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
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/10/a-terrible-slaughter-is-coming/381157/
It is unseemly for Professor Turley to mischaracterize its underlying Constitutionality to erode what is already a practically insufficient military action.
Eric dug up the Congressional authorizations and indeed found the reference by Congress to Art. I, Sec 8 and the provision on pirates and those who break the Laws of Nations. Very good research Eric.
BarkinDog – Eric is the goto guy for war authorizations. 😉
Eric above, found the Constitutional provision which Congress relied upon in authorizing use of force against terrorists. It is a a Dog on this blog said. Here is the provision which Eric cited. Under (a) Findings. (2):
SEC. 301. <> FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.–The Congress finds that–
(1) international terrorism is a serious and deadly problem
that threatens the vital interests of the United States;
(2) the Constitution confers upon Congress the power to
punish crimes against the law of nations and to carry out the
treaty obligations of the United States, and therefore Congress
may by law impose penalties relating to the provision of
material support to foreign organizations engaged in terrorist
activity;
(3) the power of the United States over immigration and
naturalization permits the exclusion from the United States of
persons belonging to international terrorist organizations;
(4) international terrorism affects the interstate and
foreign commerce of the United States by harming international
trade and market stability, and limiting international travel by
United States citizens as well as foreign visitors to the United
States;
(5) international cooperation is required for an effective
response to terrorism, as demonstrated by the numerous
multilateral conventions in force providing universal
prosecutive jurisdiction over persons involved in a variety of
terrorist acts, including hostage taking, murder of an
internationally protected person, and aircraft piracy and
sabotage;
(6) some foreign terrorist organizations, acting through
affiliated groups or individuals, raise significant funds within
the United States, or use the United States as a conduit for the
receipt of funds raised in other nations; and
(7) foreign organizations that engage in terrorist activity
are so tainted by their criminal conduct that any contribution
to such an organization facilitates that conduct.
(b) Purpose.–The purpose of this subtitle is to provide the Federal
Government the fullest possible basis, consistent with the Constitution,
to prevent persons within the United States, or subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States, from providing material support or
resources to foreign organizations that engage in terrorist activities.
Beldar, I retrieved a comment from you that I ran across in the spam filter (at 5:59.)
Deja Voodoo all over again.
Barking
Pirates in NYC?
I thought they were in Pittsburg.
Limey
We’ve always been at war with (fill in Muslim state).
~ 1984
FYI:
State Department notice on designating ISIS:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2014/05/226067.htm
UN Security Council Resolution 2170:
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2014/sc11520.doc.htm
When they say stuff… Correction. ‘They’ being Obama & Co.
When they stuff like it will go on for years, get out George Orwell’s ‘1984’ and figure they had this planned before any of us heard the name ISIS. It should be over in six weeks if done right for the right reasons.
Barkindog,
It’s Article II authority. In terms of Article I authority, check out “Sec. 301” of PL 104-132:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ132/html/PLAW-104publ132.htm
wrxdave w/ the thread winner. Michelle Obama is here in Wi. for the second time in 2 weeks trying to help the dreadful Dem Guv candidate. Nobody wants her husband even in the same time zone when they’re campaigning. Toxic Barry.
The War On Drugs is a mis use of words. Do you need a Declaration of War to go bust some guy in the projects in NYC? No. Similar to fighting pirates and terrorists.
Eric: The “authority under the Constitution” is Article I, Section 8 and the clauses related to pirates and those who disobey Law of Nations. As posted above. So, it is error to blame Obama for not asking for a Declaration of War like we are fighting some nation state like Japan on December 8, 1941. We are fighting terrorists. The statutes and provisions which you cite are square on. They are all that this President and this military needs to go after the terrorists.
Operation whereddamoneygo ???
Darren Smith,
Thank you.
I should correct my word choice. I said – misleadingly – that Congress “provided” the President’s counter-terror authority with Public Laws 104-132 (1996) and 107-40 (2001).
Rather, Congress endorsed the President’s counter-terrorism “including covert action and military force… including overseas …” and affirmed the President’s counter-terror authority under the Constitution (in other words, not sourced from the Legislature).
As PL 107-40 states,
Max-1: “Because if Obama called it a war, he’d need Congressional approval.”
Incorrect. “War” is not by itself a magical legal word.
In terms of Congressional authorization, war is a formal legal relationship between sovereigns. Counter-terrorism, including overseas military action, that is directed at terrorists but not counter-sovereign requires no statutory authorization additional to the President’s standing counter-terror authority.
Obama’s anti-ISIS strikes so far* are directed at terrorists and against neither Syria nor Iraq.
That said, in addition to the President’s standing counter-terror authority, PL 107-40 definitely covers the anti-ISIS strikes and UNSCR 2170 appears to re-activate PL 107-243.
* ‘So far’ is a significant qualification for Obama due to his unilateral extension of the R2P strikes in Libya under the UN covenant, which were legally novel, to regime change of the Libyan sovereign, which should have required a Congressional authorization.
It’s just the JV Game, who needs a name?
It’s not a war, war.
… Because if Obama called it a war, he’d need Congressional approval.
With the wave of his hand he tells Congress, “This is not the war you are authorizing.” The Obama Wan Kenobi wave. And then they went on a five week vacation.
Max-1 – I like that, but it still needs a name. And even the JV wear uniforms.
I think this war is one of many fighting for the cause of natural rights. The enemies are foreign and domestic. The question is which side are you on?
Operation war monger.