Anyone knowledgeable about the War Powers Act?

[salin]

and/or about what would constitute a violation per our now known summer bombings in Iraq (what actions would violate previous resolutions - and thus indicate the beginning of war activities)?

I raise questions here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1587721&mesg_id=1587764

Would appreciate responses from some more familiar with these intracacies myself.

Thank you.

[salin]

1. Below is the post - where I ask the questions and why

In relation to the summer 2002 bombings in Iraq

In my mind here are the questions raised

can they take cover for the actions per previous resolutions (US and UN)? What would be considered a violation - and thus beyond bounds per those standing resolutions? For example, at various times during the Clinton years we heard of slight escalations of bombings - I don't know the level then and how this compares. It is very important to get some clarity on this point. We know the repubs will claim this - (they always say ... no different than when under Clinton) but... MORE importantly... and also needing clarification:

Just before the first gulf war there was a lot of public discussion around the War Powers Act. If I recall correctly at issue was the time line - that a president could start an invasion for a period of time (to allow a quicker response to a growing threat than might occur through a 'deliberative' body such as Congress) - but that within a certain period of time (60 days sticks in my mind - but I do not recall if it was 30, 60, or 90) Congress had to act/move for the efforts to continue. Also - if I recall - there is a timeline in which the president has to inform congress of the initial actions (though in normal circumstances - new actions - it would become obvious... because of the ongoing no-fly-zone efforts - there was no siren/alarm bells going off because we had been already pertiodically "bombing" - though under specific guidelines.

So in short the two questions are: 1) what would constitute the beginning of a military action/war in these circumstances (what line had to be crossed to show this wasn't a continuation that was already "allowed")?
I just remember there was a lot out there about the act - in the public domain - back in 1991. It seems that it might be time to get those discussions back out in the public eye.