President Obama is again asserting his right to act unilaterally and without congressional approval in going to war. In what has become a mantra for this Administration, Obama reportedly told members of Congress that he does not need congressional approval to unleash a comprehensive military campaign against the Islamic State. The President informed a few members at a dinner — a striking image of how low congressional authority has become in our tripartite system of government.
We have been discussing the growing concerns over President Barack Obama’s series of unilateral actions in ordering agencies not to enforce law, effectively rewriting laws, and moving hundreds of millions of dollars from appropriated purposes to areas of his choosing. One of the greatest concerns has been his unchecked authority asserted in the national security area. I previously represented members of Congress in challenging Obama’s intervention in the Libyan civil war without a declaration from Congress. In the case, President Obama insisted that he alone determines what is a war and therefore when he needs a declaration. Since the court would not recognize standing to challenge the war, it left Obama free to engage in war operations in any country of his choosing. As with his approach in Libya, Syria and other combat operations (and most recently on whether he will resume the war in Iraq), Obama is again asserting his extreme view of executive power.
As in the past, Democrats are not just silent but actually applauding the circumvention of Congress — a precedent that will likely come back to haunt them if the next president is a Republican.
I have repeatedly testified (here and here and here and here) and wrote a column on President Obama’s increasing circumvention of Congress in negating or suspending U.S. laws. However, war is a particularly egregious form of this unilateralism since the Framers worked hard to limit such powers under Article I and Article II.
Not only is the United States about to enter a new military campaign based solely on the President’s authority but he is promising to fight to the Islamic State “wherever their strategic targets are.” That may suggest additional violation of international law if the United States acts unilaterally with regard to the borders of foreign nations. Michèle Flournoy, a former undersecretary of defense for policy, seems to anticipate and support such actions. She is quoted as saying “This is not an organization that respects international boundaries. You cannot leave them with a safe haven.” For some countries, that view may seem quite threatening since the United States has been repeatedly accused of bombing and conducting operations in other countries without approval.
Once again, we are left with the questions of any limiting principle to this new uber-presidency. A president can now unleash a military campaign without congressional approval that could involve multiple nations. Yet, Congress seems content, again, to watch in a purely pedestrian role as if this invitation to a “dinner” is a sufficient substitute for congressional authorization. While it is not a check or balance, the president did pick up the check.
Source: Washington Post
Saddam tried to make Kuwait stop its slant-drilling into and stealing Iraqi oil from the Rumalla oil field. The u.S. assured Saddam that it would not interfere with Iraq’s action against the Pedophile Emirs of Kuwait. IOW, the U.S. tricked Saddam, and used his actions as an excuse to invade Iraq.
slohrss29
I agree 100%. IMO, other than the obvious right wing shills, most people here
accept the NYT/NPR worldview and think that HRC is just peachy. Mention the phrase “Deep Politics” or the name Peter Dale Scott, and that would be enough for many of them to support an immediate invasion of somewhere…after sufficient time has lapsed for the target country to comply with suicidal sanctions – disguised as U.N.-mandated “suggestions” – natch.
Saddam was our stooge. When he decided to walk–that is looked into selling his oil without using dollars–that was his end game. Same with Putin, he isn’t doing much better against the PR blitz and false flag ops. Higher stakes with him though.
Yes, Jill is correct. We’ll just keep poking that hornets’ nest until something really bad happens. Kurds are our best buddies today. Well, the Turks are our NATO allies, if we support the kurds, where does that put us?? As you can see, this is just one folly after another. One of these days, the blowback is going to involve a really smart guy, and really bad things will happen. When you see republicrats together in arms, that’s real terror. Defense industry really sweetened the pot on this one. As pointed out above, The Saudis roll heads about every day. You’ve all fallen for an expensive marketing campaign. And not a real good one either. I would expect the people on this blog to see through these things. Some are seeing it for what it is, others… I’m not so sure.
slohrss29 – here is an article about NATO partner Turkey aiding ISIS
http://www.wnd.com/2014/09/nato-member-openly-aiding-isis/
eric:
You don’t know the correct number – but you know one million is wrong? How do you know that? Was it only 500,ooo? Will you accept that? If so, then that’s still too many innocent children who died from a contaminated water supply. maybe the other 500,000 died from lack of medical supplies and drugs needed for all the sick children there. You think that’s just fine and dandy? I don’t.
BTW – do you know who April Glaspie is ,,,. assuming she hasn’t been offed to prevent her from telling the truth about how the U.S. (James Baker) instructed her to give Sodom Hugh Sane the green light to invade the Pedophile state of Kuwait aka Iraq’s 22 Province.
bill mcwilliams – so you agree that 1 million dead children is an overstatement, now you are quibbling over the amount of the overstatement. Ah, give us a legitimate number.
bill mcwilliams,
I did not think the sanctions were “fine and dandy”. In fact, I said to you that one reason I supported OIF was because I opposed the indefinite continuation of the sanctions.
By then, we only had 3 choices with Iraq: indefinite sanctions and ‘containment’ (status quo), free a noncompliant Saddam, or give Saddam a last chance to comply under credible threat of regime change.
I was against both the status quo of indefinite sanctions and freeing noncompliant Saddam, so I supported giving Saddam a last chance to comply.
What alternative to the sanctions status quo did you advocate for? Free noncompliant Saddam? Or last chance to comply?
Ambassador Ryan Crocker on the ISIS crisis, Sept 8:
http://online.wsj.com/articles/ryan-crocker-islamic-state-is-getting-stronger-and-its-targeting-america-1410218507
max
EastAsia isn’t a country – but it’s true that the U.S. has waged war ON many countries throughout Asia.
http://justsecurity.org/14799/legal-theory-presidents-military-initiative-isil/
We’ve always been at war with EastAsia…
Straight ahead, Jill.
Obama cannot go against the wishes of the military/security complex, and remain in office, but imo, he sold out to them when he was a very young man, and now he’s stuck. Sadly, given his own wealth, and that to come starting in 2017, I think he probably has the same values and worldview as other elites.
After that speech, I think we need to stay out of it. Expecting Iraqi troops to do anything is ridiculous. The peshmerga troops can’t do it alone on the ground. How is an air war going to destroy ISIS?
It’s time Obama earned his peace prize. He is a man without the ability to see any answer except war. This is not the mark of intellect, nor of a just heart. It is the mind of a minion of war contractors.
Blowback will not keep Americans safe. The ceding of fundamental rights will not keep Americans safe. War will not help the civilians of Iraq. We are being told lies and it is time to stop believing those lies.
did he say he won’t start any new wars?
I just finished reading the text of Obama’s speech. Leaders put forth a goal and then establish short medium and long term objectives. I’m not just talking war, I’m talking anything. Obama talked about what we WILL NOT DO, what resources we will not use, and little time on goals and objectives. It’s like a house builder not showing you the plans, or even a picture of the house he’s building. But saying, “I won’t be using nail guns or scaffolding, I will use all types of saws and hammers.” But, he’s an adjunct professor, what could one expect.
eric:
You don’t know the correct number – but you know one million is wrong? How do you know that? Was it only 500,ooo? Will you accept that? If so, then that’s still too many innocent children who died from a contaminated water supply. maybe the other 500,000 died from lack of medical supplies and drugs needed for all the sick children there. You think that’s just fine and dandy? I don’t.
BTW – do you know who April Glaspie is ,,,. assuming she hasn’t been offed to prevent her from telling the truth about how the U.S. (James Baker) instructed her to give Sodom Hugh Sane the green light to invade the Pedophile state of Kuwait aka Iraq’s 22 Province.
bill mcwilliams: “the deaths of upwards of one million Iraqi children as the result of U.S. sanctions”
I’m confident, though it’s been a while since I did that piece of research, that figure isn’t accurate.
That being said, one reason I supported Operation Iraqi Freedom was my opposition to the toxic alternative: namely, the pre-OIF status quo with Saddam of the failing indefinitely stalemated ‘containment’.
By the close of the Clinton administration, after ten years of struggle as chief enforcer of the UN Security Council resolutions to disarm and rehabilitate Saddam Hussein, only 3 options remained for the US with Iraq:
A. Indefinitely continue and head-line the toxically corrupted, provocative, harmful, and crumbling sanctions and ‘containment’ status quo.
B. End the mission and release a noncompliant Saddam from constraint, in power, unreconstructed, and triumphant.
C. Give Saddam a final chance to comply under credible threat of regime change, and if he failed to comply, then bring Iraq into compliance with regime change.
Clinton ended his presidency where Bush started his: A.
After 9/11, Bush chose C. Bush’s choice meant we could stop being complicit with Saddam in purposely and uselessly causing the suffering of the Iraqi people, either through (hopefully) Saddam’s volitional compliance or, if Saddam refused his last chance, then Iraq’s compliance through regime change.
Since you opposed A and C, then that must mean you wanted B, or freeing a noncompliant, unreconstructed Saddam from constraint.
The problem with B, and the crumbling A for that matter, is the ISG Duelfer Report shows that a free Saddam meant an unreconstructed Saddam rearmed with WMD. Saddam’s motive was defeating the US-led Iraq enforcement and rearming Iraq, not compliance and rehabilitation. He was already reconstituting Iraq’s NBC capabilities, with an active program in the IIS, and was intent on fully restoring Iraq’s WMD and advancing his regional ambitions.
Lot’s of good baseball games on if you don’t want to listen to lies and alibis from a failed President. Tell me if he’s grown a pair yet? Aridog, I don’t know if I dislike Cheney or his droning daughter more. Liberals here don’t understand when we hate Republicans and are intellectually honest. And, when we say something good about a Dem they are suspicious. I learned from decades in my biz that highly suspicious people are the ones you need to be VERY wary of, they’re duplicitous. Many liberals are just hardwired to just use half their brain. You can’t talk w/ them.
Eric, I will say this, if fear if ISIS wins more dominance, I think we’re all at greater risk. I don’t think for a minute we were ever ‘safe’ from terrorism.I just hope we don’t find out in five years this greater risk has been hyped up.
5:09 PM – 10 Sep 2014
Ta-Nehisi Coates @tanehisicoates tweeted:
Belief in the fundamental and divine purity of a state, allows you to dismiss it’s wanton brutality–past and present.