There is an interesting dimension to the ongoing circumvention of the Constitution over our latest undeclared war. While some Administration officials are finally calling our attacks in Syria as a “war,” the discomfort over defining this indefinite campaign has led to equal discomfort over naming it. After two months of airstrikes and statements that the campaign will likely go on for years, the Administration still have not named this war. The choice would now seem obvious: Operation Voldemort, the war which must not be named.
Usually, the military loves to give inspiring names to its campaigns, though sometimes the name can reveal a bit of insecurity like “Operation Just Cause” in Panama — a name that only seemed to amplify the questions of the legality or legitimacy of the invasion. Once coined, the name then appears on everything from government contracts to legislation to service medals.
However, the Administration has been in a not-so-private internal debate over what to call the campaign against Islamic State. Like naming a puppy, the naming of a war can create a dangerous achievement to those with commitment issues. As one defense official was quoted as saying “If you name it, you own it. And they don’t want to own it.”
For the moment, Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby says that the Administration currently has “no plans to name the operation” but that there is “an effort underway to consider … a potential name for this operation.”
They may have time. Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said this week that this could be a “30-year war.” At least the 100 years war between England and France had a name, it was called the 100 years war. You do not even have to be accurate. After all, the 100 Years war lasted 116 years.
Whatever its name, it has its first casualty. Marine Cpl. Jordan Spears was lost at sea after he and another crewman abandoned their MV-22 Osprey when it nearly crashed into the Persian Gulf. They had taken off from the USS Makin Island. For the moment, he will presumably be listed as killed in military operations.
Source: Wall Street Journal
Professor Turley is incorrect that Obama’s anti-ISIS strikes in Syria and Iraq so far represent a “circumvention of the Constitution”. His error follows from the false premise that military action can only be authorized by the particular legal procedure of a declaration of war (or equivalent specific statutory authorization, eg, PL 107-243).
In fact, the President’s standing counter-terror authority provided by Public Law 104-132 (“Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996”, see section 324) and Public Law 107-40 (the post-9/11 Authorization for Use of United States Armed Forces) is activated by the State Department and UN Security Council designation that “ISIL is a splinter group of Al-Qaida” (UNSCR 2170).
Also see Presidential Decision Directive/NSC-39 (1995). By now, abundant precedent for the counter-terror anti-ISIS strikes has been accrued by Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama.
In addition to the President’s standing counter-terror authority, UNSCR 2170 (2014) appears to re-activate the specific statutory authorization of Public Law 107-243 (2002) to “enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq [and] … acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations”.
Eric, I retrieved your comment at 12:12.
Operation Nothing To Be Seen Here
Operation Move Along
Operation What Operation?
Operation Not A Serious Threat
Well you get the point.
Paul: I second the motion. Operation That Which Cannot Be Named, or OTWaCBaN, which has a vaguely germicidal sound.
It’s goals are super secret we don’t have clearance to know its name. Only the NSA does.
Darren – exactly!
Let me see if Word Press will allow this provision from the Constitution to be printed here:
Article I.
Section 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repeal Invasions;
—
Now, there are more sentences there. The clauses which are pertinent begin with: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
Then you have the are declaration clause.
The the last one quoted there: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repeal invasions;
Some of say that to go after ISIS is an effort to repeal invasions. After 9/11 it is a pretty fair argument. Some will say that terrorist acts all across those Pirate Territories East of Corfu are “Felonies …. and Offences against the Law of Nations.
The Framers understood that some humans operating in Pirate Territories did not obey The Law of Nations.
So: JT, while you are in Sicily consider the notion of Pirate Territories and folks who commit felonies and offences against the Law of Nations. Then focus the discussion here on whether Congress can authorize the use of force in situations OTHER than declarations of war against legitimate nation states.
I think I will send this blog comment to Boner and the RepubliCons in Congress who want to use force but don’t quite know how to read the Constitution.
What we could use to update our war on terrorists is have Congress authorize the use of force against all persons East of Corfu who bear arms and who threaten to kill people for odd duck reasons such as not wearing a head scarf.
The Scottish Play?
The “No Boots on the Ground” war.
Well, I’m a conservative Bill, and I am traditionally against the power of government generally. But bottom line is that this isn’t a partisan topic, per se, its a a topic that has been at the center of contest between the line between Congress’ War Power and the President’s power as commander in chief. In my lifetime, that balance hasn’t been flushed out in the courts. In fact the courts do everything in there power NOT to decide the issue. Fact is, this is not significantly different from Reagan’s invasion of Grenada, Bush invading Panama and Bill Clinton’s cruise missile diplomacy. While I personally side with Congress on the issue, fact is the constitutional doctrine is in a state of ‘frozen flux’ — the result is that Obama is within the scope of Executive authority generally recognized to prevail since the War Powers Act.
@Free NYC Pics
I knew there would be a desense of Obama that would by implication admit that Obama is breaking the law. There is always a defense of the president who promised “hope and change” by pointing out that he is merely committing the same illegal acts as presidents who preceeded him.
Would that that could be a defense in court. “Your Honor, I was merely carrying out the tradition of thousands of bank robbers before me and am therefor justified in robbing the bank.”
Darren i suggest you trademark that for t shirts
Operation Hope and Change !!!!!
Folks we have a winner!
From now on please refer to it as Operation Hope and Change
I was thinking it could be Operation Obamarama.
You can be assured that if the government doesn’t come up with a name, someone of the media will surely come up with it. The first name that entered my mind was “The Thirty Something War.”
While I do believe Congress should authorize the use of force here, ultimately this isn’t any different than prior President’s unilateral use of force within the scope of the War Powers Act.
WWIII
Reblogged this on BLOGGING BAD w/Gunny G ~ "CLINGERS of AMERICA!".
Technically it would have to the Operation That Which Cannot Be Named. Lord Voldemort was never named by those who feared him. I do like the idea. This administration is clueless, as usual.
Perhaps operation war on rights (Police Violated Constitutional Rights Of Ferguson Protesters, Federal Judge Rules)?
Yep.
Branding.
The genius of Edward L. Bernays (“father of spin”) still at work, and still awry.
The unnamed war on the domestic front is also unnamed.
So much talk of what to name the war. Sounds like a meeting of the marketing department at some corporation trying to come up with a new jingle for TV ads. How about something vague and flashy that will get attention while promising nothing, nothing that can be refuted later that is.
I suggest this:
Operation Hope and Change.