Under what legal authority does Bush have right to launch ;preemptive attack on Iran?

[Ugnmoose]

I thought that an act of War had to be approved by the Congress - or has this now become a "courtesy" that Chief Executive can choose to ignore. I think it is outrageous that a President can at his own choosing launch a preemptive attack against a sovereign nation that poses no immediate threat to the U.S. Did we learn nothing from the Iraqi fiasco. Are we so blinded that we will be fooled again? I feel like I just woke up in Bizarro World.

[niyad]

1. according to scott ritter this morning on cspan--the original and second authorizations contained

fine print that allows that power-mad lunatic carte blanche to do anything he pleases, provided he links it to 9/11

[Ugnmoose]

8. And what exactly is the link to 9-11?

eom

[0rganism]

22. that's classified, but his spokesmen will assure you that it exists

Anyway, to the extent that anyone in Iran has ever done anything which can be construed as supporting paramilitary organizations related or unrelated to Al Qaeda (e.g., Hezbollah, Hamas, Abu Nidal, whatever) Bush has essentially been given leeway to nuke their collective arse if he so pleases. For this Americans can thank our nation's jingoistic lunacy in the weeks following 9/11/2001, during which it was considered borderline treason to publicly oppose the various enabling acts rushed through congress with little review. Oh, and anthrax. We can thank anthrax, too.

[rucky]

47. That's why he calls every brown person with a gun Al Queda. n/t

[LiberalFighter]

26. Bush is the link to 9/11 -- time for a preemptive attack against Bush

[dipsydoodle]

37. And so on the same basis

the whole of Latin America could say the same about 9/11/73 - USA helping to overthrow the democratically elected government in Chile leading to more than three times the deaths of what by definition then becomes the less significant one 9/11/01.

[villager]

2. Legal authority? Bush?

n/t

[tularetom]

3. Under the authority of "Congress doesn't have the cojones to stop him"

[rateyes]

20. There you go...

you hit the nail on the head.

[TahitiNut]

28. And the ONLY way those 'cojones' work is by IMPEACHMENT. See my #23 below.

:shrug:

[Captain Hilts]

34. You don't need 'cojones' to have moral fortitude. nt

[PDJane]

4. He doesn't have any right,

But he will do it anyway. There are very few people who know about the war crimes of this administration and the preceding administrations, although sex crimes do seem to matter.

[Captain Hilts]

35. Yes, he does. Check out the Consitution and the War Powers Act. nt

[cali]

5. Someone will correct me if I'm wrong

but I believe that under the War Powers Act, the president has a 90 day window in which to initiate and attack an then seek congressional approval.

Correction: It's 60 days not 90 days, but this is definitely the source of the President's authority to bomb Iran.

[Solon]

6. I don't think we have declared war at all in the past 50 years or so...

we have been involved in "military conflicts" all this time, but not actual declarations of war were made. So, given that, I would say he has approval because the courts haven't weighed in on the Constitutionality of "authorizations of use of force".

It would be nice if the USSC would weigh in and say, you cannot participate in a conflict for longer than 90 days without an explicit declaration of war by Congress.

[Ugnmoose]

12. This is pure BS

Just because we have allowed this in the past should not be precedent, especially when you have war crazed maniacs running the country. I cannot believe that our Congress will just sit by and do nothing. If so, I believe that the people will have no choice but to stage an open revolt against the government. I think Bushco knows this is coming which is why they have extended their powers to declare martial law.

[Solon]

27. Just saying how it is, not how it should be...

To be frank, our system of checks and balances is broken, the Judicial System is decent when defending the rights of individuals when the Legislative and Executive branches get out of control. The Legislature is only effective in checking the power of the Executive when they are of opposing parties, and the Executive is more powerful than ever as a result.

The Judicial and Legislative branches completely suck at trying to check the Executive's power at creating foreign conflicts. The Legislative branch rubberstamps these things, authorizing funds, avoiding a declaration of war, etc. The Judicial branch, on the other hand, just completely ignores the issue, saying its an internal matter for the Legislative or Executive branches. Oddly enough, they said the same thing about Public law 62-5 as well even though that is clearly a violation of Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution.

This is getting out of hand, the power grabs by the Executive Branch, with complicity of the other two branches, is just fucking insane.

[uppityperson]

7. He can attack, just not call it War. Attack pre-emptively to prevent them from attacking.

are pretend that. "War" has not been declared by congress for a long time. He can do whatever he wants, there are loop holes.

[Cleita]

9. The same authority he had to launch an attack on Iraq, basically

none. He got a rubber stamp Congress of his sycophants to go along with the war with false information. He should be impeached for this and there should be no attack on Iran, but what do I know of the Constitution and what looks like Nazi principles of war to me.

[HereSince1628]

10. The US has said the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is a terrorist organization

Among other legislation that hasn't put a ban on an attack on Iran, the original IWR said in essence that the president could act against any individial, terrorist group aiding A.Q., or any nation that harbored individuals and groups doing the same.

Obviously Iran harbors its Revolutionary Guard, so it seems according to the Cheney administration Iran is now fair game.

[no_hypocrisy]

11. Jesus told him it was okay.

[Lint Head]

13. Bush has no 'right' to anything. He is a dictator that

has taking over the country and subverted any definitions of 'right'. He does what he wants and says, "Fuck you American people."
He and Cheney are criminals that need to be thrown into jail today so our precious country can be restored. :dem:

[leftchick]

14. um, congress did in July

http://www.counterpunch.org/frank07192007.html

Another Step Toward War with Iran
Democrats as Leviathan


<snip>

The Democrats certainly don't contest Bush's Middle East foreign policy, they embrace it. Just last week the Senate voted 97-0 in favor of moving toward war with Iran. So while the Democrats call for withdraw of our troops from Iraq in the future, they insist we must keep an eye on Iran, for the Iranians are opposing the occupation of Iraq by allegedly arming the Shia resistance.

<snip>

The Democrats don't really want to end the war despite their veneer of opposition. If they desired to end the war they would have halted its funding long ago. Likelise, if they really preferred to challenge the Bush falsehoods regarding Iran, they would do so. Instead the Democrats, including their top presidential contenders Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama who voted in favor of holding Iran accountable for the killing of US soldiers, seem to want to handle Iran militarily.

The amendment, H.R.1585, written by Sen. Joe Lieberman, repeats the same round of vacant lies the neocons have been advancing for quite sometime. Iranian influence in Iraq is now becoming the accepted reason among American political elites as to why US forces are failing. The Lieberman amendment also claims that Iran is providing a safe-haven for al Qaeda fighters, even though the group is allegedly blowing up Iraqi Shias daily.

American soldiers aren't being killed because of Iran; we are losing because there is no such thing as real victory for the US in Iraq. There is only death.

[seemslikeadream]

15. yep July 11

http://www.chris-floyd.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1225&Itemid=135%20

As you may know -- unless you rely on the corporate media for your news, of course -- yesterday the U.S. Senate unanimously declared that Iran was committing acts of war against the United States: a 97-0 vote to give George W. Bush a clear and unmistakable casus belli for attacking Iran whenever Dick Cheney tells him to.

The bipartisan Senate resolution – the brainchild (or rather the bilechild) of Fightin' Joe Lieberman – affirmed as official fact all of the specious, unproven, ever-changing allegations of direct Iranian involvement in attacks on the American forces now occupying Iraq. The Senators appear to have relied heavily on the recent New York Times story by Michael Gordon that stovepiped unchallenged Pentagon spin directly onto the paper's front page. As Firedoglake points out, John McCain cited the heavily criticized story on the Senate floor as he cast his vote.

It goes without saying that all of this is a nightmarish replay of the run-up to the war of aggression against Iraq: The NYT funneling false flag stories from Bush insiders. Warmongers citing the NYT stories as "proof" justifying any and all action to "defend the Homeland." Credulous and craven Democratic politicians swallowing the Bush line hook and sinker.

To be sure, stout-hearted Dem tribunes like Dick Durbin insisted that their support for declaring that Iran is "committing acts of war" against the United States should not be taken as an "authorization of military action." This is shaky-knees mendacity at its finest. Having officially affirmed that Iran is waging war on American forces, how, pray tell, can you then deny the president when he asks (if he asks) for authorization to "defend our troops?" Answer: you can't. And you know it.

This vote is the clearest signal yet that there will be no real opposition to a Bush Administration attack on Iran. This is yet another blank check from these slavish, ignorant goons; Bush can cash it anytime. This is, in fact, the post-surge "Plan B" that's been mooted lately in the Beltway. As you recall, there was much throwing about of brains on the subject of reviving the "Iraq Study Group" plan when the "surge" (or to call it by its right name, the "punitive escalation") inevitably fails. Bush put the kibosh on that this week ("Him not gonna do nothin' that Daddy's friends tell him to do! Him a big boy, him the decider!"), but that doesn't mean there isn't a fall-back position – or rather, a spring-forward position: an attack on Iran, to rally the nation behind the "war leader" and reshuffle the deck in Iraq.

[cali]

17. Hate that resolution, but the resolution itself

does not give bush the authority to attack Iran. He has that authority already under the War Powers Act of 1973.
This is someone's interpretation of what that resolution meant, nothing more, nothing less.

[seemslikeadream]

21. interpretation

isn't it georgie's who's matters?

[cali]

24. What part of

bush has the authority under the War Powers Act of 1973, is so difficult to grasp?

[seemslikeadream]

19. ALL THE SENATORS GAVE THEIR PERMISSION

In the old days, Congress declared war, and directed the Executive to take action. In the new millenium, the Executive declared war last March 16th, then Congress will pass H.R. 282, "To hold the current regime in Iran accountable for its threatening behavior and to support a transition to democracy in Iran." This bill and previous ones like it are in direct violation of the legally binding Algiers Accords signed by the United States and Iran on January 19, 1981, that states "The United States pledges that it is and from now on will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran's internal affairs"; however, this is clearly of no interest to the 353 policymakers sponsoring the bill.



The formal war declaration against Iran, the National Security Strategy of March 16, 2006, stated:

"We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran."
"The Iranian regime sponsors terrorism; threatens Israel; seeks to thwart Middle East peace; disrupts democracy in Iraq; and denies the aspirations of its people for freedom."
"he first duty of the United States Government remains what it always has been: to protect the American people and American interests. It is an enduring American principle that this duty obligates the government to anticipate and counter threats, using all elements of national power, before the threats can do grave damage."
"The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction – and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack. There are few greater threats than a terrorist attack with WMD."
"To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively."
"When the consequences of an attack with WMD are potentially so devastating, we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialize."
"here will always be some uncertainty about the status of hidden programs."
"Advances in biotechnology provide greater opportunities for state and non-state actors to obtain dangerous pathogens and equipment."
"Biological weapons also pose a grave WMD threat because of the risks of contagion that would spread disease across large populations and around the globe."
"Countering the spread of biological weapons .... will also enhance our Nation's ability to respond to pandemic public health threats, such as avian influenza."



The 2005 U.S. State Department FINDING
The 2005 U.S. State Department "FINDING. The United States judges that, based on all available information, Iran has an offensive biological weapons program in violation of the BWC."

In addition, the March 16 declaration makes it clear that the US will use nuclear weapons in the war against Iran:
."..using all elements of national power..."
"Safe, credible, and reliable nuclear forces continue to play a critical role. We are strengthening deterrence by developing a New Triad composed of offensive strike systems (both nuclear and improved conventional capabilities)."
and this is further reinforced by the just released "National Military Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction" that states "Offensive operations may include kinetic (both conventional and nuclear) and/or non-kinetic options (e.g. information operations) to deter or defeat a WMD threat or subsequent use of WMD."

[cali]

25. What part of

bush has the authority under the War Powers Act of 1973, is so difficult to grasp?

[seemslikeadream]

30. I'm not sure what you're beef is with me?

[leftchick]

31. thank you SLaD!

some people can not handle the truth.

[Hippo_Tron]

45. That was a non-binding resolution with no force of law

Congress did not authorize an attack on Iran.

[leftchick]

46. all righty then

tell that to cheney and his buddy holy joe. :eyes:

[rucky]

48. Neither was the IWR. n/t

[Ugnmoose]

16. We need to contact our reps ASAP

and ask them to tell us their position on such an attack and what they plan to do about it. Holy Shit - this thing is scary beyond belief. After the fiasco in Iraq, I cannot believe that this option is given serious discussion no less imminent implementation. If we attack Iraq, does anyone think that the rest of the world is just going to stand by and let it happen, especially China that depends heavilty on importing oil, and Russia who has invested heavily in Iran.

[cali]

18. I agree about contacting our reps and asking them to

speak out loudly against this; they should be warning the admin that if they bomb Iran, there will be harsh consequences. They may be doing this privately, but they also need to do it publically.

Oh, and no China and other countries won't go to war with us over Iran, but Iran will almost certainly attack our soldiers in Iraq.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LeftishBrit]

38. The rest of the world knows bloody well that the USA is NOT 'the United States of Israel'

The rest of the world knows bloody well that the USA is probably the most powerful single country in the world. And that its current insane government is misusing the power. With collaboration from some other governments like our British one.

Neither Israel nor any other country owns America or is forcing its government to do the things it does (same true for Britain - Bush didn't force Blair to go to war; Blair chose to collaborate.) Lets hold our own governments responsible for the things they do, and leave xenophobia and scapegoating for the right-wingers.

BTW, a war with Iran would endanger Israel, as well as other Middle Eastern countries.

[cali]

40. Not this shit again

AIPAC runs the Pentagon? What the fuck is wrong with you? AIPAC runs the WH foreign policy? Let me repeat: What the fuck is wrong with you? AIPAC owns the U.S. media? The United States of Israel.

This is way over the line and it's not the first time you've engaged in this sort of stupid and objectionable rhetoric. One can deplore AIPAC for what it is, without falling into a bucket of shit.

[LeftishBrit]

39. Good points - and all of us from outside the USA should do our best to make sure that our govts

don't again drag us into a 'Coalition of the Willing' (huh!) Without international support, Bush would find it even harder to act.

My hunch is still that Bush will NOT go to war with Iran (with whose army?) but one can never tell.

[TahitiNut]

23. The theory (and reality) is that having a standing Army ...

... along with the Constitutional authority of the President as "Commander in Chief" is BOTH a de facto and de jure facilitation of the authority to deploy such forces in any manner the CinC sees fit. Once we, as a nation and through our Congress, 'decided' to maintain a standing military of such immense size, we effectively added POWER to the AUTHORITY of a President to wage war, no matter how wrongfully.

The Constitution gives two authorities to Congress: (1) providing funding for the military in legislation limited to two years, and (2) declaring war. Interestingly, even if COngress both funds the military and declares war, they cannot FORCE the President to actually deploy forces in the manner they want, since the AUTHORITY to do so is implicit in the "Commander in Chief's" role.

That, again, is where IMPEACHMENT is so important. Only by impeachment can a rogue President be stopped. There is no other Constitutional remedy.

This is why I, and many others, repeatedly state that the road out of Iraq begins with IMPEACHMENT! It's a delusion that the former can be achieved without the latter.

[seafan]

29. March 13, 2007: Dems Abandon War Authority Provision

This is why Bush thinks he can do anything he wants.

We were betrayed.



Dems Abandon War Authority Provision

By DAVID ESPO and MATTHEW LEE Associated Press Writers
WASHINGTON Mar 13, 2007 (AP)

Democratic leaders are stripping from a military spending bill for the war in Iraq a requirement that President Bush gain approval from Congress before moving against Iran.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and other leaders agreed to remove the requirement concerning Iran after conservative Democrats as well as other lawmakers worried about its possible impact on Israel, officials said Monday.

.....

The Iran-related proposal stemmed from a desire to make sure Bush did not launch an attack without going to Congress for approval, but drew opposition from numerous members of the rank and file in a series of closed-door sessions last week.

.....

Several officials said there was widespread opposition to the proposal at a closed-door meeting last week of conservative and moderate Democrats, who said they feared tying the hands of the administration when dealing with an unpredictable and potentially hostile regime in Tehran.

.....

[Captain Hilts]

33. It's his right as commander in chief. Sorry. nt

[daa]

36. Because no Dem

has the balls to stop him.

[cali]

self-delete, dupe

[cali]

41. How would you suggest they stop him?

They certainly should loudly be broadcasting opposition- and they're not, but beyond that, there's not much they can do: He has the Constitutional authority to attack Iran.

[Imagevision]

42. Bush, legal authority? kidding? Bush shoot first answer later on, it's worke perfectly thusfar...

what's anyone going to do to Bush if he Bombs Iran?? number the American people won't be made aware of this attack until it's over or at the minimum had already begun. Bush has no rules to follow, act first figure out the fallout later...

[Imagevision]

43. If Cheney/Bush want to Bomb Iran then they'll do it, they do whatever they want to do, do you live

under a rock???

[Hippo_Tron]

44. War Powers Resolution

Of course the War Powers Resolution should work both ways, and that means congress should be able to de-authorize the Iraq War.