When is the President going to get a declaration of war from the Congress?

[TomClash]

It's required by Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, isn't it? He's attacked Libya without going to the Congress to get authority. He said he'd only attack another country without authorization if the US was attacked or in imminent danger of attack.

[Critters2]

1. Your naivete' is refreshing. nt

[TBF]

2. lol. nt

[meow mix]

3. Leave Poor Mr Gadaffi Alooooooonnne!!!

:cry: :cry: :cry:

[chill_wind]

47. Jeezuz god, you are tedious. n/t

[joshcryer]

4. The UN charter requires us to act on Responsiblity to Protect grounds. See here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=692240&mesg_id=692240

[TomClash]

8. It doesn't supercede the Constitution, does it?

:shrug:

[Hosnon]

17. Not under U.S. law. A treaty cannot amend the Constitution.

There's a specific process for that and it requires more than just the President and 2/3 of the Senate.

[TomClash]

24. You're right

So then the President still has to get authority to go to war from the Congress

[Hosnon]

28. No. Congressional approval is only required to start a war,

not to engage an existing one.

[TomClash]

36. Since when?

There was a existing war between the US and Libya? So the President can intervene in any war in the world without consulting Congress? Where is the authority for that?

[Hosnon]

39. Since the founding (or at least the relevant SCOTUS case).

For example, the President clearly wouldn't have to call Congress to repel an invasion of the U.S.

But this is probably a stretch. Although were I in the State Department or DoD, I'd make a strategic interest argument (e.g., Libya is indirectly engaged in a war against us due to the oil).

[TomClash]

40. If there is an attack on the US or imminent danger of one

he has 60 days to get Congress to declare war. Your strategic interest argument isn't even close to imminent danger.

[Hosnon]

42. The War Powers Act is a joke. For all practical purposes,

the President has unlimited authority to use the military.

And if the strategic interest doesn't fly, any realistic likelihood of even one American death would work.

[TomClash]

46. You really mean

Congress no longer has the power to declare war under the Constitution either, if the President decides he doesn't need it.

[Hosnon]

48. Practically, the President always has had that ability.

Nixon vetoed the War Powers Act for that very reason: he thought it violated Separation of Powers and infringed upon the President's constitutional role as Commander-in-Chief. And I tend to agree.

And limited non-war military engagements existed at the time of the founding. So the founders knew what they were leaving out of the Constitution.

[TorchTheWitch]

54. FDR needed congressional approval to engage in WWII

which was most definitely an existing war at the time.

[Hosnon]

57. Needed? I disagree.

It is always politically smarter for a President to get Congressional authorization.

Our entry into WWII is a perfect example of when Congress wouldn't be needed. No one wants national defense to be potentially held hostage by partisan politics.

[Webster Green]

5. Heh!

Good one.

[virgogal]

6. It's a U.N. resolution.

[TomClash]

11. So the Congress no longer has to declare war? nt

[virgogal]

37. Nope. It's like The Korean War.

[TomClash]

41. Really?

Congress declared war against Iraq in 2002.

[virgogal]

43. I said Korea,not Iraq.

[TomClash]

45. I know what you wrote

But then why did Congress bother to declare war by passing the IWR in 2002?

[billh58]

50. Because Dubya

played on the emotions of the nation, and used outright lies and deception in an attempt to justify the unjustifiable.

[ReggieVeggie]

27. Look up UN resolution 242

[The Northerner]

7. I'd like to know as well...

[MannyGoldstein]

9. When simians take wing

from the distal terminus of my central orifice.

[Marblehead]

10. silly american citizen

it doesn't work like that anymore.

[William769]

12. Please tell me your joking.

If you are not, someone needs to reevaluate your middle schools social studies teachers ability to teach.

[TomClash]

23. I'm pretty dumb

So dumb that I asked a question you apparently can't answer.

[William769]

29. No argument on your first statement.

The second statement is It's not a war. Feel better?

[TomClash]

34. Bombing another country

and erecting a no-fly zone is not an act of war?

Why not? War is "a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air." That would seem to apply here.

[sad sally]

56. If you call it something else - like an INTERVENTION - it's not a war.

There's a sequence of events, all which have been carefully planned - fail-safe, really - and when the intervention is successful, the President will come on the TV and tell us all is well. No war, okay?

[letmedrinkuin]

13. Bush vs Obama

At least Bush got Congressional approval before Iraq! Obama didn't even try!

These two are blending into the same man!

[Union Scribe]

53. Spreading democracy, one charred corpse at a time.

[DURHAM D]

14. After today I am really worried about our education system.

[William769]

21. Me too!

Well at least we have a argument now for more funding of Education.

[IDemo]

15. Declarations of war are so 1940's

We are now just a global police force.

[babylonsister]

16. Simplistic, but who was the last prez who got one? nt

[TomClash]

22. You really don't want the answer

George W. Bush - the Iraq War Resolution

[babylonsister]

25. He did? Before or after he started bomb-bomb-bombing?

After would be moot, no? Ugh. I honestly don't know what to think; are we there for support because other countries are stepping up to the plate? I don't have enough info or time at the moment to avail myself of what's really going on, and it's ticking me off.x(

[TomClash]

44. Before

The IWR was in 2002. The War started in March 2003.

We hit targets in or near Libyan cities with cruise missiles today.

I'm really not sure why we are there. Oil? Human rights? After Iraq and Afghanistan, I wonder what kind of bs the President is being fed.

[Moondog]

18. When pigs fly.

I guess that was all bullshit too.

[Hosnon]

19. That's a very easy thing to get around. Congressional authorization

is only required to declare war. All any President has to do is politically convince everyone that a war already exists, and he's just responding thereto.

[Joe the Revelator]

20. This thread should be closed on account of ignorance.

[timtom]

26. So, my pitiful rec brought the total up to one?

Where have all the progressives gone?

Thanks, TomClash. I agree with your question. It is, however, a demonstration of naiveté (did my grave go in the right direction?)on both our parts.

[TomClash]

31. I'm afraid that's true nt

[joshcryer]

30. You wish for the United States to Declare War on Libya?

Interesting take.

[TomClash]

35. No I'd like

the representatives of the people to contemplate whether this makes sense.

[joshcryer]

52. I believe fulfilling a UNSC resolution makes sense.

I promise you that the US will not even be in the papers in the next few days.

[TomClash]

65. That puts the cart before the horse

No one in the United States elected the UN Security Council. And the Constitution supersedes any treaty obligations.

And, by the way, 177 members of the United Nations never voted. I doubt a majority would have supported this action.

[kenny blankenship]

32. He's got -what- 60 days?

After which he'll need an authorization of force from Congress to continue, under terms of the 1973 War Powers Act.

Oh who are we kidding? Congress doesn't care if the President wants to get his war on.

[Hosnon]

33. The War Powers Act is a joke, as is any attempt to

limit the executive's war powers, for one main reason: unitary executive who can "take the field" first. By the time Congress objects, the troops have been committed and the President has rallied the support of the public. Plus, short of defunding the military, there's not a damn thing Congress can do.

[Motown_Johnny]

58. the war powers act only gives him 60 days

with a possibility of 30 more if needed for withdrawal


He can't legally keep forces in combat longer than that.

[Hosnon]

60. That's not clear at all.

No President has ever conceded that it is constitutional legislation.

[TomClash]

66. Oh come on

If it is unconstitutional he has to get authority from the Congress before the war begins.

[Hosnon]

69. I don't think I understand what you mean.

Suppose a law is enacted by Congress that removes the Vice-President's tie-breaking vote in the Senate; vetoed by the President, but overridden. Constitutional?

That is what the War Powers Act is. Except since the topic is war, SCOTUS will never resolve the issue under its Political Question Doctrine.

[unkachuck]

38. US Presidents....

....don't need no stinkin' declaration of war....

....if we're going to continuously hose over the Constitution we should at least try do it in a way that allows not only the corporations, but the people, to have a little taste of hope and improvement....

[billh58]

49. Take a look

at: North Korea (Inchon Landing) - Truman; Vietnam War (undeclared) - Kennedy/Johnson; Grenada (Operation Urgent Fury) - Reagan; Panama (Operation Just Cause) - Bush I; Kuwait (Operation Desert Storm) - Bush I.

Also, check out the Carter Doctrine (based on the Truman Doctrine) which Dubya used to justify Desert Storm:

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

[TheKentuckian]

51. It is a UN action. The US is not at war or would not be as but as a part of the UN.

Congress does not vote on if the US uses it's Security Council veto. Which in the actual process is what you are calling for and more to the point, you are calling for the US to use our veto to stop the UN action and pro-actively siding with Qaddafi in a vain effort to be neutral.

[Imagevision]

55. Finally, something Cheney would agree with Obama on... MORE WAR!

[sad sally]

59. Liz Cheney and the Bush cabal are creaming their jeans over this.

I read just last week this is exactly what she said President Obama should do.

[Catherina]

61. Glenn Greenwald has an excellent article about this

Libya and the Familiar Patterns of War
by Glenn Greenwald

The Los Angeles Times, March 18, 2003:

U.S. Raises Terrorism Alert Amid Concerns of Retaliation

Bracing for a backlash from impending war with Iraq, the Bush administration put the nation on high alert for a terrorist attack and announced that it was redoubling efforts to enhance security at home.

The decision to raise the terrorism threat level from yellow to orange, the third such move in the last six months, followed several months worth of intelligence reports indicating a strong likelihood of some type of terrorist attack or retaliation if the U.S. went to war with Iraq. Those strikes, officials said, could come from organized Al Qaeda cells or groups sent here by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, or from individuals or small groups who sympathize with them.

The New York Times, today:

American Official Warns That Qaddafi May Lash Out With New Terrorist Attacks

The United States is bracing for possible Libyan-backed terrorist attacks, President Obama’s top counterterrorism official said on Friday.

The official, John O. Brennan, said that the military attacks on civilians ordered in recent days by Libya’s leader, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, coupled with his track record as a sponsor of terrorism, had heightened worries within the administration as an international coalition threatens military action against Libya.

Asked if American officials feared whether Colonel Qaddafi could open a new terrorism front, Mr. Brennan said: "Qaddafi has the penchant to do things of a very concerning nature. We have to anticipate and be prepared for things he might try to do to flout the will of the international community."

Among the threats the United States is focusing on is Libya’s stockpile of deadly mustard gas, he said.

All that said, it is striking how wars -- no matter how they're packaged -- ultimately breed the same patterns. With public opinion split or even against the war in Libya (at least for now) -- and with questions naturally arising about why we're intervening here to stop the violence but ignoring the growing violence from our good friends in Yemen, Bahrain and elsewhere -- the administration obviously knows that some good, old-fashioned fear-mongering and unique demonization (Gadaffi is a Terrorist with "deadly mustard gas" who might attack us!!) can only help. Then there's the fact that the same faction of war-loving-from-a-safe-distance "hawks" that took the lead in cheering for the attack on Iraq -- neocons on the Right and their "liberal interventionist" counterparts in The New Republic/Brookings/Democratic Party officialdom world -- are playing the same role here. And many of the same manipulative rhetorical tactics are now wielded against war opponents: the Libyan rebels are the new Kurds (they want us to act to protect them!), and just as those who opposed the attack on Iraq were routinely accused of indifference toward if not support for Saddam's tyranny, those who oppose this intervention are now accused of indifference to Gadaffi's butchery (as always: are those refraining from advocating for military intervention in Yemen or Saudi Arabia or Bahrain or the Sudan or dozens of other places indifferent to the violence and other forms of suffering there?).

...

There's one other difference between Iraq and Libya worth noting: at least with the former, there was a sustained, intense P.R. campaign to persuade the public to support it, followed by a cursory Congressional vote (agreed to by the Bush White House only once approval was guaranteed in advance). By contrast, the intervention in Libya was presidentially decreed with virtually no public debate or discussion; it's just amazing how little public opinion or the consent of the citizenry matters when it comes to involving the country in a new war. That objection can and should be obviated if Obama seeks Congressional approval before deploying the U.S. military. On some level, it would be just a formality -- it's hard to imagine the Congress ever impeding a war the President wants to fight -- but at least some pretense of democratic and Constitutional adherence should be maintained.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/03/19-6

[TomClash]

62. Thank you

It's a very interesting, informative piece.

[FlyByNight]

63. How quaint

Congress has pretty much rendered itself worthless regarding constitutional issues. Just so long as the corporate money keeps rolling in.

[mmonk]

64. We have imperial presidencies now. It was solidified under GW.

[old mark]

67. He does noit ned one- this is a NATO/UN action, NOT a US declared war....nt

[piratefish08]

68. he SAID.

he said.

he said a lot of things.