Coito ergo sum wrote:Seth wrote:
Actually he can. Federal law permits the President to send troops into battle for up to 60 days, although he must inform Congress within 48 hours.
That is the war powers act (applies not just to troops, but also to any military action) and proper notice must be given, which is not done in the case of drones.
"Proper notice" to whom, pray tell? The enemy? Please. I saw nothing about "proper notice" to the target of military action.
And which "war powers act" specifically are you referring to? The First War Powers Act of 1941, the Second War Powers Act of 1942, or the War Powers Resolution of 1973?
Also, this is the federal law which many folks, particularly those on the "Left" say is unconstitutional. They have a good argument, but they only apply it when Republicans are in office. Note -- Bush did have Congressional authority for Afghanistan and Iraq.
Yup. But every president since Nixon has also claimed that the War Powers Resolution of 1973 is an unconstitutional infringement on executive power.
Seth wrote:
And, I'm not sure, but I don't think there was War Powers Act notice given in these drone situations. If the WPA is unconstitutional, though, I think that Congressional approval would be required, even if Yemen invites us to bomb things there.
Every President since the 1973 War Powers Resolution was approved over a presidential veto has claimed that the resolution is a violation of the Constitution. It's never come before the courts, even though several presidents have ignored it. The whole matter is somewhat of a constitutional conundrum at the moment.
Well, there is no War Power issued to the President in the Constitution.
So what? There was no School Food Power issued to the President in the Constitution either, and yet he still wields it.
Both sides have arguments about its Constitutionality, and the Presidents have argued it's unconstitutional because of its limitations on his power, but most objections are that it GRANTS power to the President which is Congress' power Constitutionally.
So the situation is legally unclear, and given that it has not been litigated to finality by the Supreme Court, the law is PRESUMPTIVELY constitutional.
Seth wrote:
One might take the position that each drone attack is a separate military action and therefore the President can commit US forces to that attack anew for each strike without ever breaching the 60 day rule or the 48 hour rule. Because an actual strike might only take a few hours, and then the "forces" would be withdrawn from the field, it's arguable that the President notifying Congress "post facto" meets the standard of the War Powers Resolution.
A law which allows the President carte blanche to bomb anyplace in the world at any time. Don't find that anywhere in the Constitution, actually.
Well, that's because it doesn't have to be in the Constitution, it merely needs to be enacted by Congress as federal law, as is the case with virtually all of the tens of thousands of pages of federal laws and regulations.
Seth wrote:
The North Africa thing doesn't actually support your argument, since during WW2, those countries were French and British colonies. The French and the Brits didn't need permission to go there, and they invited the Americans.
And the Yemeni government invited us.
That is only half the analysis, and some of the countries out there being bombed did not "invite" us.
Nor need they. Since the Battle of Derna in 1805, the United States has attacked its enemies when and where it chooses to do so, acknowledging no limitations on its right to wage war against our enemies. [/quote]
That's false. The US has definitely acknowledged limitations under international law on its right to wage war against its enemies, not the least of which is the United Nations Charter, which outlaws "aggressive" war. So, you're wrong on that.
The United States is free to ignore any and all limitations it has "acknowledged" at any time that it chooses to do so. That's the nature of national sovereignty, the nation is sovereign and is not bound by any other nation or group of nations if it chooses not to be so bound. And we've engaged in war against the "advice" of the United Nations many times.
Fuck the United Nations, it has no power to enforce its "advice" against the United States, so our participation and cooperation is entirely voluntary and may be revoked at any time.
Seth wrote:
Now, the real question is whether a guy like Awlaki is actually a soldier in a war, and then whether he is in a location that can be legally attacked in a war.
There was no doubt whatsoever about his participation in terrorist activities. He himself openly advertised his participation, and there is no such thing as an "illegal" place to attack an enemy in a war.
Of course there is. You can't just bomb neutral countries just because some enemy went there.
Yes, we can. [/quote]
Physically, yes. But, not legally.
Depends on whose "law" you're talking about. The United States, as a sovereign nation, can do whatever it wants to do in that regard. Period. The only check upon our power is another power capable of defeating us, which hasn't happened in a long time. The winners write the history, and the law.
Seth wrote:
That's why people were so pissed at Laos and Cambodia in Vietnam.
And yet we bombed both Laos and Cambodia anyway.
Because someone does a thing doesn't make it legal.
Because you don't think it was legal doesn't make it illegal.
Seth wrote:
That "people were so pissed" is irrelevant to whether the President had the authority under the Constitution to do so. He did.
Didn't. Where do you find that authority? What provision of the Constitution?
Article 2, Section 2: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;"
Seth wrote:
There is no question about that. Whether it was politically wise to do so is another matter entirely. A country which harbors our enemies and gives them a base of operation to launch attacks against the United States is not "neutral," and therefore it's wishes and desires can be ignored. If a nation wants to remain neutral, then it must prevent both sides from using its soil as a haven or refuge or a base of operations, as in the case of Argentina prior to June 25, 1945, otherwise it becomes a legitimate military target.
Seth wrote:
There may places where doing so will have political and diplomatic repercussions, but we can legally kill our enemies anywhere in the world we find them if we choose to do so.
That is not the current state of international law, or US law.
Sure it is.
Cite your law. Your argument amounts to only that we do it and can physically accomplish it and nobody can stop us. That doesn't make it legal.
Sure it does. There is no law which PROHIBITS the President from prosecuting a war anywhere in the world, and as the Commander in Chief he is authorized to do what he believes to be necessary to defend the United States and its interests. As I said, Congress can declare war, but Congress does not HAVE to declare war for the President to have the authority to deploy troops and engage in hostilities. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 says so.
Seth wrote:
If he is not a soldier in a war, then technically he has to be arrested.
Says who?
Federal law and the Geneva Conventions on the Treatment of Civilians in Time of War, among other things.
If he's not a soldier in war, then we have no need of a drone strike. [/quote]
Right. Not all drone strikes are needful or legal.
Prove it.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.