Article

2004-12-06 Home Front: WoT

What part of "for the duration" don't the lawyers understand?

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Don 2004-12-06 13:29|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Just for reference TITLE 10 United States Code,Subtitle A, PART II, CHAPTER 39, paragraph 671a says - "Unless terminated at an earlier date by the Secretary concerned, the period of active service of any member of an armed force is extended for the duration of any war in which the United States may be engaged and for six months thereafter."
To cut off whining, SJR 23 is the invocation of war powers. And to those who further whine that just because the phrase declaration of war is not printed on the document, the author Sen. J.Biden (D-DEL) says otherwise here - http://biden.senate.gov/press/release/01/10/2001A24C02.htm

M: (Inaudible) Talbot(?). Senator, thank you for this broad gauged approach to the problems we face. My question is this, do you foresee the need or the expectation of a Congressional declaration of war, which the Constitution calls for, and if so, against whom? (Scattered Laughter)

JB: The answer is yes, and we did it. I happen to be a professor of Constitutional law. I'm the guy that drafted the Use of Force proposal that we passed. It was in conflict between the President and the House. I was the guy who finally drafted what we did pass. Under the Constitution, there is simply no distinction ... Louis Fisher(?) and others can tell you, there is no distinction between a formal declaration of war, and an authorization of use of force. There is none for Constitutional purposes. None whatsoever. And we defined in that Use of Force Act that we passed, what ... against whom we were moving, and what authority was granted to the President.

Posted by Don 2004-12-06 1:46:59 PM|| 2004-12-06 1:46:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 WOW. See Reuters RUMSFELD STAYS ON, Hopes Troops Quit Iraq in 4 years. Again What is for the duration??

Andrea

Posted by andrea 2004-12-06 6:41:28 PM|| 2004-12-06 6:41:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 Technically; For the duration = till Congress repeals SJR:23. BTW, that is how we ended our involvement in WWI, Congress repealed the war declaration.
Now practically, they would be discharged in a much shorter period of time. These individual have Military Occupational Specialties (MOS), skills, which are undermanned in the manpower inventory. The system is set up to move new manpower, recruitment, into the shortage skills. However, it takes some time to get the soldier from induction to the job. Somewhere between nine months to, rarely, two years, these individuals should be released from active duty. If their original enlistment contract had lapsed, then the individual would be not be subject to further duty particularly if the enlistment was with the National Guard, which was federalized for the duty.
The Navy folks who haunt here could enlight us with the situation for a sailor deployed on ships, what happens when their enlisted contract lapses in the middle of the Indian Ocean, for example.

Posted by Don 2004-12-06 7:45:36 PM|| 2004-12-06 7:45:36 PM|| Front Page Top

14:45 Anonymous
00:20 Sock Puppet of Doom
00:03 lex
23:57 CrazyFool
23:57 lex
23:47 Mike Sylwester
23:38 mojo
23:36 Aris Katsaris
23:33 Pappy
23:32 Stephen
23:20 ex-lib
23:16 ex-lib
23:13 Asedwich
23:12 Asedwich
23:12 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:11 mojo
23:06 ex-lib
23:03 Frank G
23:02 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:01 Asedwich
23:00 Frank G
22:59 Pappy
22:58 Frank G
22:58 Asedwich