Iran strike: That would be illegal, wouldn't it?

[LuckyTheDog]

If Bush really wants to do this, why is he not working to get Congressional approval? Clearly, such a large strike -- at a time when danger is not imminent -- would require the explicit consent of Congress.

If Bush orders this without such approval, then the military would be in a tough spot. Bush is CIC. But the military also is required to refuse illegal orders. The generals would be justified in asking Bush to go to Congress first, wouldn't they?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2369001.ece

[Solly Mack]

1. and something being illegal changes what in US government?

I'm not being snarky...fact is, the term "illegal" holds little meaning in today's America as it applies to government.

[madokie]

2. but will they is the question

All the 'for sures' I thought I knew about this country and its constitution went out the window with the coup of 2000

[Selatius]

3. Under the War Powers Act, Bush can wage war up to 90 days. Then...

he must get authorization by Congress to continue funding the war. Beyond that, Bush must remove his forces from battle if no consent is given.

[LuckyTheDog]

7. Doesn't there have to be an emergency?

I thought the 90 days was intended to allow the president to respond to an emergency. There is none in this case.

[BlooInBloo]

9. Or SAY there's an emergency.

[Selatius]

12. Yes, but we can lie about that, can't we? We did it with Iraq's WMD.

The current regime can manufacture another excuse, can't it?

[stillcool]

4. legal...schmeegle...

that is so pre 9/11. Now a days, we just them up as we go. Alls it takes is a signature.

[Blackhatjack]

5. Remember, Addingtion & Cheney believe 'When the President does it, it is not illegal' n/t

[napi21]

6. I just had this argument with my hubby this AM. He said he was afraid of

a Hillary Presidency because he was afraid she'd push the neuclear button! WHAT????? I said "You know who you should be afraid of pushing the nuke button? GEORGE!!!!" He said well yea, but congress will stop him. I asked how the hell they wre going to do that? He THINKS he already has the authority to do it to Iran! The military WILL obey their CIC and you know that! He said we don't have the troops. Well, George thinks he doesn't need troops! All he has to do is drop a few nukes on Iran and they'll shut up and behave!

[indepat]

11. It's so simple: nuke 'em, nuke 'em all. But hope it doesn't despoil the environment or

add to global warming, higher gas prices, et al.

[IDemo]

8. The Decider gets to decide that now

The justification and authorization for war against Iran have already been crafted. The 2002 AUMF (authorization for the use of military force) was given to Bush by Congress and signed into law with still another of the Dictatorer's favorite weapons: a signing statement allowing him to disregard Congress's concerns over his interpretation of that authority.

With the 97-0 designation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, along with daily MSM reports of Iranian interference in Iraq, there are now no remaining questions within our government of whether the coming attack will have been justified and legal.

If the repeated "just around the corner" alarms here make one believe the threat doesn't exist or has been greatly exaggerated, that's understandable. But I do not believe the criminals will leave office before launching an attack.

- More on this from Will Bunch and Arthur Silber .

[HysteryDiagnosis]

10. I know, let's get the Congress to vote on whether or not to give the

boy king the authority to bomb Iran. Everyone knows he's bluffing after all.

Once upon a time we had a turdblossom Roving the halls of the WH. In Africa they now have roving dung cam. Somehow the two seem connected in some small way.

[EFerrari]

13. Wasn't there a bill passed in October 2001 that gives this idiot

war powers for "the global war on terra"?

[IDemo]

14. AUMF 1 (Afghanistan) & 2 (Iraq)

Authorization for Use of Military Force.

[no_hypocrisy]

18. Yes. It's found at the very end (fine print) where Congress authorizes the President

to take care of defending this country anywhere in the (Middle Eastern) "region". So there's the blank check to go into any country with the unfortunate geography.

[EFerrari]

20. That's what I thought. Thank you. n/t

[Beelzebud]

15. That's never stopped us before, has it?

[Peregrine]

16. What is illegal about it?

The War Powers Act has been pounded to death by the courts and is no longer able to be enforced. Basically as CinC, the president has full and sole authority to use the military. The only reason a president would bother with Congress if political reasons. The president has never needed Congressional authority to use military force. Congressional contitutional power to declare war does not include a constitutional authority to control when and where military force is used. The only check thay have is the purse.

[Mrs. Overall]

17. Expect to pay $8-$10 for a gallon of gas if Iran is attacked--

Several months ago Scott Ritter (I think it was him) was interviewed by Amy Goodman. He said that we would not attack Iran because of the implications at the gas pump. He said Americans would have a fit because of the rise in gas prices if we did attack.

[scarletwoman]

22. The Heritage Foundation has already war gamed that problem & come up w/ a solution.

Here's an I excerpt I posted in this thread

In the meantime, administration officials are studying the lessons of the recent war game, which was set up to devise a way of weathering an economic storm created by war with Iran. Computer modelling found that if Iran closed the Straits of Hormuz, it would nearly double the world price of oil, knock $161 billion off American GDP in a single quarter, cost one million jobs and slash disposable income by $260 billion a quarter.

The war gamers advocated deploying American oil reserves - good for 60 days - using military force to break the blockade (two US aircraft carrier groups and half of America's 277 warships are already stationed close to Iran), opening up oil development in Alaska, and ending import tariffs on ethanol fuel. If the government also subsidised fuel for poorer Americans, the war-gamers concluded, it would mitigate the financial consequences of a conflict.

The Heritage report concludes: "The results were impressive. The policy recommendations eliminated virtually all of the negative outcomes from the blockade."

sw

[Mrs. Overall]

24. That was my only hope of Americans maybe getting the balls to truly protest--

the threat of high gas prices.

The devious planning and convoluted logic of this administration is appalling.

[scarletwoman]

19. Not illegal by "bushco" rules -- they've already covered their asses on this.

Did you not notice last month (July 11) when the Senate unanimously passed the Joe Liberman-authored amendment to the defense spending bill that basically accuses Iran of already committing acts of war against US?

And just this past week, bush has declared Iran's Revolutionary Guard a "terrorist organization".

Basically what's happened, is that the attack on Iran is being framed in such a way as to make it fall under the purvue of either the original Oct. 2001 AUMF or the 2002 IWR.

Presto! Attacking Iran is already authorized! No need to consult with Congress before giving the order for bombs away!

sw

[Robson]

21. Had AIPAC not pressured Congress it would have been illegal

The news today is that Bush has mapped out 1200 sites in Iran to sneak attack as a first strike and wipe out their military potential. I saw where this was possible by 9-11. (maybe as an anniversary shock and awe)

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Pentagon_draws_Threeday_blitz_plan_for_0901.html

It had been previously reported that Israel and AIPAC have encouraged (some say demanded) the USA bomb Iran or Israel will. Actually if Israel wants Iran bombed, then they should do it themselves and risk their treasury and their military.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060814/aipacs_hold

The Democrats in Congress removed at AIPACs insistence a very non-controversial provision (at least in the opinion of most Americans) from the Iraq War funding bill that would have banned a Bush first strike on Iran.

http://www.nysun.com/article/50391

[Left Is Write]

23. I don't think silly little technicalities such as this bother the dictator in chief.