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
I read most of this thread a couple of times now and I understand the differences of opinion. Perhaps it is odd, but I find my self agreeing (or torn, take your pick) with a fair amount of both sides of the discussion. I agree that no ground war is worth the fight if not designed and provisioned to be won decisively and relatively quickly. I worry that we might no do that, possibly because we cannot with the resources we have today and impending RIF of some 80,000 military. I think we need the opinions and advice of some regular grunts.
I said way earlier on this thread I was contacting veterans that I know or am acquainted with who served in 11B and 11C MOS’s (or equivalent USMC or Navy, who provides the combat medics for the USMC aka Corpsman, similar to the Army 68W MOS), and one 18C so far. And so far not one of them has said they’d support sending ground troops back in to Iraq or in to Syria. When I served back in the days of M48, M60, M113, M114, M551, et al., as a 63H, and filling a 63Z slot for about a year, I saw the work that the infantry soldiers and medics did, (and stood in awe of them) and I saw the impact of war on their equipment. Because of that, I consider their “vote” on go or no go with troops on the ground to be what should guide mine….and everyone else’s including Congress.
I am convinced we are consulting the wrong people on whether the troops on the ground is a viable plan. I suggest Congress invite a few hundred combat veterans to testify, and I mean the ones who have not already formed a negative agenda and narrative and taken public stances. Just ask the regular men and women who’ve served, in ground combat roles, including medical, from 1959 through today and see what the polling determines.
I realize I am naive in such thinking. I just think we’ve screwed up in Libya, then Iraq, and shortly by picking sides in Syria that make no sense…e.g., we should have no confidence in any of the “rebels”…my gut feeling is that we lack a sufficient understanding of Arab cultures, tribal loyalties, and the fact that all of the rebel groups are essentially one and the same…e.g., we need to go with the strongest man standing in Syria…and that man is Assad.
Me: “Standing US law – PL 105-388 (1998), which was reiterated in PL 107-243 – also authorized the post-war peace operations in Iraq, which was followed by UNSCR 1511 (2003).”
Correction: PL 105-338 (1998), not PL 105-388.
Part of the problem is a two-party system in need of major overhaul. The Framers designed a bi-cameral system (House & Senate) not a bi-partisan system. Having said that the Framers would likely have supported a two-party system ONLY if it created healthy checks & balances and a healthy competition for ideas – a counter balance to absolute power.
Today’s system prevents both checks & balances and healthy competition. Party labels actually create party-line votes: a politician will be punished by his own party for voting independently on behalf of the citizens in his state.
What if we eliminate the political parties entirely and have “two-sides for individual issues”? A politician could support equal marriage rights and reasonable gun rights representing the citizens in his state, not dictated to by his political party. This war vote result would likely be different in this system.
Also more referendum ballots (voters create the priorities) and instant run-off voting may be worth debate.
If we are against the war then let us begin showing our opposition. Shut Down the War or We Will Shut Down The Government! I say that we should set a date for say October 1 and have a March On Washington. Block bridges, block mass transit trains, stop traffic, block the entrances to Congress on Capital Hill. Let us have another May Day like we did in 1971. Have your kids wear black armbands to school starting tomorrow. Stop paying taxes. Vote your Congressman or Congresswoman out of office. Tell your Senator to pound sand. Do not let your kid join the army. No more of this: “All the way with LBJ” crap. Tell Obama he is an Obumbo and to pull out now like his father should have. Start barking!
BarkinDog – if your kid is over 18 they get to do what they want about the Armed Services. And the Armed Services have been great for my students I have always supported them if they wanted to go.
Groty: “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”.”
The trigger for ODF was Saddam’s continued failure to comply with the UN mandates as demonstrated by the UNSCOM Butler Report. 4 years later, the trigger for OIF was Saddam’s continued failure to comply with the UN mandates as demonstrated by the UNMOVIC Cluster Document.
Groty: “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. ”
It was counter-fire against Iraq’s anti-aircraft fire.
Groty: “There were no “boots on the ground”, so Clinton defenders sad it was not a war.”
The no-fly zone enforcing UNSCR 688, ODF enforcing UNSCR 687, and the rest of Clinton’s military actions with Saddam used the authority of PL 102-1, the Gulf War authorization. The actions were practically different, but from a legal standpoint, bombing Iraq was indistinguishable from either ground action.
Btw
this IS an impeachable offense
people like annie and randy should be deported.
Rotting festering boils of partisan politics that should be lanced
Dust Bunny,
I’m not satisfied with your support of a draft. You’ve got to put your MONEY on the line. let’s insist that It will cost ALL of us to get this war. Let’s see if you, and all Americans, are willing to put your money on the line.
Sorry, Annie. I think it is far too easy for us to sacrifice others sons and daughters – all while voicing deep regret, of course.
Silly Mspo.
Everyone knows it’s just like training a puppy.
the obama corporation is determined to get their hands on that syrian pipeline that runs thru turkey there is no isis and their propaganda is ridiculous hilarious how isis is only taking over the towns that run along the syrian- turkey border the same border the pipeline is being built under.
Annie,
I don’t think “skin in the game” is the right criteria. The right criteria is “you want war? PAY FOR IT. The War Tax should be a 10% increase in your tax rate (wouldn’t want to see the deficit grow, now would we.).” I bet that will help them make up their minds.
Also, the House, who controls the purse, had no problem voting innumerable times on ACA and they are very creative in defunding ACA and other Obama programs. Let the cowardly weasels come back, debate, and vote on funding the bombing.
docmadison – why 10% for a war tax? why not 1%? why not 5%? Why not cut all non-essential federal offices and jobs?
RossHeckmann,
You’re welcome.
The thing to keep in mind, which was the main takeaway from my International Law class, is that IL authority rests on sovereign national authority in the acquiescence and – when volitional submission lacks – the enforcement.
LeeJ, at 6:59. Sure they made a deal. But ISIS is fighting the Turkish Kurd problem for them. Been a hot war between the Turkish gov and Kurd population for quite some time. It’s to Turkey’s benefit ISIS beat down the Kurds. Turkey does have to walk somewhat of a fine line. It’s all about vested interests over there, and we need to have no part of it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/23/turkey-military-isis_n_5870532.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5-news%7Cdl3%7Csec3_lnk3%26pLid%3D534502
Turkey Mulls Military Role Against ISIS
(This article out today)
Oops. Dust Bunny Queen: “Under this rationale once an authority has been granted it can be used almost in perpetuity by future presidents.“ – forgot to close the 1st DBQ quote.
Thanks Eric. Yeah, there’s no shortcuts, when I can I’m going to have to read up on this better.
Dust Bunny Queen: “Under this rationale once an authority has been granted it can be used almost in perpetuity by future presidents.
Of course – and that’s exactly as it should be. Our laws, including war authorizations, don’t die with each passing of a presidential administration because our country and the world don’t reset with each passing of a presidential administration.
For example, all of President Clinton’s military actions with Iraq were conducted under the legal authority of PL 102-1 (1991), ie, the Gulf War authorization, “to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678” which “[a]uthorizes Member States … to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area.”
Obviously, PL 102-1 pre-dated the Clinton administration.
PL 102-1 was live for Bush’s Iraq enforcement, too. In fact, if Bush had not gone to Congress and the UN in 2002, he already held all the authority needed to use the military to enforce the UN mandates with Iraq, authority inherited from Clinton, who inherited it from HW Bush.
Dust Bunny Queen: “At what point do these ‘authorizations’ expire?”
When Congress repeals them. More often, a war authorization is practically inactivated – goes dormant – because the elements of its authorization are gone.
However, it is plausible that if a war authorization is not repealed and the elements of the war authorization are reactivated, then the war authorization would reactivate, too. Eg, if Iraq the nation became a threat again and/or if the UNSC passed a relevant resolution again, then PL 107-243 would be active again.
Nick, I never even thght of the race issue til you brought it up. I rarely go to that old canard.
I can be defensive because although sometimes the rap gainst is legitimate, it is just as often illegitimate, an across the board hatred of him and denial of anything good out of this administration.
I like you too (Honestly, I was a little afraid to meet you, afraid you would be like the person I often read here but you turned out to be a really sweet guy ((*_*)) and yes without the expressions, tone and other nonverbal cues it can be hard to interpret how something is meant. (: and there is often a rough and tumble here; maybe its just me but it does seem it has gotten rougher and more tumbling, as it were, in the past few, maybe months.
That’s cool you share your wife’s books and now mine. I appreciate that and I am sure she does too.
We’re cool, no worries.
Ross S. Heckmann,
I’m squeezing out nebulous memories from International Law and not bothering to look up the text like I ought to, but IIRC, one, Kellogg-Briand is superseded by the UN, two, it was toothless during its prominence, and three, even as guide, it doesn’t disapprove war in all manifestation. Defense and other pretext are allowed.
Anonymously yours: “Bush used the UN to go around congress.”
For which mission?
That didn’t happen for Operation Iraqi Freedom, if that’s what you mean.
PL 107-243 was passed October 16, 2002. UNSCR 1441 was passed November 8, 2002.
Moreover, Bush went to Congress for PL 107-243 and the UN for UNSCR 1441 even though, technically, neither was needed since the multiple US statutes and UNSC resolutions for the Gulf War ceasefire already provided full authorization for US-led military enforcement of Iraq’s compliance with the UN mandates.
Standing US law – PL 105-388 (1998), which was reiterated in PL 107-243 – also authorized the post-war peace operations in Iraq, which was followed by UNSCR 1511 (2003).
In terms of law and policy, OIF was as solid as it gets.
I believe there is a Legal Positivism lesson to be learned here. What rights do we have in this blog beyond what the Professor says?
“Thank you, Mrs. Cleaver. Thank you, Mr. Cleaver.”