript, Secret debate on U.S. seizure of Hawaii revealed"
Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Vol. 58, No. 32, Saturday, February 1, 1969
The following are important excerpts of the above article:
"WASHINGTON (AP) - Now it can be told--what happened during the longest of three secret Senate cessions, during the Spanish-American War, a debate over whether to take over Hawaii."
"The debate of nearly three hours on that day - May 31, 1898 - and in two secret sessions the previous month had remained locked up until last week. Then at the request of a historian who noted gaps in the Congressional Record, the Senate passed a resolution authorizing the National Archives to take the wraps off the debate transcript."
"The government's only explanation for the long suppression of the debate records is that they had been long forgotten."
"THE SECRECY WAS clamped on during a debate over whether to seize the Hawaiian Islands - called the Sandwich Islands then - or merely developing leased areas of Pearl Harbor to reinforce the U.S. fleet iat Manila Bay."
"PEARL HARBOR, ALREADY UNDER LEASE, Stewart argued, wouldn't be much use until costly dredging operations opened the entrance channel. "Either we must have the Sandwich Islands," he declared, "or the administration must recall Dewey."
"THE UNITED STATES ANNEXED the Hawaiian Islands five weeks after that debate. But before the Senate reopened its doors that day, Morgan steered the discussion back to Cuba, the original cause of the war with Spain."
"The first secret session, April 25, 1898, involved technical and emotional debate over wording the declaration of war and why it or some accompanying resolution did not formally recognize the independence of Cuba or at least declare the Cubans to have the rights of belligerents in the conflict."
"THE SENATE ENDED UP BY ACCEPTING the House passed version reading that "war and the same is hereby declared to exist and that war has existed since the 21st of April" - four days earlier."
"Dropped from the final declaration was a Senate proposed tagline requiring the administration to "prosecute said war to a successful conclusion."
"Sen. Stephen White of California joined the unanimous vote for war "even with that mild prevarication" about when the war started."
**************
Note - The following Lies are documented in the above article:
U.S. debate on whether to take over Hawaii occurred five (5) years AFTER taking over
Hawaii, a neutral, friendly, non-violent nation in a planned move since 1840.
PEARL HARBOR WAS UNDER LEASE
ANNEXATION OF HAWAII WAS A LIE
WAR WITH SPAIN WAS MADE WITHOUT THE SENATE APPROVAL because War
started/existed "four days earlier"
Reference:
All 770 issues of the IOLANI - The Royal Hawk news on the web published by Amelia Gora
United States Secretary of State John W. Foster "helped direct the overthrow of the Hawaiian Monarchy ... 2015 · The Following Alii Nui/Alii Names Are Part of the Royal Families/ Royal Persons Who Are Not Subject to the Laws Posted by Amelia Gora on January 23, 2015 at 5:53pm in Politics View Discussions Royal Persons are Not Subject to the ...
See more images of john foster article by amelia gora. ... Nov 12, 2015 · Posted by Amelia Gora on October 6, 2015 at 11:01pm in Politics View Discussions Hawaiian Kingdom Records Nos. 2015-1006 Matters of the Treaty which supersedes State Laws, etc. Sereno Edwards Bishop - Wikipedia ...
Dec 30, 2018 · The Legal Families of Queen Liliuokalani - posted 12/30/2018 ... 735 issues of the IOLANI-The Royal Hawk news on the web, etc. ... John Gora married Mary Castro and had Amelia Gora (and siblings). Queen Kapiolani was the administrator of Princess Poomaikelani's lands. She was a hanai/adopted daughter of Kaluakini, a Kamehameha descendant who ...
other researches by Amelia Gora. ... John Foster Dulles. 52nd U.S. Secretary of State 12th cousin 2 times removed via William Mainwaring. ... Posted by hwnwahine. No comments: Post a Comment. Newer Post Older Post Home. Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom) Translate. Picture Window theme.
Jan 17, 2012 · Diary: The Royal Families In The Hawaiian Islands and the Problematic Masons/Freemasons - Remembering the Criminal dethronement of Queen Liliuokalani by Americans in 1893 with the help of U.S ...
Feb 01, 2015 · The Following Alii Nui/Alii Names Are Part of the Royal Families/ Royal Persons Who Are Not Subject to the Laws Posted by Amelia Gora on January 23, 2015 at 5:53pm in Politics View Discussions Royal Persons are Not Subject to the Laws; UPDATING THE ROYAL FAMILIES GENEALOGIES by Amelia Gora (2011; 2014; 2015) The following…
James Campbell Trust - Based on Fraud Land Claims ... and articles posted by Amelia Gora. Tags: Conspiracies, Evidence, Hawaiian, Heirs, Issues, Kamehameha, Kingdom, Legal, Treason. ... Amelia Gora, sister of John F. Gora did speak as John F. Gora (wife Melissa-Ann Kamala Gora) behalf based on the 1781 Bill of Rights of Rights where a ...
Senator Owen: I wish to put in the Record the secret treaty of Verona of November 22, 1822, showing what this ancient conflict is between the rule of the few and the rule of the many. I wish to call the attention of the Senate to this treaty because it is the threat of this treaty which was the basis of the Monroe doctrine.
Hawaiian Kingdom Records Nos. 2015-0410 and 2015-0420 Matters of the Treaty which supersedes State Laws, etc. - The Fifteenth (15th) Judicial Tribunal Meeting Held On July 17, 2015, Affecting USA/United States of America Treaty with the Hawaiian Kingdom, DEC. 20, 1849/1850 from Amelia Gora, Royal Person, Royal Family Member, One of Kamehameha III - Kauikeaouli's Heirs and …
Author: Amelia Gora
Thursday, September 19, 2019
Vol VII No. 771 - Honest Ramifications or Return of Lands, etc. to Hawaii, Spain, etc. Since the Time of U.S. President William McKinley
Honest Ramifications or Return of Lands, etc. to Hawaii, Spain, etc. Since the Time of U.S. President William McKinley based on Respect, Aloha to All who were Wrongfully Plundered Upon
or
U.S. WAS EVASIVE IN THE SPANISH-AMERICAN WAR WHICH WAS NOT SANCTIONED BY CONGRESS IN 1898!, etc.
Review by Amelia Gora (2019)
The following excerpts of the article, is very revealing about the wrongs done against innocent people.
The focus is on Spain in this Review:
"Archives takes wraps off 1899 Senate transcript, Secret debate on U.S. seizure of Hawaii revealed"
Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Vol. 58, No. 32, Saturday, February 1, 1969
"WASHINGTON (AP) - Now it can be told--what happened during the longest of three secret Senate cessions, during the Spanish-American War, a debate over whether to take over Hawaii."
"The debate of nearly three hours on that day - May 31, 1898 - and in two secret sessions the previous month had remained locked up until last week. Then at the request of a historian who noted gaps in the Congressional Record, the Senate passed a resolution authorizing the National Archives to take the wraps off the debate transcript."
"The government's only explanation for the long suppression of the debate records is that they had been long forgotten."
"THE UNITED STATES ANNEXED the Hawaiian Islands five weeks after that debate. But before the Senate reopened its doors that day, Morgan steered the discussion back to Cuba, the original cause of the war with Spain."
"The first secret session, April 25, 1898, involved technical and emotional debate over wording the declaration of war and why it or some accompanying resolution did not formally recognize the independence of Cuba or at least declare the Cubans to have the rights of belligerents in the conflict."
"THE SENATE ENDED UP BY ACCEPTING the House passed version reading that "war and the same is hereby declared to exist and that war has existed since the 21st of April" - four days earlier."
"Dropped from the final declaration was a Senate proposed tagline requiring the administration to "prosecute said war to a successful conclusion."
"Sen. Stephen White of California joined the unanimous vote for war "even with that mildprevarication" about when the war started."
The Spanish–American War was an armed conflict between Spain and the United States in 1898. Hostilities began in the aftermath of the internal explosion of USS Maine in Havana Harbor in Cuba, leading to U.S. intervention in the Cuban War of Independence. The war led to emergence of U.S. predominance in the Caribbean region, and resulted in U.S. a…
Approval to War was made on April 25, 1898 - See article"Archives takes wraps off 1899 Senate transcript, Secret debate on U.S. seizure of Hawaii revealed" Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Vol. 58, No. 32, Saturday, February 1, 1969
End date: Aug 13, 1898
Timeline
Feb 1895:
As Cuba struggles to win its freedom from Spain, American newspapers publish sensational stories about the Spain's brutality toward the Cubans. Some Americans begin to call for the U.S. to get involved in the fight.
Feb 1898:
The battleship the U.S.S. Maine explodes and sinks in a Havana harbor. The cause was not known, but many blame Spain.
Apr 1898:
Spain agrees to an armistice, which will halt the fighting with Cuba. However, Spain only agrees to allow Cuba to have limited self-government and the U.S. Congress gives President William McKinley the right to use force against Spain.
Apr 1898:
Even though McKinley hoped to avoid war, he asks Congress to declare war on Spain. McKinley is pressured by American newspapers that call him a weak president for not standing up to Spain.
Apr 1898:
Congress responds to McKinley's war speech with the Teller Amendment. The amendment, which McKinley signs, says that the U.S. cannot annex Cuba.
Apr 1898:
Although they are not ready for a war with the U.S., Spain declares war on the United States. The U.S. declares war against Spain the next day.
"Spain declared war on the United States on April 24, followed by a U.S. declaration of war on the 25th, which was made retroactive to April 21. "
Note: WHAT? This means that the War Began BEFORE declarations of war was made by Spain and the U.S.
In the first battle of the war, the U.S. destroys Spain's fleet of ships in the Battle of Manila Bay. Four hundred Spanish sailors are killed, while only six Americans are wounded.
Jul 1898:
U.S forces attack Spain on the southern coast of Cuba. Spanish troops at San Juan Hill and Kettle Hill are overwhelmed by U.S. troops, including the Rough Riders, led by Teddy Roosevelt. The win permits the U.S. to launch a siege of Santiago de Cuba.
Jul 1898:
After a relatively easy fight with Spain, the U.S. and Spain agree to stop fighting and sign a cease-fire agreement. The war unofficially comes to an end.
Aug 1898:
After a relatively easy fight with Spain, the U.S. and Spain agree to stop fighting and sign a cease-fire agreement. The war unofficially comes to an end.
Aug 1898:
U.S. and Spanish troops stage a mock battle in the Philippine capital of Manila. It was predetermined that Spain would surrender and allow the U.S. to take control of the Philippines.
Dec 1898:
The Spanish-American War officially ends when the U.S. and Spain sign the Treaty of Paris. The U.S. takes possession of Guam, the Philippines, and Puerto Rico for $20 million.
"Treaty of Paris
The Treaty of Paris ending the Spanish-American War was signed on December 10, 1898. In it, Spain renounced all claim to Cuba, ceded Guam and Puerto Rico to the United States and transferred sovereignty over the Philippines to the United States for $20 million. "
The Philippines rejects U.S. rule and declares itself an independent republic, beginning the Philippine-American war. After the U.S. defeats the Philippines, revolution leader Emilio Aguinaldo is captured and forced to pledge allegiance to the American government.
1900:
After the U.S. takes possession of Puerto Rico, it is necessary to set up a government. The Foraker Act calls for elements including a governor, a House of Representatives, and a Supreme Court.
1902:
The Treaty of Paris calls for Cuba to be independent from the U.S and the U.S. helped free the country from Spain. American troops withdraw from Cuba, although Cuba will experience years of turbulent leadership in the decades to come.
DISCUSSION
The Congress shall have Power To ...declare War....
It is well accepted that the conduct of war is an "executive Power," vested by Article II in the President, who also serves as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Both at the time of the Framing of the Constitution and afterward, there has been agreement that the President has the power to repel invasions. Intimately familiar with the treatises on international law, the Framers were undoubtedly aware of the general rule that, as Hugo Grotius had put it, "By the law of nature, no declaration is required when one is repelling an invasion." The Law of War and Peace (1646). The debate, instead, has centered on the location of the power to initiate war.
Advocates of congressional power contend that the President cannot initiate hostilities because the Constitution expressly vests the power to "declare War" in Congress. In support of that view, they note that, according to his notes from the Constitutional Convention, James Madison successfully advocated that Congress be given the power, not to "make" war but to "declare" war, to "leav[e] to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks." In 1862, the Supreme Court opined that the President "has no power to initiate or declare a war," but if there were an invasion, "the President is not only authorized but bound to resist force by force...without waiting for any special legislative authority." Prize Cases (1863).
On the other hand, the Constitution distinguishes between "declaring" war and "engaging in" (see Article I, Section 10, Clause 3) or "levying" war (see Article III, Section 3, Clause 1). Moreover, there is no express requirement of legislative consent in other sections of the Constitution or in earlier documents before the President may commence hostilities.
Accordingly, much of the debate over the power to initiate hostilities focuses on understanding the meaning of the words, "declare War." Supporters of presidential authority contend that the Founders were well aware of the long British practice of undeclared wars. They assert that the Constitution likewise does not require formal war declarations for the President to authorize hostilities as a matter of domestic constitutional power.
Under this view, Congress's power to declare war was established for an altogether different purpose. Declarations of war alter legal relationships between subjects of warring nations and trigger certain rights, privileges, and protections under the laws of war. According to Grotius, declarations gave notice of the legal grounds for the war and the opportunity for enemy nations to make amends and thereby avoid the scourge of war. It served notice on the enemy's allies that they would be regarded as cobelligerents and their shipping subject to capture. Under a declaration of war, one's own navy and privateers could not be treated as pirates by the enemy, but on the other hand one's own citizens were subject to prosecution if they dealt with the enemy.
Furthermore, under previous practice, declarations of war triggered other legal actions, such as the internment or expulsion of enemy aliens, the breaking of diplomatic relations, and the confiscation of the enemy's property. In short, the power to declare war was designed as a power to affect legal rights and duties in times of hostilities. It is not a check on executive power to engage in such hostilities in the first place.
Congressional power supporters respond that the Declaration of War Clause must be given a broader interpretation, particularly in light of contemporaneous statements by prominent Founding era figures. They contend that the clause was intended to include the power not only to issue formal declarations, but also to confer authority to decide upon any engagement of hostilities, whether declared or otherwise. Therefore, they argue, the Declaration of War Clause must be construed to deprive the President of power to initiate hostilities absent congressional consent.
There have been only five congressionally declared wars in the history of the United States. Of those, only the first, the War of 1812, constituted an affirmative declaration of war. The remaining four, the Mexican-American War of 1846, the Spanish-American War of 1898, World War I, and World War II, merely declared the prior existence of a state of war. Notably, those declarations were accompanied by express authorizations of use of force, suggesting a distinction between declarations of war and authorizations of force.
Numerous other hostilities have been specifically authorized by Congress through instruments other than formal declarations. For example, offensive actions taken by the United States during its first real "war"—against Tripoli in 1802—were statutorily authorized but not accompanied by a formal declaration. Congress also expressly authorized the use of force in the Quasi War with France in 1798, against Iraq in 1991 and 2002, and against the perpetrators of the September 11, 2001, attacks, all without issuing a formal declaration of war.
Early in American history, in an era of limited peacetime budgets for military resources, Presidents tended to defer to Congress. In modern times, the debate over the allocation of war powers between Congress and the President is dramatically affected by the institution of a large United States peacetime military force following World War II. Starting with the Korean War, modern Presidents have been more aggressive in asserting unilateral authority to engage in war without declaration or other congressional authorization. In 1973, Congress attempted to affirm its control over war through passage, over President Richard M. Nixon's veto, of the War Powers Resolution. Presidents have generally refused to recognize the constitutional operation of the War Powers Resolution, although Presidents have often taken actions "consistent" with the War Powers Resolution to avoid unnecessary conflict with Congress.
The Supreme Court has never intervened to stop a war that a President has started without congressional authorization. Some federal courts of appeals have held that at least some level of congressional authorization is constitutionally required before the President may conduct military hostilities. See, e.g., Orlando v. Laird (1971). Other courts have found the issue nonjusticiable. See, e.g., Mitchell v. Laird (1973).
Whatever the domestic constitutional implications for presidential power to initiate hostilities, the Declaration of War Clause gives to Congress certain powers under international and domestic statutory law. Nonetheless, with the growth of international law, the significance of formal declarations has declined. For example, the Geneva Conventions of 1949, which guarantee various enumerated rights to lawful combatants, prisoners of war, and civilians, explicitly apply to all armed conflicts between contracting nations and not just to declared wars. Congress's power to declare war continues to have important statutory ramifications, nonetheless. A particularly dramatic example is the Alien Enemy Act (1 Stat. 577 (1798), codified in 50 U.S.C. § 21 (2003)), which authorizes the President to detain and deport citizens of enemy nations, but only following either a declaration of war or an attack upon the United States.
Ellen C. Collier, ed., Congressional Research Service, Instances of Use of United States Forces Abroad, 1798-1993 (1993)
Louis Fisher, Congressional Abdication on War & Spending (2000)
Louis Henkin, Foreign Affairs and the U.S. Constitution (2d ed. 1996)
Harold Hongju Koh, The National Security Constitution: Sharing Power After the Iran-Contra Affair (1990)
Montgomery Kosma, Our First Real War, 2 Green Bag 2d 169 (1999)
C. Kevin Marshall, Putting Privateers in Their Place: The Applicability of the Marque and Reprisal Clause to Undeclared Wars, 64 U. Chi. L. Rev. 953 (1997)
Michael D. Ramsey, Textualism and War Powers, 69 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1543 (2002)
Robert F. Turner, War and the Forgotten Executive Power Clause of the Constitution: A Review Essay of John Hart Ely's War and Responsibility, 34 Va. J. Int'l L. 903 (1994)
John C. Yoo, Clio at War: The Misuse of History in the War Powers Debate, 70 U. Colo. L. Rev. 1169 (1999)
John C. Yoo, The Continuation of Politics by Other Means: The Original Understanding of War Powers, 84 Cal. L. Rev. 167 (1996)
John C. Yoo, War and Constitutional Texts, 69 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1639 (2002)
U.S. President William McKinley was in Office at the Time:
William McKinley Biography
(1843–1901)
Updated:
Original:
William McKinley is best known for being president when the United States acquired Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines.
Synopsis
William McKinley was born January 29, 1843 in Niles, Ohio. Following his service in the Union Army during the Civil War under Rutherford Hayes, he was drawn to service in the Republican Party. Yellow journalism at the time urged McKinley to start a war with Spain, leading to an American global empire.
Early Life and Career
William McKinley was born January 29, 1843, in Niles, Ohio. As a young man, he briefly attended Allegheny College before taking a post as a country schoolteacher. When the Civil War broke out in 1861, McKinley enlisted in the Union Army; he eventually earned the rank of brevet major of volunteers.
Returning to Ohio after the war, McKinley studied law, opened his own practice in Canton, Ohio, and married Ida Saxton, the daughter of a local banker.
After the deaths, in quick succession, of her mother and her two young daughters early in their marriage, Ida's health rapidly deteriorated, and she spent the rest of her life as a chronic invalid. McKinley patiently catered to his wife throughout his burgeoning political career, winning praise from the public for his loving devotion to her.
McKinley entered Ohio politics in 1869 and rose through the ranks as a Republican, winning election to the U.S. Congress in 1876. Over nearly 14 years in Congress, he served as chair of the House Ways and Means Committee and became known as a proponent of economic protectionism, in the form of high tariffs on imported goods.
After a tariff measure bearing his name passed in 1890, voters rejected McKinley and other Republicans due to rising consumer prices and he returned to Ohio. The following year, he ran for governor, winning by a narrow margin; he would serve two terms in that post.
1895 Election
After the so-called Panic of 1893 led to a crippling economic depression in the United States, McKinley and his fellow Republicans regained the political advantage over the Democrats.
McKinley won the Republican presidential nomination in 1896 thanks to his congressional and gubernatorial experience, his longtime support of protectionism and the skilled maneuvering of his chief supporter, the wealthy Ohio industrialist Marcus Alonzo Hanna. In the general election, McKinley faced William Jennings Bryan, who ran on a platform attacking the gold standard and supporting the coinage of silver as well as gold.
Touted by Hanna as the "advance agent of prosperity" and the protector of America's financial interests in contrast to Bryan's radical policies, McKinley won the popular vote by a margin of some 600,000, the largest victory in 25 years; he also won more than a third more electoral votes than Bryan.
Domestic Policy
Soon after taking office, McKinley called a special session of Congress in order to raise customs duties, an effort he believed would reduce other taxes and encourage the growth of domestic industry and employment for American workers.
The result was the Dingley Tariff Act (sponsored by the Maine congressman Nelson Dingley), the highest protective tariff in American history. McKinley's support for the Dingley Tariff strengthened his position with organized labor, while his generally business-friendly administration allowed industrial combinations or "trusts" to develop at an unprecedented rate.
Spanish-American War and Foreign Affairs
It was foreign affairs that would determine McKinley's presidential legacy, beginning with an ongoing conflict in Cuba, where Spanish forces were attempting to repress a revolutionary movement. Though the American press and public were outraged by the bloodshed, McKinley hoped to avoid intervention, and pressed Spain to make concessions.
After the sinking of the U.S. battleship Maine in Havana's harbor in February 1898 was linked (erroneously, as was later discovered) to an external explosion presumed to be a Spanish mine, McKinley asked Congress for the authority to intervene in the conflict; a formal declaration of war came on April 25. From early May to mid-August, U.S. forces defeated Spain near Santiago harbor in Cuba, occupied Puerto Rico and seized Manila in the Philippines.
The Treaty of Paris, signed in December 1898 and narrowly ratified by Congress the following February, officially ended the Spanish-American War. In it, Spain ceded Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines to the United States and Cuba gained its independence. While opponents of the treaty derided it as "imperialist," McKinley took his cue from the majority of Americans who supported it, sending troops to quell a nationalist insurgency that broke out in the Philippines shortly after the war ended.
McKinley's administration also pursued an influential "Open Door" policy aimed as supporting American commercial interests in China and ensuring a strong U.S. position in world markets. In 1900, McKinley backed up this policy by sending American troops to help put down the Boxer Rebellion, a nationalist uprising against foreign intervention in China.
Reelection and Assassination
In 1900, McKinley again faced William Jennings Bryan, who ran on an anti-imperialism platform, and was reelected with a greater margin of victory than he obtained four years earlier.
The outcome reflected the American public's satisfaction with the outcome of the Spanish-American War and the country's economic prosperity.
After his second inauguration in March 1901, McKinley embarked on a tour of western states, where he was greeted by cheering crowds. The tour ended in Buffalo, New York, where he gave a speech on September 5 in front of 50,000 people at the Pan-American Exposition.
The following day, McKinley was standing in a receiving line at the exposition when a unemployed Detroit mill worker named Leon Czolgosz shot him twice in the chest at point-blank range. (Czolgosz, an anarchist, later admitted to the shooting and claimed to have killed the president because he was the "enemy of the people." He was executed in October 1901.)
Rushed to a Buffalo hospital, McKinley initially received a hopeful prognosis, but gangrene set in around his wounds and he died eight days later. Vice President Theodore Roosevelt succeeded him.
Pulitzer (right) and Hearst (left) go to war over the Spanish American War Hearst played a huge part in arousing the public’s intention to go to war with Spain. This activity reached its zenith after several years of articles concerning the situation in Cuba, Hearst ran a series of articles blaming the Spanish for the sinking of the MAINE with a mine.
Historically, William Randolph Hearst and his brand of 'yellow journalism' is credited (or blamed) for inflaming American public opinion against the Spanish in Cuba …
Sensationalized news coverage is nothing new to today's media, but in the 1890s, it played a pivotal role in America's decision to go to war with Spain. William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer, ...
Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst, full-length, dressed as the Yellow Kid, a satire of their role in drumming up USA public opinion to go to war with Spain. The two newspaper owners credited with developing the journalistic style of yellow journalism were William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer .
SUMMARY Law breaker U.S. President William McKinley moved against the Hawaiian Kingdom by disregarding U.S. President Grover Clevelands return of Hawaii to Queen Liliuokalani in 1893, 1894, and 1897. U.S. President William McKinley "proclaimed" Hawaii to be a territory of the U.S. He had the army, navy, and Federal personnel help develop the territory. Annexation was claimed, however, it was a lie. McKinley, a U.S. Constitution law breaker was at the helm and moved against Spain shortly after. Appears that "use of force" was used prior to War which was a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
"The Congress shall have Power To ...declare War....
Article I, Section 8, Clause 11"
Spain, Cuba, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines were affected.
Spain was Plundered Upon on April 21, 1898, then Spain declared War on April 24, 1898, and the U.S. Congress Gave Approval for War with Spain on April 25, 1898.
What does this mean?
It means that U.S. President William McKinley was a U.S. Constitution law breaker, failed to recognize rule of law since his election into office, disregarded Treaties of Friendships with the Hawaiian Kingdom and Spain:
Oct 05, 2018 · The Hawaiian Kingdom entered into three treaties with the United States: 1849 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation; 1875 Commercial Treaty of Reciprocity; and 1883 Convention Concerning the Exchange of Money Orders. In 1893 there were only 44 independent and sovereign States, which included the Hawaiian Kingdom, as compared to 197 today.
Treaties and Conventions Concluded Between the Hawaiian Kingdom and Other Powers, Since 1825 Hawaii Pacific Commercial Advertiser Print. , 1875 - Hawaii - 115 pag
Treaty between US and Spain
Pinckney's Treaty (1795) established a positive relationship between the United States and Spain. The treaty defined the boundaries of the United States with the Spanish colonies and guaranteed the United States navigation rights on the Mississippi River.
The U.S. through U.S. Constitution and Treaty breaker U.S. President William McKinley voted in place has diminished it's place among nations since 1897.
Documented lies are noted in the records, including "
It was foreign affairs that would determine McKinley's presidential legacy, beginning with an ongoing conflict in Cuba, where Spanish forces were attempting to repress a revolutionary movement. Though the American press and public were outraged by the bloodshed, McKinley hoped to avoid intervention, and pressed Spain to make concessions.
After the sinking of the U.S. battleship Maine in Havana's harbor in February 1898 was linked (erroneously, as was later discovered) to an external explosion presumed to be a Spanish mine, McKinley asked Congress for the authority to intervene in the conflict; a formal declaration of war came on April 25.
Note: the ERROR or "erroneously" in parenthesis which means that the information within the parenthesis is not really there according to legal eagles interpretation.....but let everyone recognize that the Spanish-American War was based on LIES.
1) Failure of applying the U.S. Constitution which allows Congress to declare war.
2) Aggression used by U.S. President William McKinley be Warring with Spain BEFORE approval of Congress. Note the events above.
3) The Error caused loss of lives
How many people died in the Spanish American War?
2,910
The Spanish–American War began on April 25, 1898, and ended on August 12, 1898. Cuban and Spanish dead vastly outnumbered American deaths. While 2,910 American military personnel died during the war, just 345 were combat deaths.
One century after the war experts still do not a clear idea about the Spanish casualties in the Spanish American War. Data varies but indicates that between 55,000 and 60,000 men died. Of these men, 90 % died from malaria, dysentery and other diseases; the remaining 10 % died during the battles or later as a consequence of their injuries.
How many people died in the Spanish-American War? 379 U.S. dead; considerably higher though undetermined Cuban and Filipino casualties. Spain casualties: unknown.
4) The Hearst Newspapers played a large role in encouraging War on the masses who read their newspapers.
5) The following are 6 Things You May Not Know About the Spanish-American War:
1. We remember the Maine, but we don’t understand it. In January 1898, as tensions flared between Cuban revolutionaries and Spanish troops, the battleship USS Maine was sent to Havana to protect American interests and civilians there. On February 15 a massive explosion sank the vessel, killing 266 sailors. Sensationalist newspaper articles and advocates of war accused the Spanish of destroying the ship, and a naval inquiry soon concluded that a mine had caused the disaster. With the rallying cry “Remember the Maine!” galvanizing Americans, President William McKinley reluctantly signed a resolution supporting Cuban independence and threatening Spain with military action. Today, however, experts generally doubt the Spanish had a hand in Maine’s demise. Though we may never know for sure what unleashed the tragedy that helped spark a war, recent investigations have implicated the ship’s design, ammunition storage and coal bunker.
2. The Rough Riders didn’t ride. Famously led by future president Theodore Roosevelt, the 1st U.S. Volunteer Cavalry played a key—though likely exaggerated—role in the decisive Battle of San Juan Hill and took part in other confrontations of the Spanish-American War. The unit’s title and nickname notwithstanding, this crew of cowboys, sheriffs, outlaws and elites did very little riding. That’s because transport constraints forced the soldiers to abandon nearly all of their horses and mules in Florida when they shipped out to Cuba. While Roosevelt did indeed saddle up to lead his men, most of the Rough Riders fought on foot.
3. For troops on both sides, yellow fever and typhoid were the real enemies. The Spanish-American War claimed the lives of 3,000 Americans, but only a small fraction of these soldiers died in combat. Yellow fever and typhoid decimated entire units, swiftly spreading through camps in the Caribbean and the southeastern United States. Illness had already ravaged the Spanish force even before the conflict began, leaving only 55,000 out of 230,000 troops healthy enough to fight. After the war, the U.S. Army set up a commission to investigate the yellow fever problem, which continued to plague thousands of men still stationed in Cuba. Overseen by Walter Reed, scientists conducted experiments outside Havana that proved for the first time that mosquitoes spread the potentially fatal sickness.
4. When American troops captured Guam, the island’s Spanish defenders welcomed them. On June 20, 1898, the cruiser USS Charleston arrived off the shore of Guam on orders to capture the Spanish-controlled island. Steaming into the harbor, it fired 12 rounds to rout out any enemy combatants lurking in the long-abandoned fort of Santa Cruz. To the Americans’ surprise, a Spanish officer rowed out to their ship to welcome them; to his (possibly greater) astonishment, he was quickly taken prisoner. As it turned out, neither the 60 Spanish marines stationed on Guam nor the island’s civilians had any idea that war had broken out two months earlier.
5. The Spanish-American War saw the birth of Gitmo. In June 1898, American and Cuban forces wrested control of Guantánamo Bay from the Spanish. The strategically important harbor provided a crucial refuge for the U.S. Navy when hurricane season struck soon after. Several years later, in February 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt signed a treaty with Cuba’s new government that leased the area to the United States for 2,000 gold coins—or roughly $4,000—annually. (Though rent is still paid to this day, Fidel Castro’s government refuses to cash the checks.) Guantánamo Bay Naval Base, sometimes called Gitmo, is now America’s oldest overseas military installation.
6. The term “yellow journalism” came from a popular comic strip of the 1890s. The blaring headlines and frenzied news articles published during the Spanish-American War are considered prime examples of the hyperbolic reporting style known as yellow journalism. The press helped fuel not only Americans’ enthusiasm for the conflict abroad but also fervent nationalism—often bordering on hostility to outsiders—on the home front. The term grew out of a feud between two prominent newspaper publishers, William Randolph Hearst of the New York Journal and Joseph Pulitzer of the New York World. Beginning in 1895, Pulitzer printed a comic strip featuring a boy in a yellow nightshirt, entitled “The Yellow Kid”; Hearst later poached the cartoon’s creator and ran it himself. Both broadsheets brimmed with highly embellished reports, many focusing on Spain’s alleged atrocities, throughout the Spanish-American War.
" I killed the president because he was the enemy of the good people, the good working people. I am not sorry for my crime. I am sorry I could not see my father. " — Czolgosz on why he killed McKinley. Leon Frank Czolgosz was the assassin of the 25th President of the United States of America, William McKinley.
Leon Frank Czolgosz (Alpena, 5 de maio de 1873 — 29 de outubro de 1901) foi um ativista anarquista estadunidense de origem polonesa que em 1901 assassinou o presidente dos …
HONEST RAMIFICATIONS Return of lands, etc. to the Hawaiian Kingdom, Spain, Cuba, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and all territories wrongfully acquired since the time of U.S. President William McKinley and his followers. Respect for all. aloha.
No comments:
Post a Comment