Wars without declarations of war

[ThomWV]

This bothers me a great deal, we wage war in Iran, we wage war in Afghanistan, we wage war in Somalia, we wage war in Yemen, we wage war in Pakistan. The Congress has not declared war. The President does not hesitate to go into any country and wage war, no provocation seems to be too small.

This isn't right. We have no right to march into (or fly drones into) these countries, our Constitution does not allow war without the consent of the people via their Representatives, but we have war aplenty and no consent given. We will pay a price for this.

[patrice]

1. No bull, No exaggeration. Fact: We ARE War Slaves

[L. Coyote]

2. "We will pay a price for this." We do, plus our grandchildren will pay the bill.

We have destroyed the economy already, making paying for the idiocy of war the more difficult.

[invictus]

3. K&R

[DirkGently]

4. I'd like to hear from a foreign policy expert

re: The CIA running a "secret" operation to kill people. Classified as an intelligence so matter, so no details need be released. But now we're not even denying it's happening. Yep, the CIA is running an operation to kill foreign nationals, without a declared a war, or even acknowledged permission from the local foreign government. And none of it has to be reported to the American public. Who exactly is dying? How much "collateral damage" is occurring? Besides "Taliban leaders," is whom else may the CIA be targeting? They don't have to tell us, so we don't know.

Intelligence services are not generally authorized to kill, and certainly not to conduct a war, we have (had?) a specific Executive Order banning assassination.

So what is the slightest bit legal about this operation?

[ThomWV]

6. 2 weeks ago the Director National Intelligence, in sworn testimony, said the CIA kills Americans

We are not talking about the assignation of foreign nationals, we are talking about the CIA murdering US citizens without the niceties of a Judge or Court.

[unblock]

5. correct me if i'm wrong, but i think congress under shrub did authorize

the fighting of terrists pretty much anywhere on the planet.

not as neat and clean as "a state of war exists..." but i think enough to make it all legal.

that's not to say anything about previous interventions which had no such declaration, e.g., panama, grenada, somalia (poppy/clinton), etc.

[ThomWV]

7. The Congress has authority to take us to war, not to go on a world wide rampage of murder

at the sole digression of the President.

[unblock]

12. not agreeing with it, just pointing out that congress was complicit

and congress certainly hasn't meaingfully objected to anything any president has ever done in terms of war.

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. It is pretty much at the sole discretion of the President

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) 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 supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.


Approved September 18, 2001.

http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/terrorism/sjres23.es.html

So that means if the President determines someone is part of al Qaida, and might commit a future act of international terrorism against the United States, then Congress has authorized the use of armed forces against them, wherever they are. And 'the Taliban' are covered by the 'harbored' bit. Yes, that's a hell of a lot of power handed over to the president,

[DirkGently]

8. with the CIA?

I thought killing "enemies of the State" was the sole province of the military, in part because wars are supposed to be fought openly and with accountability to the people.

Intelligence agencies are not required to disclose much of anything to the public, which I understood was one reason they're not supposed to engage in combat or assassination. This is an operation to kill ... how many? Hundreds? Thousands? of people on a weekly basis, and yet we are told ONLY when the CIA claims to have a hit an important target.

Any questions from the press or public are subject to a convenient response of "that's classified."

Looks to me like a strategy to allow a small, secret part of the government to conduct a secret war against secret targets for secret reasons, which is not supposed to occur in a democracy.

[ThomWV]

9. What an insightful and well thought out comment. Thank you.

[BeFree]

13. Yep

There is no telling what the CIA has been up to and the crimes it has committed since it is nearly all undercover and classified as national security operations.

Many years ago, the congress did succeed in tying a rope together to control the CIA's activities (Church Committee?), but that horse has broken loose and is running free these days.

[patrice]

16. Bingo ~

[ThomThom]

25. I think if challenged in a real court of law shrubs authorization

would not stand up. No one has the guts to challenge these atrocities. Today's Supreme Court would probably defend Bush. The CIA should be shut down.

[Soylent Brice]

10. you are correct. to add to that, we're already paying the price, but this

is just the beginning, i'm afraid.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. We are a dying empire cringing in fear of the "barbarians".

Our "vital national interests" now override the law, subvert democracy, and empower the military to make decisions that should be the province of the people.

"We the people.." has been reduced to a slogan to be trotted out at rituals and convince us that we have a say in what the powerful do.

[patrice]

18. Spot On! . . . as usual T & L!

[yurbud]

22. soon when a monkey picks up a stick, we'll send 50 drones and 100,00 troops to kill him

and not be able to find him for decades (while we drill the oil under his tree).

[Echo In Light]

15. Aggression & terrorism, never "war."

[12AngryMen]

17. These are not wars

They are brazen acts of aggression and slaughters which lead to occupation of other lands for resources.

[patrice]

19. "brazan acts of aggression and slaughters" that cause Wars for Wars 'r' U.S., Inc.

[ThomWV]

20. Personally I agree with you

And I think if we were sitting together we could come up with a good discussion supporting that argument.

[yurbud]

21. to the degree that terrorism is a real problem not just crazies steered by our allies to do

convenient things, we are already paying a price.

[salguine]

23. Declare war! How quaint. We haven't declared a war since 1941. I think the

reason behind all this is, if you actually have a formal declaration of war in a given situation, then all kinds of questions are going to be asked, and since all these actions are about making rich people richer—and nothing else—having a lot of questions asked is the last thing the powers that be want.

[harkadog]

24. Our last declaration of war was June 5, 1942

Against Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania. Unfortunately since then our Congress has refused to accept its Constitutional responsibility to declare wars and has just let the Executive branch wage military adventures all over the globe.