7thKeeper

Panel demands US war power reform

I suppose this would be the correct forum for the topic. With me not being that aware of the exact legal code, I don't know exactly what the gray areas that the article mentions though. The suggestion seems reasonable enough at first glance to me atleast, though I haven't had time to think how (if in any way) would it affect things if a situation required quick decisions.

__________________
...we honor leaders for what they achieve, but we often prefer to close our eyes to the way they achieve it...

In the real world, politics is compromise and democracy is politics. Anyone who would be a statesman has to be a successful politician first. Also, a leader has to deal with people and nations as they are, not as they should be. As a result, the qualities required for leadership are not necessary those that we would want our children to emulate - unless we wanted them to be leaders.

Binary_Digit

I think this falls short. If the President consults Congress before taking any military action, then what's to stop Congress from simply issuing another ridiculous blank check like the AUMF? Military action should only be allowed if Congress declares war IMO.

__________________
"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." - Edward Abbey

Doc Howl

You're SO 1790s, dude.

__________________
Cet Asshat est mechant; on l'attaque, il se defende.

DivineComedy

"the opposition Democrats later argued that the resolution approved only the initial invasion and not the five-year operation that played out subsequently" BBC NEWS | Americas | Panel demands US war power reform

Looks like we need a constitutional amendment on qualifications to be in Congress.

Who is at fault for not having an idiot proof "blank check?"

"James Baker and Warren Christopher want to introduce a new law which would force US presidents to consult Congress before launching military action."

I know they are not that stupid, and it is the dumb Journalist, but I have to ask:

If Iran is hit by Israel, would our president have to ask to keep the sea lanes open with that "maintained" MILITARY Navy? You all (every message board member) have 19 minutes to answer.

Iraq is not a failure of the War Powers Act, or the public law that let Clinton bomb Iraq back to the stone age in Operation Desert Fox, it is a failure of treasonous Democrats to have a yellow stained cowardly post-it-note on the law have the power of law.

__________________
“[59.14] They will not fight against you in a body save in fortified towns or from behind walls; their fighting between them is severe, you may think them as one body, and their hearts are disunited; that is because they are a people who have no sense.”

Yeah, a wall and a border patrol will protect us. {sound of laughter}

Indy

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this a tad redundant? I though the US Pres could only do quick decision military actions like attacking somebody but he can't have troops in for more than 60 days or something like that?

Is this correct? If it is then why would we need this bill? To say that the Pres can't use the military AT ALL without their permission is idiotic. What's the point of having the Pres then?

__________________
Affiant further sayeth not.

obvious Child

To save us all from dying of laughter when a foreign leader tries to convince all of Congress to do something.

__________________
"Maybe God doesn't care how you say your prayers, just as long as you say them" - Jeffery Sinclair

DivineComedy

Well, that depends upon whether you are a Republican with a "SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION" for use of force or a Democrat without one.

Thursday, April 29, 1999: "A Democratic resolution to support the air war later failed on a tie vote of 213 to 213."
Washingtonpost.com: House Votes to Require Assent for Ground Troops

May 8, 1999: "We are greatly shocked by the reports of NATO's bombing of the Chinese Embassy,"
CRISIS IN THE BALKANS: THE OVERVIEW; NATO RAID HITS CHINA EMBASSY; BEIJING CITES 'BARBARIAN ACT'; ALLIES ADMIT STRIKING HOSPITAL - New York Times

This is an absolute must read:

Complaint in Campbell v Clinton

Tom Campbell v. William Jefferson Clinton

"The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." The War Powers Act of 1973

From the authorization for use of force:

"(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1."
Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

We covered that Public Law 102-1 in another topic:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1057659868 (Army study: Iraq occupation was understaffed)

Even without that "SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION," the president could have invaded Iraq, took down Saddam's statue, said, "Mission Accomplished," and got out in 60 days, just for Saddam saying, Al Quacka "should, rather, be reassured and helped to save themselves, and their surroundings." But, then again, tractor trailers would not have had time to roll into Syria. My Senator wrote me back and said the authorization in response to 911 was "sufficient," and yet how can you wage WAR if the allies of the enemy, who say they should be helped, are safe? We could have invaded Iraq for 60 days just for the attack on our possession by their proxy: FactsOfIsrael.com: 14-year-old girl murdered by Palestinian homicide bomber
But, that would be a war on terror.

There were less reasons under our law for war in Yugoslavia.

To me it is the height of hypocrisy for a Democrat (insert one thousand imaginary fleas from camel under armpit) to want to change the law for "Bush's war" when the war started in 1991, and went all through Clinton's reign for One Iraq, Two Iraq, Three Iraq!, and only can end when the Iraqi legislature is free to vote for us to be present.