Here's Michael Lind with "The False Defenders of Obama's War in Libya": Congress needed for UN call

[PurityOfEssence]

This is a very interesting article by Michael Lind, co-founder of the New America Foundation, published in Salon. It clearly states, with the documents, how Obama needed Congressional authorization under the UN Participation Act to heed this call for war. Apparently I was mistaken about Article 43 because it is referenced in the UN Participation Act (UNPA) as dictating how forces were to be made available. I contended that its language dictated the method by which forces could be available for an Article 42 call-up, which is how the UNPA reads

Nonetheless, my oft-repeated and documented claim that he needed Congressional authorization to send 'em in pursuant to an Article 42 call-up, which is how I've phrased it, IS TRUE.

Don't believe me, though, believe a highly credentialed progressive. You'll note how exasperated he is at the persistent incorrect claims. Here's a clip from deep in side the article, but I heartily invite all to read, and ESPECIALLY those who repeatedly see hard documents and refuse to concede the point.

"Far from delegating the president vast discretion to wage war in pursuit of U.N. requests, the U.N. Participation Act jealously guards the constitutional prerogatives of Congress."

http://www.salon.com/news/libya/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/03/21/congress_war_powers_the_president

Not enough for you? Try this article from the American Journal of International Politics, wherein it says: "Presidents may commit armed forces to the United Nations only after Congress gives its explicit consent. That point is crucial. The League of Nations Covenant foundered precisely on whether congressional approval was needed before using armed force. The framers of the UN Charter knew that history and consciously included protections of congressional prerogatives."

It's in Section IV of the following article, which is entitled "UN Participation Act"

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/yooj/courses/forrel/reserve/fisher.htm

[scarletwoman]

1. Thank you. +1

[ProSense]

2. That's an awfully convoluted argument

<...>

Article 43 was based on the idea that the U.N. would have its own armed forces, to be sent into battle by a "military staff committee." No nation, including the U.S., ever negotiated the required agreements, however, so Article 43 has always been a dead letter and should be ignored.

<...>

The only rational way to interpret these sections of the UNPA is to read them as authorizing the president, without congressional approval, to supply fewer than a thousand noncombatant troops to the U.N. for Article 41 actions short of war, and also to negotiate agreements to supply armed forces to the U.N. under Article 43 -- but only with prior congressional approval. In Article 42 situations, like the situation in Libya, where the U.N. Security Council calls on members to go to war, the UNPA did not grant the president to act without congressional approval -- presumably because the Congress that passed the UNPA understood that all Article 42 enforcement actions approved by the Security Council would have to be separately and independently approved by congressional declarations of war before the U.S. could take part.

Far from delegating the president vast discretion to wage war in pursuit of U.N. requests, the U.N. Participation Act jealously guards the constitutional prerogatives of Congress.

But suppose that the UNPA had been worded differently, and had sought to empower the president to wage war without prior congressional authorization, as long as the U.N. Security Council approved. In that case, the UNPA would have been unconstitutional from the beginning. Even if it wants to, Congress cannot, by statute, amend the Constitution.

<...>

Argument: Ignore article 43?

The U.N. Charter is clear.

[PurityOfEssence]

4. Are you going to continue to hide from this? Please read and respond

The UN Participation Act is the US law that delineates everything about how we interact with the United Nations. It clearly states in Section 6 that the President may negotiate a "special agreement" with the Security Council, but that it is: "subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution..."

The language is a bit confusing later on in Section 6, but here it is regarding an Article 42 call-up as I have demonstrated to you at least 5 times in different threads: "The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements..." That very clearly means that he doesn't need Congress' approval IF HE ALREADY HAS AN AGREEMENT THAT CONGRESS HAS AUTHORIZED. Yes, it could be worded better, but it's so very, very legally clear: "PURSUANT TO SUCH SPECIAL AGREEMENT" That means the aforementioned special agreement that he has to get approved.

Here, again, is the actual text of Section 6, in its entirety, with my emphases:

SEC. 6. The President is authorized to negotiate a special agreement or agreements with the Security Council which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution providing for the numbers and types of armed forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of facilities and assistance, including rights of passage, to be made available to the Security Council on its call for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security in accordance with article 43 of said Charter. The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter AND PURSUANT TO SUCH SPECIAL AGREEMENT OR AGREEMENTS the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed as an authorization to the President by the Congress to make available to the Security Council for such purpose armed forces, facilities, or assistance in addition to the forces, facilities, and assistance provided for in such special agreement or agreements.

Here's commentary from the American Journal of International Politics

� "Constitutional processes" is defined in section 6 of the UN Participation Act of 1945. Without the slightest ambiguity, this statute requires that the agreements "shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution." Statutory language could not be clearer. The President must seek congressional approval in advance. Two qualifications are included in section 6:

��� The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein: Provided, That . . . nothing herein contained shall be construed as an authorization to the President by the Congress to make available to the Security Council for such purpose armed forces, facilities, or assistance in addition to the forces, facilities, and assistance provided for in such special agreement or agreements.

� The first qualification states that, once the President receives the approval of Congress for a special agreement, he does not need its subsequent approval to provide military assistance under Article 42 (pursuant to which the Security Council determines that peaceful means are inadequate and military action is necessary). Congressional approval is needed for the special agreement, not for the subsequent implementation of that agreement. The second qualification clarifies that nothing in the UN Participation Act is to be construed as congressional approval of other agreements entered into by the President.

� Thus, the qualifications do not eliminate the need for congressional approval. Presidents may commit armed forces to the United Nations only after Congress gives its explicit consent. That point is crucial. The League of Nations Covenant foundered precisely on whether congressional approval was needed before using *30 armed force. The framers of the UN Charter knew that history and consciously included protections of congressional prerogatives.

This completely negates your contention that the War Powers Act doesn't apply because the UN Charter is a treaty that automatically authorizes war. It specifically does not, because the UN Charter is NOT that kind of treaty, as you've been repeatedly shown, so the stipulation you keep repeatedly throwing out, War Powers Resolution Section 8(a)(2). Obama is in clear violation of the War Powers Act and the UN Participation Act. Why do you think he hasn't answered Kucinich? His sending a letter is "consistent" with THAT PART OF THE ACT, but is not claiming to be a justification, nor is he recognizing its legitimacy, binding nature or anything else.

You are obviously reading my repeated posts on this. Please have the decency to admit the mistake and STOP DELIBERATELY SPREADING THIS INCORRECT INFORMATION.

Can somebody help me out with this person? Thanks in advance.

Again, the American Journal of International Politics Article (see section IV):
http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/yooj/courses/forrel/reserve/fisher.htm

Again, the text of the War Powers Resolution of 1973:
http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/archive/war_powers_resolution.shtml

Also again, the text of the UN Participation Act of 1945, linked with text of the UN Charter:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/decad031.asp

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!!

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[Cali_Democrat]

15. Bingo. n/t

[Jakes Progress]

27. I notice you got no response you your question.

Actual response? Yeah, right.

[joshcryer]

38. I love how people are accusing hard working individuals who aren't at a desk all day...

...of "failing to respond." :puke:

[Jakes Progress]

39. Dude. It's been two days. Did I hurt your buddy's feelings?

You bud pops up at all hours of the day and night to bust up a thread.

Cry a river for someone else.

[joshcryer]

40. It's been one day for me.

One work day, I sleep, work, sign back on. :hi:

Embarrassing the logic used by some in this thread.

edit: now if you'll excuse me, I'll be back tomorrow around the same time, because this thread hardly merits my time, and I have Libya updates to concern myself with.

Let's summerize: the argument fails because it tries to tie Article 43 to Article 42. It is nonsense. It fails. Hard.

[Jakes Progress]

46. Apr. 3 to Apr. 5 is two days.

Sorry if your limited time makes dates confusing. In the midst of your huge concern for Libyan updates, you really shouldn't take your precious time to snark about a post you don't get.

The point isn't how many days (it was two) but that you were protesting that the poor poster didn't respond because of a time thing. But you were protesting on the behalf of one of the most ubiqutious and prolific posters on DU. That poster's messages show up 24/7. My remark was agreeing with the poster who asked the question, because the source of your compassion has a habit of lobbing a comment in a thread whose purpose is to derail discussion, then disappears when pressed to support statements. Most here are fully aware of this and joke about it because it is so obvious. It doesn't seem to bother your friend because more press releases are posted daily. It is the poster's right. It is my right to call on it.

Now let's summarize: the argument doesn't fail just because you don't see the relationship no matter how hard you think it is.

[phleshdef]

3. Multiple Presidents with multiple congresses ruled by multiple party changes over multiple decades..

...have generally disagreed with your (and apparently Michael Lind's) interpretation of Presidential powers in this sort of situation. Of all the arguments I've read on both sides of this issue, the most compelling argument is the one of precedent. Many President's have participated in no-fly zone type actions for these similar given reasons and no one ever made a significant challenge to any of these Presidents. There are several acts, laws, treaties and constitutional passages involved and the final interpretation, time and time again, seems to have been that the President doesn't have to get congressional approval right away and that congress in general has basically consented to the President volunteering our forces to answer the call of the UN in this way, whenever it happens. I know thats a very simplistic way of putting it, but that seems to be the basic idea that has been practiced longer than Barack Obama has even been alive.

I could either believe your and Michael Lind's ultimate interpration to be the legally correct one or I could believe the consensus among generations of government lawyers, congress critters and Presidents from all walks of American ideology. Thats a competition I believe you both lose.

Don't get me wrong, its not that I'm against the idea of a President's war power decisions being met with the balance of power. Far from it. But to attempt to make a case against President Obama here, that he somehow "broke the law", is say the least, pretty unfair and somewhat ludicrous when you gauge his actions against historical precedent.

[PurityOfEssence]

5. It's not just a "no-fly zone"; it authorizes land forces on the ground

Gotta go; more later.

[phleshdef]

6. This particular UN resolution forbids any occupying force though.

I guess as long as no one "takes control" of any areas, then they aren't considered occupiers. But given that specific restriction, I'm hard pressed to see a need for concern beyond the no fly zone activities.

[PurityOfEssence]

7. That means wage a full-on land war, prosecute it to any conclusion you want, but don't stay

That's precisely what it means. We've been bait-and-switched to a disgusting degree. The wording of the Resolution allows us to put in whole divisions if we want, as long as they're still fighting against something. I guarantee you it's stretchable to include some continued presence by proclaiming that there are partisan elements after taking Tripoli and hanging Qaddafi upside down with his mistress at the nearest Esso station.

As for previous violations being justification, that's precisely why I am so dead set against allowing an illegal act to go unchallenged; it's much akin to Kucinich's assertion about citing precedent.

Also, if you look at the record of the Presidents on violations of implementation of UN Resolutions without proper authorization, there are very few. The Presidents have been pretty good about this since 1945. They've been fairly good about the War Powers Act, although they all hate it.

Here, I'm only discussing the UN issue, since THAT is what Obama claims as his justification. Here's how the other are on that:

Truman fucked us, and used the Resolution without any authorization. He caught hell for it, but since everybody was so savagely anti-communist, got away with it. Truman was definitely too big for his britches in many ways.

Eisenhower never used a UN Resolution to go to war.

Kennedy never used a UN Resolution to go to war.

Johnson never used a UN Resolution to go to war.

Nixon never used a UN Resolution to go to war.

Ford never used a UN Resolution to go to war.

Carter never used a UN Resolution to go to war.

Reagan used a UN Resolution for Lebanon, pretty much abided by Congressional Authority, and was pretty much in line with the War Powers Act. Grenada had nothing to do with the UN.

Bush Sr. Used a UN Resolution for Iraq, didn't use it for Panama and used it for Somalia. Although he didn't get the authorization vote for Somalia (Congress was in recess) he very publicly and methodically got leadership from both sides of both houses of Congress on board, and even consulted and got the blessing of President Elect Clinton.

Clinton inherited Somalia, and worked honorably with a reluctant Congress to continue the involvement because it conflicted with the War Powers Act. He convinced them to compromise, and it was fully in accord with justification under the UN Participation Act. Clinton did not use the UN as justification for Kosovo; he used NATO, and the excuse is VERY tenuous for a defensive organization to claim the right there, but that's a different subject. It's also the worst violation of the War Powers Act, in my opinion, but we're talking about the UN here.

Bush 2 did not use the UN to justify Afghanistan or Iraq.

There you go: Truman ratfucked the country by superseding his rights under the UN Participation Act, and everyone else except Obama has been just fine. I'm not discussing the War Powers Act here, but Obama is in greater violation of that than anyone else, with Clinton being a close second, and Reagan and Bush Sr. being in violation in some instances, and in scrupulous accord in others.

The argument that oh so very many Presidents have done this is simply not the least bit true.

[slipslidingaway]

8. knr - thank you. No answers on the threads I see ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=793160&mesg_id=793160

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=786215&mesg_id=786215

[PurityOfEssence]

9. Yes, they cannot and do not respond; then pop up in other treads hawking the same horse shit

I'm carrying on a PM conversation with one who quotes me the text from Section 6 of the UN Participation Act, and when I show, conclusively, that the language specifically states that "special agreements" to make forces available MUST be authorized by Congress, that person keeps going on about how it says that the President doesn't need authorization for an Article 42 call up, and simply can't accept or admit that the next phrase "pursuant to a special agreement" NECESSITATES CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL, as it clearly states in the same paragraph both before and after.

This person just barks back that Lind doesn't know what he's talking about, and even though the very definition of a "special agreement" REQUIRES Congressional approval, it is nonetheless proof that I'm wrong. This person, in the last incoherence, reiterated that this proves the President doesn't need authorization, and then went on and brought up how the President could send non-combatants, so this too PROVED he could do as he pleases. Presumably the F-15 crew who bailed out of their plane in Libya were non-combatants.

ProSense has been confronted with the language over and over again, and her only contention at this point is that the UN Charter constitutes a self-authorizing treaty, and thus the War Powers Act would allow the President to act without authorization or a declaration. I have literally shown her 5 times, with her exact postings, the actual documents, explanations by a peer-reviewed legal journal and respected progressive journalist that conclusively show that the UN Charter does NOT automatically confer the ability to the President to circumvent Congressional authorization.

This isn't funny. Barack Obama has defied Congress and broken both the War Powers Act and the UN Participation Act. He has refused to answer prominent members of his own party when they directly accuse him of this; that shows that he's wrong. He has used evasive wording to justify his actions. I do not want the War Powers Act to be shunted to the back of the room as something that's never really enforced; it's great legislation, and one of the bulwarks that keeps us from imperial fascism. Obama seems to want this. We KNOW the Republicans want this.

The whole episode belies the oft-touted nobility and honesty of this administration, and it does it in that darkest of all national arenas, WAR: real, live, modern mechanized war.

People who now know the reality, yet persist in spreading deceit, are not the heroic defenders of their great champion; they are merely pawns helping the corporatist powers of empire.

[guruoo]

11. Pathetic. nt.

[Jakes Progress]

13. They use the "NIxon Defence".

"When a president does it, it is not illegal". Of course they do add the caveat that the president must be a rock star and really, really popular. Then everything's good to go.

[joshcryer]

19. No, it's more that this is just a logic and comprehension fail. Utterly and completely.

[PurityOfEssence]

24. No, that would be you in #18, as I show in #21

Read on.

[joshcryer]

18. He's talking about me, BTW.

And he's being completely dishonest about what was said in those PMs. Lind has to tie Article 42 to Article 43 because otherwise there's clearly no argument. So they spin and spin to try to tie them together because the language Article 42 explicitly states that the President does not require authorization.

[PurityOfEssence]

21. Then may I publish those Private Messages? Here's Article 42; it's nothing like what you say

Here's the entirety of UN Charter Article 42. Where does it EXPLICITLY state that "the President does not require authorization?"

"Article 42

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations."

That's it; that's the whole Article 42; there's nothing more. WHERE DOES IT SAY THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT REQUIRE CONGRESS' AUTHORIZATION? You say that it "explicitly" states this; it says nothing at all about how members decide to send troops. Nothing. Nothing at all.

This needs to stop. It is silly. As for my "dishonesty", I would LOVE to publish these here and now, but, since they're "private" I will refrain until you grant permission. May I? May I please? Aw, come on.

Folks, help me out here; this is ridiculous.

[slipslidingaway]

28. He has asked your permission to post those PMs ..

maybe you should agree.

:shrug:

[PurityOfEssence]

30. More importantly, the claim about Article 42 is wrong, and the statute he uses proves my point

Somehow a flat-out statement about Article 42 giving the President a blank check for war being shown to be COMPLETELY wrong, to the extent that no mention is made at all about how member states determine to send forces, doesn't merit response. As I show below, the very concept of Congressional authorization not being required is ludicrous in light of the specific exception for non-combatants. If Congress were to not require authorization for an Article 42 call-up, a special instance where the President could go it alone with non-combatants would not be an exception.

It's all thoroughly detailed below and resounding, yet it merits no retraction of words like "spurious" and worse.

We shall see. Or maybe not. Whatever.

[slipslidingaway]

31. The Congress and media have just gone along, there was never any ...

debate about the legality of using forces in Libya, the corporate media has given Obama a pass on this.

[joshcryer]

33. No one said it gives the President a blank check.

[joshcryer]

32. Sure, he may, but he's using a different argument *now.*

He keeps changing the argument.

edit: to clarify, if he was arguing on the basis of some coherent grounds, he wouldn't have to continually keep changing his argument. It's only because he's starting with the premise that Obama acted illegal, that he keeps finding reasons it's illegal.

[slipslidingaway]

41. The arguments have been all over of the place, thanks for the reply. n/t

[slipslidingaway]

29. Same thing happens again and again ...

not sure how many times I posted "crickets" to some of the same posters when they disappeared.

:hi:

[guruoo]

10. TITLE 22, CHAPTER 7, XVI: "President shall not be deemed to require the authorizationof the Congress

On March 1, 2011 - the US Senate passed by unanimous consent Senate Resolution 85 which recognized and applauded the "courage of the Libyan people in standing up against the brutal dictatorship of Muammar Gadhafi and for demanding democratic reforms, transparent governance, and respect for basic human and civil rights and strongly condemns the gross and systematic violations of human rights in Libya, including violent attacks on protesters demanding democratic reforms.

The resolution also urged "the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory."

This resolution was debated, sponsored and passed by unanimous consent in the US Senate.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.RES.85:

Also - under the UN Participation Act of 1945 - passed by Congress in 1945 and signed in to law by the President:

"The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein"

TITLE 22 > http://null/usc_sup_01_22.html
CHAPTER 7 > http://null/usc_sup_01_22_10_7.html
SUBCHAPTER XVI > § 287d http://null/usc_sup_01_22_10_7_20_XVI.html

§ 287d. Use of armed forces;

http://www.wral.com/golo/blogpost/9343707/

[PurityOfEssence]

14. PURSUANT TO SUCH SPECIAL AGREEMENT OR AGREEMENTS

Which MUST BE AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS.

What the fuck do you think that means? The full sentence you so conveniently quote only of part in your title says that he can do it without Congress pursuant to special agreements' and those "special agreements" are, in the same statute, required to be passed by BOTH Houses of Congress. What do you think "pursuant" means?

The non-binding Senate resolution was NOT a resolution on the President's special agreement, there was no mention whatsoever of US Military involvement, and what they requested was a mere "no-fly zone", not an authorization for full-scale military operations, including land forces and anything deemed necessary, which is what UN Resolution 1973 is

What the fuck is the matter with some of you people? This statute is the same language as Section 6 of the UN Participation Act. Here's clarification WHICH YOU'VE SEEN MANY TIMES BEFORE from The American Journal of International Politics, because I've posted it to you and you've directly responded.

� "Constitutional processes" is defined in section 6 of the UN Participation Act of 1945. Without the slightest ambiguity, this statute requires that the agreements "shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution." Statutory language could not be clearer. The President must seek congressional approval in advance. Two qualifications are included in section 6:

��� The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and PURSUANT TO SUCH SPECIAL AGREEMENT OR AGREEMENTS the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein: Provided, That . . . nothing herein contained shall be construed as an authorization to the President by the Congress to make available to the Security Council for such purpose armed forces, facilities, or assistance in addition to the forces, facilities, and assistance provided for in such special agreement or agreements.

� The first qualification states that, once the President receives the approval of Congress for a special agreement, he does not need its subsequent approval to provide military assistance under Article 42(pursuant to which the Security Council determines that peaceful means are inadequate and military action is necessary). Congressional approval is needed for the special agreement, not for the subsequent implementation of that agreement. The second qualification clarifies that nothing in the UN Participation Act is to be construed as congressional approval of other agreements entered into by the President.

� Thus, the qualifications do not eliminate the need for congressional approval. Presidents may commit armed forces to the United Nations only after Congress gives its explicit consent. That point is crucial. The League of Nations Covenant foundered precisely on whether congressional approval was needed before using *30 armed force. The framers of the UN Charter knew that history and consciously included protections of congressional prerogatives.

It's in section IV.

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/yooj/courses/forrel/reserve/fisher.htm

PLEASE RESPOND, AND PLEASE RESPOND TO THIS SPECIFIC CLARIFICATION AS HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY REQUESTED. SHOUT-DOWNS AND SELECTIVE QUOTING ARE NOT NEIGHBORLY.

[joshcryer]

16. "Special agreements" is between the United States and the United Nations.

Not between Congress and the President.

[PurityOfEssence]

20. They are DEFINED as agreements that have to be AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS

Even in what you sent me, the current law of the land, which is the same language as the UN Participation Act, it clearly says, in the very beginning:

"The President is authorized to negotiate a special agreement
or agreements with the Security Council which shall be
SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE CONGRESS BY APPROPRIATE ACT
OR JOINT RESOLUTION, providing for the numbers and types of
armed forces, their degree of readiness and general location,
and the nature of facilities and assistance, including rights
of passage, to be made available to the Security Council on
its call for the purpose of maintaining international peace
and security in accordance with article 43 of said Charter.
The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization
of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on
its call in order to take action under article 42 of said
Charter and PURSUANT TO SUCH SPECIAL AGREEMENT OR AGREEMENTS
the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for
therein: Provided, That, except as authorized in section
287d–1 of this title, nothing herein contained shall be
construed as an authorization to the President by the Congress
to make available to the Security Council for such purpose
armed forces, facilities, or assistance in addition to the
forces, facilities, and assistance provided for in such
special agreement or agreements."

THE SPECIAL AGREEMENTS MUST BE APPROVED BY CONGRESS. HOW MANY TIMES AND IN HOW MANY WAYS DO YOU HAVE TO SEE THIS? Once again, very clearly, the President makes an agreement that isn't worth shit until BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS authorizes it. Then, if he has that in place, if an Article 42 call-up comes, he may act without asking them again, but in no way may he send forces to do ANYTHING that is beyond the authorization. He may not do ANYTHING in any case unless he has authorization, by vote, from BOTH the House and Senate on an agreement he makes with the Security Council.

[joshcryer]

34. "...in accordance with article 43 of said Charter."

The statute does not give the President authorization to simply agree under Article 43. Full stop. End, period.

The statute deems that authorization is not necessary under Article 42, that defers the President's actions under the War Powers Act, give gives him statutory authorization to act for a period of time. The UN statute is that authorization.

[PurityOfEssence]

42. take action under article 42 of said Charter and PURSUANT TO SUCH SPECIAL AGREEMENT OR AGREEMENTS

"such special agreements" are defined above, and yes, they are needed for a call-up under Article 43, but that has nothing to do with this. The definition of a "special agreement" is that it has to be authorized, and not just for the standing army concept of Article 43, for EVERYTHING.

What does it mean to you that he doesn't need it for a call-up under Article 42 AND PURSUANT TO SUCH SPECIAL AGREEMENT? Congress is not saying that, in this case they're waiving their right to make the decision, they're giving him the ability to react quickly if he's anticipated the problem. It's much like "authorizations" in the later War Powers Act: the President anticipates a problem with a country and goes to Congress (like Junior did with Iraq) and says that he wants authorization for military action that is then described. If Congress says "yes", then this is used as leverage in bargaining with the country, but he's free to move; the important point is that he can stage a proper attack with the decisiveness of a single leader instead of having to crawl through the legislative process in a crisis. It's like being pre-approved for a mortgage before going out shopping. Congress specifically gives this concession to kill the argument that legislation is too slow in wartime leadership, and still have the ultimate say-so.

Why, if he doesn't need permission for this, why is it a very specific EXCEPTION to needing Congress' approval that he can send a small contingent of peacekeepers? That is simply grammatically indefensible. It would be either "in addition to" or "also in the case of" instead of "except". They are very literally pointing out that this is the ONLY situation where he doesn't need permission. For it to be your way, it would be "nope, you don't need permission in this situation, except for this one special occasion where you don't need permission."

The definition of the special agreements is that they need approval. He may heed a call-up from an Article 42 call, but only within the parameters of a special agreement, which by definition needs authorization. The reason that confusing language is there is to provide the President with nimbleness in the thick of things.

This is not just my interpretation. If you read the American Journal of International Politics article about the UN Participation Act, it's REALLY clear that Congress reserves the right at all times. The bit about non-combatants was added four years later to give the President a little bit more leeway.

Where on earth does it say that special agreements are only needed to be authorized for Article 43 call-ups? The first part effectively says that he negotiates, congress MUST authorize, and that's how it goes for Article 43. It goes on to say that he doesn't need authorization for an Article 42 call-up that's PURSUANT TO SUCH AGREEMENTS, and "such agreements" are defined in the previous part as NEEDING AUTHORIZATION. The point of this is that Article 42 call-ups are an ad hoc kind of thing, and the nature of the timing calls for them allowing him to move quickly AS LONG AS THEY'VE ALREADY APPROVED OF THE BASIC IDEA OF THE ACTION. The end is that nothing there is to be construed as giving him permission; it's all to have been contained in a special agreement that was already authorized.

Do you SERIOUSLY think this is some kind of "and Mr. Phelps, we will disavow any knowledge if anything happens to the IMF team"? NO, they are not relinquishing their control at all, they are letting him move quickly pursuant to an agreement, which, by definition, MUST be authorized.

Please explain the "except". If they're letting him go it alone in this one circumstance, then why is it this incredible exception in another instance to let him go it alone? That's rubbish.

[joshcryer]

45. THERE ARE NO AGREEMENTS OR SPECIAL AGREEMENTS

[PurityOfEssence]

48. "to take action under Art. 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreements"

IT'S RIGHT THERE!

"The President shall not be deemed to require the
authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security
Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of
said Charter AND PURSUANT TO SUCH SPECIAL AGREEMENT OR AGREEMENTS."

It means that he doesn't need further permission to act on an Article 42 call THAT PERTAINS TO AN ALREADY AUTHORIZED AGREEMENT.

It's literally right there. How on earth can you say it isn't? I've offered peer-reviewed scholarly commentary that confirms that this is precisely so. You make claims of things that simply aren't so. Why don't you answer my point in #21, rebutting your claim that Article 42 explicitly confirms that the President may act alone when it says nothing of the sort? That's a direct rebuttal to an emphatic pronouncement, and you have posted repeatedly since it was made. This shows your methodology as saying whatever you please to drown out any dissent.

Once again, this PROVES that he may not act in a way that is NOT pursuant to an agreement, and the agreements are specifically defined as necessitating Congressional Authorization and not just in the case of Article 43.

Once again, how could it not be so if a specific exception is made for the one instance where Congress' authorization is NOT needed for a small contingency of non-combatants?

IT LITERALLY MUST BE PURSUANT TO AN AGREEMENT BY THIS LANGUAGE; HE MUST HAVE THE ARTICLE 42 CALL-UP AND AN AUTHORIZED SPECIAL AGREEMENT IN PLACE THAT IS PERTINENT. There is no wiggle room here; there's an "and"; he simply must be adhering to something that's pre-approved. The whole point of this is that he may then act decisively and doesn't have to go back. That's because an Article 42 call-up is for a special occurrence and they're giving the President some nimbleness in the face of that.

How on earth can you say that there's no special agreement when it's specifically in that magic sentence you keep misreading an holding as proof?

If they're specifically saying, as they do at the end of the paragraph, that nothing herein shall be construed as an authorization, how can you say that this means they're waiving the requirement of an authorization? It's all about special agreements that have been authorized, and there's only one exception, and that's for the small group of non-combatants.

[joshcryer]

52. Highly illogical. See #51

[PurityOfEssence]

55. What does the word "pursuant" mean, and what does the word "such" mean? Clearly you don't know.

Please see post #54.

[joshcryer]

17. The only way Lind can make this argument is by spurious reasoning that Art. 42 really means Art. 43.

Otherwise he has no argument.

[Gravel Democrat]

22. Just for the record, why do you think the Founders gave the power to declare war to Congress?

Article One of the United States Constitution
Section 8: Powers of Congress

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Enumerated_powers

The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America. The Constitution is the framework for the organization of the United States government and for the relationship of the federal government with the states, citizens, and all people within the United States.

People can call firing missiles into another sovereign country whatever they want but I assure you that any country firing missiles into the US would be said to be committing an act of war.

To even have to debate such a thing shows the absurdity of what "language" has become in this nation at this time.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_madison

James Madison was the principal author of the United States Constitution, and is often called the "Father of the Constitution". In 1788, he wrote over a third of the Federalist Papers, the most influential commentary on the Constitution. The first president to have served in the United States Congress, he was a leader in the 1st United States Congress, drafting many basic laws, and was responsible for the first ten amendments to the Constitution and thus is also known as the "Father of the Bill of Rights".<1> As a political theorist, Madison's most distinctive belief was that the new republic needed checks and balances to protect individual rights from the tyranny of the majority.<2><3><4><5>

"the tyranny of the majority"

“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny” -- James Madison


"The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, & most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legislature. But the Doctrines lately advanced strike at the root of all these provisions, and will deposit the peace of the Country in that Department which the Constitution distrusts as most ready without cause to renounce it. For if the opinion of the President not the facts & proofs themselves are to sway the judgment of Congress, in declaring war, and if the President in the recess of Congress create a foreign mission, appoint the minister, & negociate a War Treaty, without the possibility of a check even from the Senate, untill the measures present alternatives overruling the freedom of its judgment; if again a Treaty when made obliges the Legislature to declare war contrary to its judgment, and in pursuance of the same doctrine, a law declaring war, imposes a like moral obligation, to grant the requisite supplies until it be formally repealed with the consent of the President & Senate, it is evident that the people are cheated out of the best ingredients in their Government, the safeguards of peace which is the greatest of their blessings.
Letter to Thomas Jefferson (1798-04-02); published in The Writings of James Madison (1906) Edited by Gaillard Hunt, Vol. 6, pp. 312-14


***

Our founders were so much more intelligent than the psychopaths and fools that call themselves "leaders" today it is a modern tragedy
***

The answer to 1984 is 1776

http://costofwar.com

[PurityOfEssence]

25. They really did get so very many things right, didn't they?

I know you're not asking me, but I thought I'd chime in and thanks for the post.

They understood that the necessities of wartime leadership called for an individual, but that the group should make the important decisions. Having a group run the actual command of a war would be a nightmare, as would entrusting the decision to start it in one person's hands.

It's a great evocation of democracy itself: in a way, the group is delegating the running of the war to the individual, just as we delegate our representatives to be our voice in government.

When people bellyache about problems with the Constitution and want to have a new convention, I just cringe. For one thing, we'd never get as good a deal on religion.

[joshcryer]

35. Why do you think the founders made the President the Commander in Chief?

Why else would there be a no-authorization clause for Article 42?

[Vattel]

47. The Founders did not think that the CIC power

included the power to determine whether to put the nation into a state of hostilities. The CIC power was the power to direct the armed forces when the nation is at war. All of John Yoo's bull shit to the contrary is, well, bull shit.

[Gravel Democrat]

50. Why did you not answer the question posed to you, yet post 2 other questions?

I'll try again, and please, don't expect me to answer your questions if you don't bother with mine.

Thanks.

"Just for the record, why do you think the Founders gave the power to declare war to Congress?"

I admit that it's not an easy question. Have you read any of the Federalist Papers?

Do you fancy yourself as wise or wiser than people like George Washington, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson?


"I love peace, and am anxious that we should give the world still another useful lesson, by showing to them other modes of punishing injuries than by war, which is as much a punishment to the punisher as to the sufferer." --Thomas Jefferson

"When one side only of a story is heard and often repeated, the human mind becomes impressed with it insensibly." --George Washington



"Real Patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favourite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests." -- George Washington

"The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, & most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legislature. But the Doctrines lately advanced strike at the root of all these provisions, and will deposit the peace of the Country in that Department which the Constitution distrusts as most ready without cause to renounce it.

For if the opinion of the President not the facts & proofs themselves are to sway the judgment of Congress, in declaring war, and if the President in the recess of Congress create a foreign mission, appoint the minister, & negociate a War Treaty, without the possibility of a check even from the Senate, until the measures present alternatives overruling the freedom of its judgment; if again a Treaty when made obliges the Legislature to declare war contrary to its judgment, and in pursuance of the same doctrine, a law declaring war, imposes a like moral obligation, to grant the requisite supplies until it be formally repealed with the consent of the President & Senate, it is evident that the people are cheated out of the best ingredients in their Government, the safeguards of peace which is the greatest of their blessings." -- James Madison


***

Our founders were so much more intelligent than the psychopaths and fools that call themselves "leaders" today it is a modern tragedy
***

[Mimosa]

53. Refreshing that some Democrats remain *real *

I'm so damn tired of the defense of aggressive actions against other nations. The US is developing a very bad karma. People are learning to despise US because of the actions of our Presidents.

[PurityOfEssence]

23. Let's go straight to the Federal Statute, which you provided to me

The hard-and-fast current law proves me correct. A "special agreement" requires Congressional Authorization, period. It's not as if one for an Article 43 call-up does but one for an Article 42 call-up doesn't. Here's the current statute; it's mostly the same language as the original UN Participation Act, with the addition of a provision for non-combatant deployment:

The President is authorized to negotiate a special agreement or
agreements with the Security Council which shall be subject to the
approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution,
providing for the numbers and types of armed forces, their degree
of readiness and general location, and the nature of facilities and
assistance, including rights of passage, to be made available to
the Security Council on its call for the purpose of maintaining
international peace and security in accordance with article 43 of
said Charter. The President shall not be deemed to require the
authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security
Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of
said Charter and PURSUANT TO SUCH SPECIAL AGREEMENT OR AGREEMENTS
the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein:
Provided, That, EXCEPT as authorized in section 287d-1 of this
title, nothing herein contained shall be construed as an
authorization to the President by the Congress to make available to
the Security Council for such purpose armed forces, facilities, or
assistance in addition to the forces, facilities, and assistance
provided for in such special agreement or agreements.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/22/7/XVI/287d

Once again: PURSUANT TO. Congress isn't waiving its right to be the ones to make the decision to commit. If that's not enough for you, it's saying PURSUANT TO SUCH AGREEMENTS, and "such agreements" have been defined above as necessitating Congressional authorization. It means that EXCEPT for 287d-1, which is the provision for the President to send up to 1,000 forces for SPECIFICALLY NON-COMBAT DUTIES, HE MUST GET CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION. Lind does not equate or conflate Articles 42 and 43; he literally sticks with Article 42. Here, the statute is clearly stating that EXCEPT in an occasion of deploying a small contingent of non-combatant personnel, he MUST HAVE CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION.

If THAT'S not clear enough, for it to mean what YOU think it, would have to be saying that the President doesn't need Congress' authorization EXCEPT FOR THE ONE SPECIAL SITUATION where he doesn't need their authorization. Sound silly? That's cuz it is, and it's wrong. The only instance where the President can send troops on his own is if there are no more than 1,000, and they're "observers, guards, or in any non-combatant capacity"

Here's that document: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/22/7/XVI/287d-1

Again, for it to mean what you think, it would say that the President doesn't need authorization EXCEPT in the really really special situation where he doesn't need authorization. Please explain how "except" means "exactly the same as" and explain the logic of the distinctions. It says at the very beginning that such agreements require authorization, and it says that his acting alone is pursuant to an agreement or agreements. Congress reserves the right for authorization in all cases other than a small non-combatant force. The Article 42 call comes, and he sends 'em in by the terms of an agreement that he negotiated with the Security Council and that has subsequently been authorized by Congress. It means that he doesn't have to ask AGAIN. It's being clear to give him the latitude to move quickly as long as they all agree that war is the thing to do. It's much like what they did years later with the War Powers Act authorizations: get our agreement that it's necessary and put it on ice, then you may act on your own with the nimbleness necessary when the moment comes.

Lind gets this exactly right and states it pretty clearly. Special Agreements ALWAYS need authorization by both houses.

[joshcryer]

36. Yes, he doesn't need authorization, and it doesn't give him authorization.

How hard is this to understand? Congress is clearly reserving the right to either authorize or not authorize, but they understood that under 42 the Commander in Chief, the head of all of our militaries, should still have the power to act.

The War Powers Act, with the statutory authorization, clearly covers this.

[PurityOfEssence]

43. Congress is NOT giving away ANYTHING. They keep the right to authorize it.

Where does it say under Article 42 that the President has the power to act?

You ducked it above, so here it is again WHERE DOES IT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE MEMBER NATIONS COMMAND CONTROL OR LAWS? This the second time you put words in their mouth and use it to justify poppycock.

Article 42

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

The War Powers Act, 28 years later takes much the same tack, but you misunderstand that, too

Why don't you explain the complete contradiction of the "except"? If Congress is waiving their right to authorize, then why is there a huge exception for the one and only case where he doesn't need their authorization to send in non-combatants? How can there be an "except"? You conveniently duck that, as you conveniently duck the salient issue of "pursuant to such special agreements" and go back to you suppositions about what they thought they meant.

Please also show this "statutory authorization" claim from the War Powers Act. The War Powers Act grants the President to act if attacked, and that's it, period. If he gets an authorization, he may put that on ice and then attack within its parameters, provided he notifies in 48 hours with full details and plans and sticks to their timetable. You apparently are still trying to sell the magic "60 day free-trial period", when this period is specifically labeled as a "Congressional Action". Congress is VERY consistent: THEY get to decide if we go to war, which in the War Powers Act they define as introducing armed forces into hostilities or where they're imminent. He can't do a damned thing, period, unless they declare war, authorize some kind of non-declared action OR we're attacked.

The whole point of the War Powers act is that he can ONLY act with a Declaration, Authorization, or if attacked. If declared, there's no timetable. If it's authorized, he can put that under his pillow, and wait or go quickly, PROVIDED that he inform them within 48 hours of acting, and obeys their strict timetable and reporting. I've shown you that language repeatedly, too, and it's not the least bit convoluted.

Why don't you respond to the flat-out rebuttal of your baseless claim in #18 that UN Article 42 gives the President "explicit" freedom to act?

[joshcryer]

44. A Venn diagram for you:

[PurityOfEssence]

49. This is incorrect, too; you made it yourself, right?

If not, please cite its origin.

He may only respond without further Congressional approval to an Article 42 call-up that is pursuant to a special agreement that's been authorized. That's what the "AND" is all about. The sentence does not stand if it's not with both the Article 42 Resolution AND a pertinent special agreement, which has been defined as needing authorization.

[joshcryer]

51. Yes, I made it, feel free to try to make one, yourself.

We've been over this, I think. Article 43 is not exclusive, it includes Articles 43 through 47. Those articles create a Military Committee and Military Staff Committee, for which the United Nations would use those forces for whatever goals it so deems. The statute does not allow the President to use forces under Article 43 without approval, because it in effect gives a number of troops to the United Nations and their Committee for use in peacekeeping missions. As I said in our PMs, this would effectively be WWIII, because I cannot envision any scenario where the United States cedes military control to the United Nations.

What you're saying is that in order to fulfill Article 42 the President must have had Article 43 agreements, even though Article 42 requires no agreements. Indeed, Article 42 merely calls upon member states to act, they may chose to do so or not. And they have no UN committees controlling the forces that do act.

This is spurious reasoning at best, because then it renders the words "shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress" moot, since if that is the case, the President must always get authorization regardless.

This is precisely the reason I made the Venn diagram, because it logically breaks down what is being said in the statute, anyone with a lick of sense can understand it.

[PurityOfEssence]

54. No, I'm not saying that at all, no matter how many times you say I and Lind are

I've pointed out the last sentence in Article 43 before, because it's the only part of the Charter that I can find that talks about the mechanism of member nations ratifying special agreements, and it says that they are subject to the nations' constitutionality. I do not, in any way, conflate the two Articles, and certainly not use one to prove the other. Lind SPECIFICALLY separates the two.

Here's more from the American Journal of International Politics:

� The House of Representatives also designed the UN Participation Act to protect congressional prerogatives over war and peace. In reporting the bill, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs drew attention to the vote in the Senate rejecting the idea that special agreements could be handled solely by the Senate through the treaty process. The committee "believes that it is eminently appropriate that the Congress as a whole pass upon these agreements under the constitutional powers of the Congress." During floor debate, Congressman Bloom, one of the delegates to the San Francisco Conference, underscored that point:

��� The position of the Congress is fully protected by the requirement that the military agreement to preserve the peace must be passed upon by Congress before it becomes effective. Also, the obligation of the United States to make forces available to the Security Council does not become effective until the special agreement has been passed upon by Congress.

� The restrictions on the President's power under section 6 to use armed force were clarified by amendments adopted in 1949, allowing the President on his own initiative to provide military forces to the United Nations for "cooperative action." However, presidential discretion to deploy these forces is subject to stringent conditions: they may serve only as observers and guards and in a noncombatant capacity, and they cannot exceed one thousand in number. Moreover, in providing such troops to the United Nations, the President shall assure that they not involve "the employment of armed forces contemplated by chapter VII of the United Nations Charter." Clearly, there is no opportunity in the UN Participation Act or its amendments for unilateral military action by the President.

You seem to think that because Section 6 (and 287d) says that the President must have Congressional Authority for an Article 43 call-up that this means he ONLY needs it for that kind of call up. The next sentence clearly states that the President does not need Congressional authorization for an Article 42 call-up, but only if PURSUANT TO SUCH SPECIAL AGREEMENT OR AGREEMENTS. There is no place where it says that Congressional authorization is not necessary to put an agreement into effect. It literally goes on to give the one EXCEPTION where a President may act alone, and that's where sending non-combatants is allowed. The ending statement is not Congress disavowing itself of any responsibility arising from the President going it alone, it is a reminder that saying that the President may act immediately IF HE HAS AN AUTHORIZED AGREEMENT IN PLACE does not constitute permission if he does not have it or for anything outside of the agreement.

You continue to refuse to address three things that I have glaringly requested.

1) How could there be a great big hairy "exception" for a special instance where he DOESN'T need prior approval for non-combatants if the sentence means he doesn't need them for an Article 42 call-up as well? How can it be an exception if it's allowed for something else?
2)How do you separate the stipulations built in to the statement that say he may respond without authorization PURSUANT TO AN AGREEMENT (that means AN AGREEMENT MUST BE IN PLACE) and the wording of "such agreement" which is specifically referring to the only other reference to these kinds of agreements, which clearly states that they MUST be authorized?
3) Why do you make no comment on your statement that Article 42 "explicitly" says the President may go it alone? You are clearly wrong as I show in #21, yet you are perfectly willing to let this misunderstanding continue poisoning the casual reader.

Do you dispute the article from the American Journal of International Politics which clearly points
out that this simply means that he doesn't have to go back for further approval?

��� The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein: Provided, That . . . nothing herein contained shall be construed as an authorization to the President by the Congress to make available to the Security Council for such purpose armed forces, facilities, or assistance in addition to the forces, facilities, and assistance provided for in such special agreement or agreements.

� The first qualification states that, once the President receives the approval of Congress for a special agreement, he does not need its subsequent approval to provide military assistance under Article 42 (pursuant to which the Security Council determines that peaceful means are inadequate and military action is necessary). Congressional approval is needed for the special agreement, not for the subsequent implementation of that agreement. The second qualification clarifies that nothing in the UN Participation Act is to be construed as congressional approval of other agreements entered into by the President.

� Thus, the qualifications do not eliminate the need for congressional approval. Presidents may commit armed forces to the United Nations only after Congress gives its explicit consent. That point is crucial. The League of Nations Covenant foundered precisely on whether congressional approval was needed before using *30 armed force. The framers of the UN Charter knew that history and consciously included protections of congressional prerogatives.

DO YOU DISPUTE THIS ANALYSIS? DO YOU DISPUTE THIS PEER-REVIEWED PAPER? ON WHAT GROUNDS DO YOU DISPUTE IT? WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO NOT ADDRESS THIS DIRECTLY?

That's the whole point of the "special agreements": they're to get everyone in agreement so if an emergency arises, the President will be able to act quickly, nothing more. The argument has always been there that legislative sluggishness is bad for wartime leadership, and that explains this and the "authorization" provided in the War Powers Act.

Finally, please stop making the claim that Lind is conflating Articles 43 and 42; he is SPECIFICALLY not. He goes out of his way to not do so and show that he's not doing so. He calls it a "dead letter". He says that once again the discussion is straying into that area, and thus not relevant.

I still contend that the language in Article 43(3) shows that the UN Charter recognizes that "special agreements" mean nothing unless they've been ratified to satisfy the constitution back home. There is nothing that describes any other kind of "special agreements", and the language of our law specifically refers to the President acting PURSUANT TO SUCH SPECIAL AGREEMENT OR AGREEMENTS to be able to send forces.

This is the settled legal opinion of the language, and it was intended to be such.

[joshcryer]

56. No special agreements were made. You *are* saying that they must make them.

This is patently dishonest of you. The Venn diagram proves the logical breakdown of the process. It does not say that the President must make special agreements, it gives him power to make them, and then have them authorized. There's a reason "and pursuant to" is after the Article 42 mention in the statute, it is in addition to any agreements or special agreements agreed to.

You are 100% saying that the "no authorization deemed necessary" aspect of the statute is irrelevant. It makes no logical sense, as the Venn diagram shows.

[PurityOfEssence]

58. Are you KIDDING? Go get your sworn enemy Mr. Dictiionary; that's NOT what pursuant means!!!

A special agreement must be made and authorized as a pre-condition for responding to an Article 42 call-up.

How dare you accuse me of dishonesty. You make false claims about Article 42 and won't respond to a rebuttal, you're presented a peer-reviewed scholarly paper clearly defining the meaning of the language and won't respond to it, yet I address every point of yours and answer all accusations. What utter piffle.

Do you just apply whatever random definition you please to a word to make it dance to your unfounded assumption?

Here's Collins Dictionary's definition:

— adj (often foll by to )
1. chiefly law in agreement or conformity

The sentence requires there to be a special agreement. It specifically says he may take action from an Article 42 Resolution AND pursuant to an agreement. There's no room for argument there: BOTH CONDITIONS MUST BE MET. Ask an attorney; this is the simplest of simple legal language.

In this case that means he may do as he pleases as long as it conforms to a pre-existing and authorized agreement. It's clear: the action is pursuant to the agreement.

No, I'm not saying that the "shall not be deemed to require the authorization" element of the statute is irrelevant at all, I'm saying--as is the legal meaning--that he absolutely does not have to get authorization from Congress to perform an action that has already been authorized by Congress. The whole point of this is that the President may move with all due speed when the situation dictates IF HE HAS GOTTEN HIS COLLEAGUES IN LINE AND GOTTEN THE APPROVAL AHEAD OF TIME. It's exactly like the concept of an "authorization" in the War Powers Act: the legislature is giving the President tactical flexibility while still reserving the right to decide for itself.

I've explained this repeatedly. It's not some screwy interpretation; it's the very meaning of the damned thing, as understood by the legislators who crafted it and scholars to this day. Why do you not respond in any way to the American Journal of International Law Article? You repeatedly duck specific requests to address it. Again, would you please address it?

I'm sorry it looks like he gets a free rein, but the wording is quite misleading. An attorney friend of mine agrees on this, but also says that there's not the slightest shred of doubt of what the legal meaning here is: he may act from an Article 42 call-up without further authorization, as long as he has an agreement in place that's been authorized.

[joshcryer]

61. If those agreements don't exist then it says "and pursuant to no other agreements."

It's simple. Article 42 makes absolutely no mention to agreements or special agreements. Article 42 is a call to action. Article 43 concerns agreements and special agreements.

The Venn diagram remains uncontested by your lackluster attempts.

[PurityOfEssence]

64. Over and over you refuse to respond to the American Journal of International Law, so, AGAIN:

Where do you get this "and pursuant to no other agreements"? NOTHING is possible without a special agreement on an Article 42 call-up.

The first qualification states that, once the President receives the approval of Congress for a special agreement, he does not need its subsequent approval to provide military assistance under Article 42 (pursuant to which the Security Council determines that peaceful means are inadequate and military action is necessary). Congressional approval is needed for the special agreement, not for the subsequent implementation of that agreement. The second qualification clarifies that nothing in the UN Participation Act is to be construed as congressional approval of other agreements entered into by the President.

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/yooj/courses/forrel/reserve/fisher.htm

[joshcryer]

67. It wholly fails to recognize what agreements and special agreements means.

Which Article 42 does not require.

[PurityOfEssence]

69. US law REQUIRES them in this instance. It is not optional.

Our statute and our UN Participation Act clearly state that Article 42 call-ups may be answered without congressional authorization PURSUANT TO SUCH SPECIAL AGREEMENT OR AGREEMENTS. Regardless of Article 42 not mentioning them, our law DOES MENTION them and REQUIRES them. He cannot send forces on just the Resolution alone, it needs to trigger an already authorized agreement.

The UN Participation Act specifies the parameters within which we may work with the United Nations.

This is just silly. Just because your hero must be defended at all costs, that doesn't mean you can make up things as you please, like the flat-out falsehood in post #18.

[joshcryer]

76. Where in the UN does Article 42 mention agreements or special agreements?

[PurityOfEssence]

79. It doesn't. It doesn't have to. US law REQUIRES THEM for Article 42 Resolutions.

How hard is this to understand? Dean Acheson specifically states this in an unequivocal statement before Congress, which you've been PMed, and which is in a post below.

Where does Article 42 mention the mechanism by which they are sent forces by the member states?

[joshcryer]

84. HOw can US law require them to do something that the UN doesn't have a mechanism for?

Please explain this to me.

[PurityOfEssence]

65. Please don't make up phrases and put them in quotes like this; this exists nowhere

Common decency would have us use quotations only when quoting a source document or an individual. This occurs nowhere, and is the sloppiest of sloppiness, if not outright deception.

[joshcryer]

68. You're the one claiming that you don't need Article 43 agreements or special agreements.

:hi:

[joshcryer]

62. dupe

dupe

[joshcryer]

57. BTW, I challenge you to make a similar diagram.

I guarantee you the resulting diagram will completely ignore the "no authorization" aspect of the statute. Either that, or you'll finally understand that the "pursuant to" is "in addition." If those agreements don't exist and if the President is not using Article 43 requirements, then it falls to Article 42. It's simple logic.

As I said from the very beginning you have to tie it to Article 43 for it to make sense. This argument is tenuous at best.

[PurityOfEssence]

59. No, again, I am not saying he needed an article 43 agreement

Whether Article 42 mentions special agreements or not, US law does. It specifically says that "The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter AND PURSUANT TO SUCH SPECIAL AGREEMENT OR AGREEMENTS."

The sentence works as a whole; you can't just lop off the part that annoys you. He may ONLY act without authorization if he's answering an Article 42 call-up that is pursuant to an agreement that is already in place. "Pursuant" means that the thing before the words "pursuant" are dependent upon what follows it. The Article 42 call-up MUST match up with an agreement that is already in place.

Even if Article 42 doesn't mention the term "special agreement", the governing US law DOES, and it defines these agreements as necessitating congressional authorization, thus the wording "such special agreement or agreements". That, by definition, is referring to the definition of the agreements in the earlier part of the paragraph.

No, it does not render the language "shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress" moot at all; it makes it obvious that he doesn't have to go back for special authorization when the call-up happens if he's already gotten it. It's certainly badly worded, but that goes both ways. How can you pull the convenient part out of the sentence and disregard the rest?

The whole point of this is to give the President some nimbleness in the heat of things: if we know that a country is trouble and agree that action is warranted if things get worse, he can have that authorization in place if needed. Then if the call comes on Christmas Eve, he doesn't have to wait for Congress to meet and vote to get going.

Once again, you refuse to respond to this from the American Journal of International Law, while continually accusing me of lying, deceiving, using spurious reasoning. You grossly misrepresented Article 42 in post #18 and don't respond to post #21. You call me a liar about private messages, but duck when I ask if I can publish them to prove you wrong. I've responded to all of your requests, although I'm not going to make a Venn Diagram now, so please, once again, please respond to this:

��� The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein: Provided, That . . . nothing herein contained shall be construed as an authorization to the President by the Congress to make available to the Security Council for such purpose armed forces, facilities, or assistance in addition to the forces, facilities, and assistance provided for in such special agreement or agreements.

� The first qualification states that, once the President receives the approval of Congress for a special agreement, he does not need its subsequent approval to provide military assistance under Article 42 (pursuant to which the Security Council determines that peaceful means are inadequate and military action is necessary). Congressional approval is needed for the special agreement, not for the subsequent implementation of that agreement. The second qualification clarifies that nothing in the UN Participation Act is to be construed as congressional approval of other agreements entered into by the President.

� Thus, the qualifications do not eliminate the need for congressional approval. Presidents may commit armed forces to the United Nations only after Congress gives its explicit consent. That point is crucial. The League of Nations Covenant foundered precisely on whether congressional approval was needed before using *30 armed force. The framers of the UN Charter knew that history and consciously included protections of congressional prerogatives.

[joshcryer]

60. YES YOU ARE. ARTICLE 42 DOES NOT ASK FOR SPECIAL AGREEMENTS.

SPECIAL AGREEMENTS ARE ARTICLE 43 ONLY

[PurityOfEssence]

63. "in order to take action under art. 42 of said Charter AND PURSUANT TO SUCH SPECIAL AGREEMENT"

"The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements..."

That's a QUOTE, and it specifically says, right there, that special agreements are necessary. It's not/either or; they're LINKED. That's what "AND" means in legal language. They do not operate independently.

This is like your ridiculous claim in post #18 that Article 42 "explicitly" grants the President to act without Congress when it makes no mention at all of the member countries' decision-making process.

Seriously, can you not read? Do you not understand what the conjunction "and" means? Are we clear yet on what "pursuant" means? Are we clear that the word "such" PROVES that the special agreements here are the same ones described earlier?

[joshcryer]

66. AND SUCH ARTICLE 43 AGREEMENTS

THERE ARE NO ARGEEMENTS

[PurityOfEssence]

70. Where do you get THAT language? "Such special agreement" is in the sentence with Article 42.

The very sentence you keep holding up as irrefutable proof literally contains the requirement for adhering to these agreements. The very "proof" you proclaim specifically states the existence and necessity of these agreements. They exist. They are intrinsic in that SINGLE SENTENCE.

These are not "Article 43 Agreements". Just because Article 43 defines the method by which agreements are made and Article 42 does not mention agreements doesn't negate UNITED STATES LAW that REQUIRES any response to an Article 42 call-up to be "PURSUANT TO SUCH SPECIAL AGREEMENT OR AGREEMENTS."

Our law specifically requires an agreement that is authorized to be in place. It's not confusing why: the President is to get his act together and get permission from Congress in anticipation of trouble, then, if the UN calls out the dogs, he may go without having to go for approval of the specific Resolution. Still, though, they remind him that he may only do what is allowed in the authorized agreement and must get further approval for anything else.

[joshcryer]

73. ARTICLE 42 HAS NO SPECIAL AGREEMENTS. THAT SENTENCE IS REFERRING TO ART. 43.

How hard is this to get? Show me where special agreements are required under Article 42 of the UN Charter. Show me. It doesn't exist. Period.

You're effectively saying, now, that the statute is telling the President he must make non-existent special agreements pursuant to Article 42, but that's nonsense, because, again, Article 42 has no mention of special agreements.

[PurityOfEssence]

74. Then what does "and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements" mean to you?

Dean Acheson himself specifically states this about Article 42 call-ups, as I quote below, by the way.

The United States Law that governs our dealings with the United Nations REQUIRES special agreements that are AUTHORIZED before the President may act on an Article 42 call-up. Whether the UN Charter refers to them in Article 42 or not doesn't matter; the US law REQUIRES THEM. Our law takes precedent.

Whether Article 42 mentions them or not, the law of this country requires any action taken in response to an Article 42 call to be pursuant to a special agreement or agreements.

The US law is requiring this. That's the end of it. The UN may request whatever it pleases, but the member nations decide what they're going to do, and the United States has clearly gone on record, with this law and the resultant 287d that any action has to be PURSUANT TO SUCH SPECIAL AGREEMENT OR AGREEMENTS.

No, I'm not saying what you'd like to get others to think I am, I am saying that the US law clearly states that the special agreement must be in place and authorized.

It specifically states that he doesn't need to get Congress' authorization to send forces in response to an Article 42 Resolution AND PURSUANT TO "SUCH SPECIAL AGREEMENT OR AGREEMENT". They're making a previously described agreement necessary in this sentence. What do YOU think this means? Requiring a standing agreement of an aforementioned type is somehow proof that no such things exist and that they're not required? The requirements are linked.

It doesn't matter that Article 42 itself doesn't mention the agreements; the only law by which we interact with them REQUIRES them, and refers to them as "such" agreements, which means ones as previously described.

Here's more from the American Journal of International Law:

��� The position of the Congress is fully protected by the requirement that the military agreement to preserve the peace must be passed upon by Congress before it becomes effective. Also, the obligation of the United States to make forces available to the Security Council does not become effective until the special agreement has been passed upon by Congress.

� The restrictions on the President's power under section 6 to use armed force were clarified by amendments adopted in 1949, allowing the President on his own initiative to provide military forces to the United Nations for "cooperative action." However, presidential discretion to deploy these forces is subject to stringent conditions: they may serve only as observers and guards and in a noncombatant capacity, and they cannot exceed one thousand in number. Moreover, in providing such troops to the United Nations, the President shall assure that they not involve "the employment of armed forces contemplated by chapter VII of the United Nations Charter." Clearly, there is no opportunity in the UN Participation Act or its amendments for unilateral military action by the President.

Not enough for you? Here's then Undersecretary of State DEAN ACHESON clarifying it in a Congressional hearing to a Representative, former Judge John Kee:

ACHESON: "This is an important question of Judge Kee, and may I state his question and my answer so that it will be quite clear here: The judge asks whether the language beginning on line 19 of page 5, which says the President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of the Charter, means that the President may provide these forces prior to the time when any special agreement has been approved by Congress. The answer to that question is 'No,' that the President may not do that, that such special agreements refer to the special agreement which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress, so that until the special agreement has been negotiated and approved by the Congress, it has no force and effect."

Please respond to that. Other people, please chime in here to end this silliness. Dean Acheson is specifically addressing the exact sentence regarding Article 42 call-ups and specifically states that they need an authorized special agreement. Remember: truth matters, and deliberately misleading people isn't fair.

[slipslidingaway]

75. "...use armed force were clarified by amendments adopted in 1949..."

Thanks, sure appears that the intent was not to circumvent approval by Congress.

"The restrictions on the President's power under section 6 to use armed force were clarified by amendments adopted in 1949, allowing the President on his own initiative to provide military forces to the United Nations for "cooperative action." However, presidential discretion to deploy these forces is subject to stringent conditions: they may serve only as observers and guards and in a noncombatant capacity, and they cannot exceed one thousand in number. Moreover, in providing such troops to the United Nations, the President shall assure that they not involve "the employment of armed forces contemplated by chapter VII of the United Nations Charter." Clearly, there is no opportunity in the UN Participation Act or its amendments for unilateral military action by the President.

Not enough for you? Here's then Undersecretary of State DEAN ACHESON clarifying it in a Congressional hearing to a Representative, former Judge John Kee:

ACHESON: "This is an important question of Judge Kee, and may I state his question and my answer so that it will be quite clear here: The judge asks whether the language beginning on line 19 of page 5, which says the President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of the Charter, means that the President may provide these forces prior to the time when any special agreement has been approved by Congress. The answer to that question is 'No,' that the President may not do that, that such special agreements refer to the special agreement which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress, so that until the special agreement has been negotiated and approved by the Congress, it has no force and effect."

[PurityOfEssence]

80. Yes, Acheson was clear: "The answer to that question is 'no', that the President may not do that."

Some people seem to believe that if they shout down people enough, their words are the truth.

It couldn't be clearer: special agreements are needed to send forces for combat purposes called for by Article 42 Resolutions, and such agreements must be authorized by both houses of Congress.

Reading the American Journal of International Law article I keep attaching makes this so very, very clear in no uncertain terms, but some people are either incapable of believing the President broke the law or was ignorant of its meaning, or they think it's okay if "our guy" does such a thing, and that shouting down reality is noble.

[slipslidingaway]

81. And some people forget about the 1949 amendments and the original intent...

wait til a Repub does the same thing, the story will change ... it should not, but unfortunately it is party over country.

:(

[joshcryer]

83. LOL, a Repub wouldn't even go with the UN...

...just like fucking Bush did with Iraq.

[joshcryer]

77. And article 42 makes mention of special agreements, where?

[PurityOfEssence]

78. US law does as they pertain to Article 42. Are you REALLY saying Dean Acheson was wrong?

Article 42 also doesn't mention the President, as you claim in post #18 that it does. It doesn't mention Congress either. Does that make you think the UN can just go to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and ask for a Carrier Task Force?

Article 42 makes no mention of member nations' constitutions or laws at all, does that mean that the UN may circumvent every nation's laws?

You are now claiming that Article 42 must specify special agreements for them to be necessary. That's rubbish. US LAW SPECIFICALLY MAKES THEM NECESSARY, PER THE UN PARTICIPATION ACT.

[joshcryer]

82. Yes, Article 42 must specify special agreements for your argument to work.

Because it does not it clearly indicates that the statute is referring to Article 43.

[PurityOfEssence]

85. So YOU'RE right, and Dean Acheson is wrong when he says US law REQUIRES agreements for Art. 42?

It's UNITED STATES LAW that matters here. Who are you to say that the United Nations Charter has to say that special agreements are necessary for action on an Article 42 Resolution when THE UNITED STATES LAW CLEARLY STATES THAT SUCH AGREEMENTS ARE NECESSARY?

The governing law for dealing with the United Nations requires them.

Silly me; I thought that the specific words of the Undersecretary of State at the time literally disproving PRECISELY what you're saying, and using the words "special agreements" specifically with "Article 42" would finally end this crap.

Why does Article 42 have to mention special agreements? The United States law mentions them SPECIFICALLY WITH Article 42 call-ups, and Acheson clarifies this with no uncertain terms.

"The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter AND PURSUANT TO SUCH SPECIAL AGREEMENT OR SPECIAL AGREEMENTS the armed forces..."

There it is: it's talking about Article 42 and makes the action PURSUANT TO SUCH SPECIAL AGREEMENT OR SPECIAL AGREEMENTS. How is this something I'm making up? The law ties Article 42 to special agreements right there, IN THE VERY SAME SENTENCE. As if that's not clear enough, Acheson states it flatly in a Congressional Hearing.

DEAN ACHESON: "This is an important question of Judge Kee, and may I state his question and my answer so that it will be quite clear here: The judge asks whether the language beginning on line 19 of page 5, which says the President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of the Charter, means that the President may provide these forces prior to the time when any special agreement has been approved by Congress. The answer to that question is "No," that the President may not do that, that such special agreements refer to the special agreement which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress, so that until the special agreement has been negotiated and approved by the Congress, it has no force and effect.

Nobody's talking about Article 43 there. I am referring simply to the sentence regarding Article 42, and Acheson is specifically ONLY talking about Article 42.

So what if Article 42 doesn't mention the agreements? the US law REQUIRES THEM.

[joshcryer]

86. Yes. Repeating nonsense doesn't make it true. Article 42 has no special agreements.

The UN has no mechanism for such magical "special agreements." It is a poor reading of what the statute is saying.

What does the statute put Article 43 before 42? Because it probably expected special agreements to be made. They were never made.

[PurityOfEssence]

87. So Dean Acheson spoke nonsense? Again: "and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements"

The United States Law is the issue. IT says that the agreements are necessary, and US law supersedes the UN Charter in this case. Whether any Article 43 Resolution ever happened or not, the LAW still says that a special agreement, which MUST be authorized, is necessary.

You're just gainsaying. Who cares what the order of the paragraph is? This is wholly independent of Article 43.

What the UN Charter requires in one thing, but US law supersedes it. How do you explain what Acheson is saying here? It's absolutely, boneheadedly obvious, and done so SPECIFICALLY so people can't wiggle out of it of be unclear in the least.

How do you refute this? This is the explanation at the time, in Congress, of what is STILL the standing law.

ACHESON: This is an important question of Judge Kee, and may I state his question and my answer so that it will be quite clear here: The judge asks whether the language beginning on line 19 of page 5, which says the President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under ARTICLE 42 of the Charter, means that the President may provide these forces prior to the time when any special agreement has been approved by Congress.

The answer to that question is "No," that the President may not do that, that SUCH SPECIAL AGREEMENTS refer to the SPECIAL AGREEMENT which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress, so that until the special agreement has been negotiated and approved by the Congress, it has no force and effect.

How on earth can ANYONE misinterpret that? There is no mention of Article 43; he is specifically and only talking about Article 42 and undeniably marries action in response to an Article 42 call-up to a "special agreement" which he further says MUST be authorized by Congress. US law supersedes foreign law, and it doesn't matter one whit what Article 42 says or doesn't say about how a member nation decides to act or not act pursuant to the call.

How do you explain his language? Do you dispute the authority from which he speaks? Do you dispute the law that still stands? Are you incapable of reading the most obvious and blunt prose conceivable?

You're also changing your story when it's inconvenient; you say above that the agreements are between the UN and the President, so are there agreements or aren't there? There certainly were when you thought you could shut someone up with a claim that they were structured differently, but now they suddenly don't exist at all.

You also still haven't answered the refutation to your pronouncement in #18 that Article 42 "explicitly" says that the President can go it alone. This, of course, is completely incorrect, too.

[joshcryer]

88. You still don't understand. Article 42 does not have special agreements with the UN.

Your argument is tantamount to saying "The US is making the UN have agreements that its charter doesn't even adhere to." That's hilarious and illogical.

WHAT agreements would the United States be making with the United Nations under Article 42? WHAT AGREEMENTS?

[PurityOfEssence]

89. You're changing your story; in #16 you say that there are agreements. US law REQUIRES them.

US law REQUIRES such agreements. It is LITERALLY ILLEGAL TO DO ANYTHING WITH THE UN THAT DOESN'T CONFORM TO THE UN PARTICIPATION ACT. The UN Charter doesn't mention them in Article 42, but the US Law governing our relations with the UN SPECIFICALLY REQUIRES THEM FOR ARTICLE 42 RESOLUTIONS.

You're saying that a lack of specificity in the UN Charter negates the specific requirement in our law governing our participation in the United Nations. US law supersedes treaties in any areas of confusion, and there's no conflict here anyway: our law requires them, and the Charter says nothing either way. Where's the discrepancy? Article 42 also doesn't mention ANY legal processes of the member nations.

If the UN wants our firepower, the UN will have to make a special agreement. US law determines the methodology for making forces available, and it requires the special agreements.

The agreements would be, as I've explained, ones where an anticipated action against a nation or nations warranted the use of described forces for a described task. If one is not in place when the Article 42 Resolution comes, then it would be invalid, as Acheson very obviously points out.

You have now avoided 3 specific requests to comment on Dean Acheson's testimony, which specifically shows you to be incorrect. For the fourth time, please comment on this:

ACHESON: This is an important question of Judge Kee, and may I state his question and my answer so that it will be quite clear here: The judge asks whether the language beginning on line 19 of page 5, which says the President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of the Charter, means that the President may provide these forces prior to the time when any special agreement has been approved by Congress.

The answer to that question is 'No,' that the President may not do that, that such special agreements refer to the special agreement which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress, so that until the special agreement has been negotiated and approved by the Congress, it has no force and effect."

You were wrong then when you tried to wiggle out of it by saying that the agreements were between the President and the UN. Now that it's not convenient for your "argument", they don't exist at all. This is just deplorable. When it was convenient for you in post #18 to pronounce that Article 42 "explicitly" granted the President to circumvent Congress when nothing of the sort exists, and you have so little respect for the board that you don't even respond to repeated requests to respond to this fallacy.

[joshcryer]

92. No, I'm saying that the UN is quite specific when they are talking about agreements.

The statute is clearly referring to UNs clear, concise wording as to what special agreements are referring to.

I'm quite honestly referring to SPECIFICITY not a lack thereof.

[PurityOfEssence]

93. What they want in this case is not the issue; it's what US law REQUIRES

Are you finally going to comment on Acheson's resounding rebuttal to this issue: he clearly says that the President may only send forces pursuant to an Article 42 call-up if there's a special agreement in place that's been authorized by Congress. There's no ambiguity in what he says, and it completely disproves your point and shows that our President broke US law.

You keep posting in this thread without addressing this consistent request to address this specific bit of testimony. Would you please comment?

[vaberella]

37. Neither does the OP in response. n/t

[Keith Bee]

26. Ech!

:thumbsdown:

[PurityOfEssence]

71. Is there an attorney here who cares to weigh in on this? I'm sick of the obfuscation & fabrication

The language is clear: to answer an Article 42 Resolution for a call-up of forces, the President does not need authorization from Congress as long as he is acting pursuant to a special agreement, which has been defined as necessitating authorization. The one exception being to send 1000 or less non-combatants, for which he needs no authorization.

��� The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein: Provided, That . . . nothing herein contained shall be construed as an authorization to the President by the Congress to make available to the Security Council for such purpose armed forces, facilities, or assistance in addition to the forces, facilities, and assistance provided for in such special agreement or agreements.

� The first qualification states that, once the President receives the approval of Congress for a special agreement, he does not need its subsequent approval to provide military assistance under Article 42 (pursuant to which the Security Council determines that peaceful means are inadequate and military action is necessary). Congressional approval is needed for the special agreement, not for the subsequent implementation of that agreement. The second qualification clarifies that nothing in the UN Participation Act is to be construed as congressional approval of other agreements entered into by the President.

� Thus, the qualifications do not eliminate the need for congressional approval. Presidents may commit armed forces to the United Nations only after Congress gives its explicit consent. That point is crucial. The League of Nations Covenant foundered precisely on whether congressional approval was needed before using *30 armed force. The framers of the UN Charter knew that history and consciously included protections of congressional prerogatives.

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/yooj/courses/forrel/reserve/fisher.htm

[PurityOfEssence]

72. "...no opportunity in the UN Participation Act...for unilateral military action by the President."

"Clearly, there is no opportunity in the UN Participation Act or its amendments for unilateral military action by the President." This is from The American Journal of International Law, which I keep quoting in this thread. The language is very obvious and it's backed up by a narrative of the creation of the law which leaves not a shadow of a doubt.

� The House of Representatives also designed the UN Participation Act to protect congressional prerogatives over war and peace. In reporting the bill, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs drew attention to the vote in the Senate rejecting the idea that special agreements could be handled solely by the Senate through the treaty process. The committee "believes that it is eminently appropriate that the Congress as a whole pass upon these agreements under the constitutional powers of the Congress." During floor debate, Congressman Bloom, one of the delegates to the San Francisco Conference, underscored that point:

��� The position of the Congress is fully protected by the requirement that the military agreement to preserve the peace must be passed upon by Congress before it becomes effective. Also, the obligation of the United States to make forces available to the Security Council does not become effective until the special agreement has been passed upon by Congress.

� The restrictions on the President's power under section 6 to use armed force were clarified by amendments adopted in 1949, allowing the President on his own initiative to provide military forces to the United Nations for "cooperative action." However, presidential discretion to deploy these forces is subject to stringent conditions: they may serve only as observers and guards and in a noncombatant capacity, and they cannot exceed one thousand in number. Moreover, in providing such troops to the United Nations, the President shall assure that they not involve "the employment of armed forces contemplated by chapter VII of the United Nations Charter." Clearly, there is no opportunity in the UN Participation Act or its amendments for unilateral military action by the President.

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/yooj/courses/forrel/reserve/fisher.htm

It's soooo clear. It's literally beaten into the ground. There is no grey area whatsoever.

[Keith Bee]

90. Oy!

Keep your shirt on!

[Keith Bee]

91. Michael Lind is a fool

On the 50th anniversary of Yuri Gagarin's flight, the idiot posted an article in Salon that actually WELCOMED our abandonment of manned space travel. DUH, LOSING!