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
Aridog, seehyde comments @ 10:22 and 11:09. They’re your friends, perhaps you can get them to elaborate on what they mean by a “REAL war”. I believe in the past DBQ has advocated for ground troops, I’m sure she’ll correct me if I’m wrong.
Oh, dang…somebody just mentioned “Cheney” again…that truculent dreg left over from the Nixon West Wing….and my hives are forming again. Can’t we just ignore that clown for once, both sides, put him out to pasture? I don’t consider the HuffPo a reliable source for how much influence Cheney has today. YMMV.
I’m admitting I have not read every word on this thread. But I’ve not seen anyone here seriously advocating American ground forces in Syria or even back in Iraq. Certainly it has not been me….see my comment at 11:19 today. So just who are these bloodthirsty “arm-chair generals” of which we speak?
PS: Don’t bother with yammering on about Sen McCain. I don’t agree with him, but he did pay a price in combat, so his purview is not “armchair.” I think of him as I did Adm. Stockwell when he was slammed for being muddled, etc….by some armchair punks in both parties. Identify who these new armchair generals are today. Please?
Sam Stein:
“Tim Kaine: Congress Has Opened The Door To The ‘Cheney Pre-emptive War Doctine'”
Posted: 09/23/2014 11:27 am EDT
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/23/tim-kaine-war_n_5868302.html
Peter Van Buren:
“On Dutch TV Taking Iraq, Syria and ISIS”
September 17, 2014
Here I am on the Dutch television program “Nieuwsuur,” with former Republican Congressman Pete Hoekstra, discussing the futility of air strikes to resolve the Iraq/Syria/ISIS mess.
After a setup in Dutch by the anchor, and an Obama speech clip, the interview (about three minutes in) is in English.
http://wemeantwell.com/blog/2014/09/17/on-dutch-tv-taking-iraq-syria-and-isis/
Peter Van Buren:
“Apocalypse Now, Iraq Edition”
Posted: 09/23/2014 9:29 am EDT
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-van-buren/apocalypse-now-iraq-edition_b_5867516.html
“Apocalypse Then — And Now
America’s wars in the Middle East exist in a hallucinatory space where reality is of little import, so if you think you heard all this before, between 2003 and 2010, you did. But for those of us of a certain age, the echoes go back much further. I recently joined a discussion on Dutch television where former Republican Congressman Pete Hoekstra made a telling slip of the tongue. As we spoke about ISIS, Hoekstra insisted that the U.S. needed to deny them “sanctuary in Cambodia.” He quickly corrected himself to say “Syria,” but the point was made.
We’ve been here before, as the failures of American policy and strategy in Vietnam metastasized into war in Cambodia and Laos to deny sanctuary to North Vietnamese forces. As with ISIS, we were told that they were barbarians who sought to impose an evil philosophy across an entire region. They, too, famously needed to be fought “over there” to prevent them from attacking us here. We didn’t say “the Homeland” back then, but you get the picture.
As the similarities with Vietnam are telling, so is the difference. When the reality of America’s failure in Vietnam finally became so clear that there was no one left to lie to, America’s war there ended and the troops came home. They never went back. America is now fighting the Iraq War for the third time, somehow madly expecting different results, while guaranteeing only failure. To paraphrase a young John Kerry, himself back from Vietnam, who’ll be the last to die for that endless mistake? It seems as if it will be many years before we know.”
Vie-oh-lence. Vie-oh-lence. It’s the only thing. To make them see sense.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddavenport/2014/09/22/congress-and-war-on-isis-just-bomb-the-place-and-tell-us-about-it-later-3/ “To be fair, the constitutional questions surrounding U.S. military action against ISIS are not easy. But those wanting Congress to play a larger role in declaring wars, and not simply defer to the Commander in Chief, have a right to be disappointed when Congress, in effect, gave itself a pass and left town early to go home and campaign. As Congressman Jack Kingston (R-GA) frankly admitted: “A lot of people would like to stay on the sideline and say, ‘Just bomb the place and tell us about it later.’ It’s an election year.”
What Congress did was authorize the arming and training of local forces in Syria, passed by both houses with some bipartisan support. What Congress could and should have done was debate the larger question of authorizing U.S. military action against ISIS. But Congress declined to address that larger question, not wanting to take a tough stand just before the November elections.”
Such foul language. I got a comment deleted for using BS. So much for rules of fairness and equally enforced.
Well, it’s about damn time he bombed the SOB’s.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
“I reluctantly support the air campaign and do so largely because it is not now a US action. ISIS is the world’s problem, just as the Nazis were and requires a world response.”
Thanks. That was an honest answer. I also reluctantly support some air strikes because ISIS is a world wide threat. If not this moment….soon.
The problems I have with Obama’s actions are similar to the Professor. The use of Executive authority to bypass the Constitutional authority of Congress to declare war and the use of an OLD approval of Congress given to Bush.
“The White House says Bush-era congressional authorizations for the war on al-Qaida and the Iraq invasion give Obama the authority to expand the fighting in Syria and Iraq without new approval by Congress under the 1973 War Powers Act. That law, passed at the height of the Vietnam War, serves as a constitutional check on the president’s power to declare war without congressional consent. It requires presidents to notify Congress within 48 hours of military action and limits the use of military forces to no more than 60 days unless Congress authorizes force or declares war.” http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/2014/9/12/obama_claims_bushera_authority_for_airstrikes.htm
Under this rationale once an authority has been granted it can be used almost in perpetuity by future presidents. At what point do these ‘authorizations’ expire?
The second and main issue that I have is the distinct suspicion that there is no real end game plan. No strategy to WIN. To decisively and completely defeat the enemy. So we are using air strikes. Now what?. How do we plan to eliminate,contain, destroy ISIS?. What new threat will rise again when we give up without completing the job? I realize we can’t broadcast these things to the enemy, but I “feel” that we don’t have a real plan and based on some statements by experts that Obama’s stated strategy is going to be a failure.
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/opinion/2014/09/11/opinion-five-reasons-why-obamas-isis-strategy-will-fail/
Andrew O’Hehir:
“Obama, the slide back to Iraq and the power of the “Deep State””
http://www.salon.com/2014/09/20/obama_the_slide_back_to_iraq_and_the_power_of_the_deep_state/
“If you haven’t read Lofgren’s essay, “Anatomy of the Deep State,” which was published on Bill Moyers’ website last February, it might be the most important document of American political journalism in this decade, let alone this year. It’s even more trenchant now than it was in the relatively innocent days of last winter. He discusses the contradiction I mention above in great detail: Even as the Republicans have succeeded in bringing the most routine parliamentary business of Washington to a grinding halt, the president is permitted to “liquidate American citizens without due processes, detain prisoners indefinitely without charge, conduct dragnet surveillance on the American people without judicial warrant and engage in … witch hunts against federal employees.” While Republicans indulge their constituents’ cuckoo-for-Cocoa Puffs fantasies about Obama the Kenyan-socialist dictator, almost no one in Congress ever mentions any of this stuff. (The notable exceptions are Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who appear to have actually read the Constitution and are treated as left-wing and right-wing kooks, respectively.)”
http://billmoyers.com/2014/02/21/anatomy-of-the-deep-state/
Exactly LeeJ. Bring back the draft, put some of their own ‘skin’ in the game. Full out war s what they want? Start with a Declaration, a draft and a War Tax. Big brave war talk by armchair generals is laughable without these three essentials.
This reminds me of Bill Clinton’s 1998 attacks on Iraq all over again. On the day before his impeachment vote set to start, he began sending missiles into Iraq and bombarded it with missiles for the next four days. It was called Operation Desert Fox but some critiques said it was like the plot from the movie “Wag the Dog”. At any rate, after being bombarded with missiles Saddam Hussein decided to challenge the “no fly zones”. That gave Clinton grounds to keep bombing Iraq almost daily for the next two years. There were no “boots on the ground”, so Clinton defenders sad it was not a war. Obama has already said he expects this adventurous bombing campaign into Syria/Iraq will last maybe three years. But there’s no “boots on he ground” (except for the thousands of boots on the ground) so it isn’t war. Farcical.
(Thanks AY)
He’s not “my guy” He is, whether you or others like it or not, the elected President of the United States. I reluctantly support the air campaign and do so largely because it is not now a US action. ISIS is the world’s problem, just as the Nazis were and requires a world response.
Brad what does your link have to do with the administration being the “most duplicitous in memory. The administration does not agree with McCain. That is nothing new. McCain has wanted troops on the ground for some time and the administration does not agree with that. Syria permitted the airstrikes. This is a hard road on the one hand get rid of Assad on the other need Syria for the air strikes. What would you have them to do. It is nice that so many armchair generals would like to see more of our sons and daughters go back and fight on the ground, way too many coming home maimed or in body bags.
It is why I think we need a draft back. Once people can see past their own limited vision, i.e. someone else doing the fighting, won’t effect me personally, the calls for troops on the ground and go it alone might well be muted.
And, I ask again… politically, why are we there?? It’s a silly question. The Turkish army could use ISIS for an afternoon of target practice. There is absolute no sound argument for this latest venture other than money-making. That way, it makes GREAT sense.
Where are those WMD?
This is the most duplicitous administration in memory.
White House Not With McCain on Syria
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/obama-administration-does-not-agree-with-mccains-call-for-air-strikes-in-syria/
That’s a rude and uncivil comment to LeeJ.