I just completed a two-city debate with former Bush official John Yoo on executive power with a focus on undeclared wars. It appears Yoo won the debate . . . at least with President Obama. Indeed, Yoo appears to have had Obama at “hello” to quote Jerry Maguire. Without any declaration of war, Obama has launched attacks against targets in Syria — an act of war by any measure and a violation of international law.
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.
The most serious acts of unilateral presidential action falls within war powers — powers that the Framers expressly and carefully limited to prevent precisely this type of attack. Of course, the Administration does not use the word “war.” 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.
The White House insisted that this was “military action” but that “[g]iven that these operations are ongoing, we are not in a position to provide additional details at this time. The decision to conduct theses strikes was made earlier today by the U.S. Central Command commander under authorization granted him by the commander in chief.”
The Administration is now calling this a “sustained campaign” with no estimate on how long it will take. So we are again attacking another nation without a declaration or even a debate in Congress. Members are allowed to avoid their constitutional duties of clearly declaring a war while the President has been allowed, again, to jettison any limitations on his ability to wage war.
It is one thing to take out our own captured Humvees (with missiles costing $250,000 a shot) in Iraq with the permission of the country and hitting cities and targets in Syria against the express position of the government. That is clearly an act of war to prosecute a military campaign against the territory of a sovereign nation.
We are continuing an assault on basic principles of international war and returning the word to a state of nature. When another country elects to take our individuals or targets in the United States, what precisely will we claim as authority. We have assumed the role of Roper from “A Man For All Seasons“:
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!
Source: ABC News
leej, Do you support this air campaign, or are you just happy Obama got some support and lookin’ for some love for your guy?
Comment nixed for some reason?
Frank Gorshin was born to play The Riddler.
IS has declared itself a nation state, although unrecognized by anybody, thus they make themselves open to a declaration of war.
I think IS deserves to be destroyed, but unlike so any I do not believe that IS presented a massive immediate danger to the U.S. “Homeland”, but it does to corporate and foreign policy interests. Terrorism exists to generate fear and our own Government has been complicit in maintaining that fear &
The threat because it suits their agenda.
Once IS is degraded or even destroyed, what next?
There will still be massive instability in the region.
Shia and Sunni will still regard and hate each other as apostates.
Other radical and terror organzations will arise.
All military action we take to address this is tactical, and can only BE tactical.
Only a strategic vision and a comprehensive strategy (which will never happen and may not be possible) will have any lasting affect.
wrxdave, I retrieved your comment at 11:29.
Now it’s undestood. We’re betting for a seat.
DBQ, Great analogy. Parents need puppy training lessons. You tell a puppy once. If they don’t obey, you gently but firmly, w/ a pleasant voice, make them obey. Puppies and children CRAVE limits and structure. It tells them they are loved and safe.
http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d281c11a96b4ad082fe88aa0db04305/Article_2014-09-23-US–Obama-Islamic%20State/id-889f0a1e85224f7086bcca41f18cfdb1
Obama scores coalition victory with Arab strikes
I’ve watched several news channels this morning, including CNN, FOX, FOX Business, and Local NBC. Sure sounded to me like Republicans were supporting the President. In his speech, very carefully crafted rhetorically, he left the door wide open for infantry on the ground as and if necessary. His final remark was an expression of gratitude to our “troops.”
I disagreed with one thing he said, and a policy we’ve had for a while…and that is still treating Assad as an enemy…it is all the rebels in Syria that are our enemy, and his too. Hello? Assad may be a beast, but less a threat than Saddam was, and hindsight is showing us how invading Iraq has played out…even worse (ISIL) elements are on the move. After a dozen years in Afghanistan, the Taliban is still there, just not in Kabul, yet. Same for our meddling with Qaddafi and Libya…we supported folks we knew nothing about, and that devolved in to Benghazi, and subsequently Tripoli. When the truth is told, my guess is that we’ll find out how ISIL/ISIS et al got their newer weapons initially (before they gathered up the fleeing Iraqi military weapons we gave them) .,..through Benghazi out of Libya. I’ll listen to any evidence of the weapons we sought to recover in Libya being returned to the USA. So far not a peep on that one.
Finally, I’ve been calling veteran friends and acquaintances I know who have spent at least 365 days & a wake-up in infantry combat, or more deployments from Vietnam through today. My opinion, and others like me, is not counted because I did not do a full tour, nor was I serving in infantry in deployment, although 11B was my secondary MOS. I was shot at and shot back, in the boonies a times, but that is not the same as patrolling daily every day and dealing with ambushes and setting them. So far I’ve not had one 11B, etc., tell me they would want to see US ground troops, infantry and armor, back in Iraq or Syria.
I am wondering if Assad’s military isn’t the only one that can defeat ISIL on the ground, with coalition help from the air. I cannot believe we didn’t notify Assad of our intentions as the assault from the air began. Are we back to picking the least offensive enemy to make an ally? Seems like it. It’s not like we’ve not done it before…think WWII and the eastern front.
Just as the hardline leadership requires Hamas to remain in power, so that they may remain in power, we will NEVER “win” or even reduce the causes of terrorism, any more than we have reduced drug use or drug supplies, because both the War on Terror and the War on Drugs (both prosecuted in much the same way) serve a purpose for the Powers that be and those Agencies created to prosecute those wars. That is why the DEA has become a lobbying arm when it comes to the drug laws they are charged with enforcing.
Great column.
Of course ISIS are bad guys. They still evidently haven’t rolled as many heads as the Saudis have as of late–according to a post on this blog. It just all seems to be so convenient right now. “Bomb ISIS and Assad, throw in some side volleys to the other fringe countries over there…” Looks awfully like a perpetuation instead of a solution to me. There will be someone new next week to bomb. It never ends!
Congress has shown they only care about their political backs and party.They, and the right, and others, complained the president went golfin a few weeks back while crises were going around all around. Why is it you rarely, if that often, hear people saying, the congress has abdicated its responsibility and to go on a vacation, after a vacation while there was no doubt action was being considered is an abject failure and relinquishing of their responsibility(ies) as a branch of this government.
Funny how Pannetta and others saying the president should have done this over a year ago. Then he would most probably not been able to engage other countries, including Syria permitting the airstrikes, much less congress giving their ok. Had he asked congress would have done what they have consistently done with this president, said no way the president is wrong. I am now waiting for them to get back form their vacations, the ones on the right, and say the president should never have done airstikes and getting other countries involved, so this is not a US operation, is a bad thing.
The professor keeps ging afte the president. Professor. would you have preferred he go it alone? And this has not been declared a war. In addition congress has been saying for the past few weeks the president has (blank) days left before we have to give him our okay. and then they go on vacation instead of staying here to hash this out and give, or maybe not give, their okay..
@ David. Did Congress even get an opportunity to say yes or no to this war action? It is my understanding that the Executive Branch goes to Congress, the Legislative, to ask for a declaration of war. Did Obama do this? He didn’t in Lybia. [Which is the main thrust of Turley’s argument about runaway executive power]When did the President become a King who can just waive his scepter and commit the men and women of our armed forces to war. When did he get the power to appropriate funds to pay for a war. That is Congress’ power of the purse.
The weaselly cowards in Congress are happy to let Obama make the decisions for them. This way they don’t have to go on record as being pro or anti war. Right before an important election. That way they can be re-elected without having to actually take a stand on anything.
And I 100% agree with Nick. If we ARE going to go to war……do it to WIN. These half@ssed fake wars where we try not to hurt anyone’s feelings and pretend that people don’t get hurt in war are the reason we have more and more violence throughout the world. It is like the parents of unruly children who just threaten punishment and never carry through. The kids soon figure out that you are just full of hot air and they can ignore you.
What the majority of Americans want does not matter if it is unconstitutional (unless they change it).
The majority does not overrule the Constitution or what is “right” – thankfully.
The tyranny of public opinion is terrible indeed.
If it is such a good idea then there should be no problem getting Congressional approval; even bad ideas – such as the second invasion of Iraq – received Congressional approval (even Hillary!). There would not be a problem getting an AUF or probably even a Declaration of War on IS if the President simply asked; but he does not fear not getting it, he fears limitations on it, and the debate on it. He can avoid both by by simply not asking.
Glenn Greenwald:
“Syria becomes the 7th predominantly Muslim country bombed by 2009 Nobel Peace Laureate”
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/23/nobel-peace-prize-fact-day-syria-7th-country-bombed-obama/
“Six weeks of bombing hasn’t budged ISIS in Iraq, but it has caused ISIS recruitment to soar. That’s all predictable: the U.S. has known for years that what fuels and strengthens anti-American sentiment (and thus anti-American extremism) is exactly what they keep doing: aggression in that region. If you know that, then they know that. At this point, it’s more rational to say they do all of this not despite triggering those outcomes, but because of it. Continuously creating and strengthening enemies is a feature, not a bug, as it is what then justifies the ongoing greasing of the profitable and power-vesting machine of Endless War.
If there is anyone who actually believes that the point of all of this is a moral crusade to vanquish the evil-doers of ISIS (as the U.S. fights alongside its close Saudi friends), please read Professor As’ad AbuKhalil’s explanation today of how Syria is a multi-tiered proxy war. As the disastrous Libya “intervention” should conclusively and permanently demonstrate, the U.S. does not bomb countries for humanitarian objectives. Humanitarianism is the pretense, not the purpose.”
(http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/syrian-wars-proxy)
Well said, Dave.
In the meantime, we’ll borrow on more credit from China to buy bombs from the defense industry to drop on those guys. Guess they’ll keep letting us go in debt until they can just buy the whole country out from underneath of us. Looks like the future dictator we’re making here will paid by the Chinese.
I agree with Randyjet. And for the reasons that this blog will not post. I started out early today before there was one comment. The Word Press would not post my articulate comment on the difference between War against a nation state which is An Act of War requiring a Declaration of War, and a military use of force against pirates on land or sea. Terrorists can be killed without an act of war against a nation state. And terrorists who live, work and prey, within some lame nation state or pirate territory, can be attacked by our Commander and Chief through our military forces. Without a Declaration of War. See the Constittuion: Article I, Section 8, clause ten.
We are certainly facing the devil in ISIS and Obama is using
It to flatten a few more laws. We are all standing in a high
wind with no where to hide. I believe the devil is about to
win.
This BarkinDog is getting tired of barking. My boots are on the ground and made for walking. That is what I will do. One of these days these boots are gonna walk all over you. Are you ready Boots!
A runaway Executive Branch while the Legislative and Judicial branches have been progressively abdicating their responsibilities to act as a check on the Executive since the 70s. Since that abdication does not affect their corporate sponsors it has continued to the point until now it is near total.
So many agencies of the executive branch now have police powers, from the FBI to the EPA and all of those agencies are fully militarized, with armored vehicles and their own air power. Even Hitler was the democratically elected Chancellor of Germany, so how is this not a road to eventual dictatorship; simply awaiting a chief executive willing to exercise the growing powers we are accepting them taking???