This Doesn't Change A Thing. Congress Declares War. Bush Can't Just Order One.

[leveymg]

THERE ARE NO 6-STAR GENERALS: How Bush Lost His Command
by leveymg http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/5/94653/16003
Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 09:47:21 AM PDT

When it comes to wars, Congress has the power to declare and to halt them under the Constitution. Congress also has the power to define the enemy, and to limit the definition of enemy combatants to states, groups or individuals that it, alone, may specify. The President doesn't have power, express or inherent, to independently initiate or expand war.

Further, the President doesn't control the military as part of a "unitary executive", and may not withhhold constitutional protections by Executive fiat. That is what the Constitution says, and that’s what the U.S Supreme Court reaffirmed in the Hamdan decision. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, U.S. Sup.Ct. 415 F. 3d 33, (June 29, 2006).

The irony is that for 25 years the courts tried to avoid facing these war powers issues head on.

After Hamdan, much of the legal basis for Bush's Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) has been cast into doubt. The President has been stripped of power to attack targets except those expressly covered by Congressional resolutions authorizing the use of military force in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Without a Congressional resolution, any order to initiate a preemptive bombing of Iran would be treated as an illegal order.

This explains why that is so . . .

leveymg's diary ::

[Sherman A1]

1. Agreed and Well Said.

of course it would be necessary for someone in this Administration to read and understand this information or just glance over the Constitution, but that may be asking for far too much.

[bklyncowgirl]

2. You are assuming of course that the President actually respects the Constitution

I believe we are speaking of the guy who called it "Just a *#@% piece of paper"

George W. Bush will do what he wants and sadly, with a few honorable exceptions, our leaders in Congress will be too timid to do anything about it.

I believe that backing down on restricting Bush's ability to attack Iran will be perceived by him as a green light to do whatever he damn well pleases. George W. Bush seems determined to be the first American president in history to lose not one, not two but three (count'em) three wars and Congress will do little or nothing to stand in his way.

I am thoroughly disgusted.

[radfringe]

16. YOU SAID THAT RIGHT!

bush won't let a piece of paper stand in his way

[sendero]

3. What they will do..

... is claim that the IWR gives them the authority they need. And to be honest, I'm not sure it doesn't.

[peacebird]

4. they have already claimed that the IWR gave them the authority to wage the war on terror

anywhere and in any way.

[leveymg]

5. The Supreme Court found otherwise in the Hamdan Decision

Please, read the article.

[peacebird]

15. yes - but will the * admin care about that? After all - they "create reality"

and the "reality" they seem intent on creating involves bombing Iran.....

[izzie]

6. I think Bush made a signing statement on it. He is not for it.

He likes being an autocrat with his own army.

[leveymg]

9. The signing statement says he doesn't recognize the War Powers Act

and the constitutional role of Congress to declare war. The Supreme Court said that the WPA is valid and does apply. That effectively destroys any legal standing of Yoo's "unitary executive" theory, including it's assumption that the President has some sort of inherent powers to carry out preemptive wars without first obtaining Congressional authorization.

The Constitution is clear: Congress declares war, the President can not legally launch a preemptive attack on Iran. The Joint Chiefs have told Bush the same thing. Notice today's attacks on Chairman Pace?

[izzie]

19. I was sort of was pulling your leg but it does seem he does not

understand that he is the President and not a King,. Maybe he should talk to God a little more on this. One can bet God does not give a fig for what Bush wants.

[noamnety]

7. Also, he can't order rendition flights, or torture

So everything's peachy, then.

[Kagemusha]

8. All depends what one calls "war"

Bush keeps insisting he's not planning on going "to war" with Iran. There's a lot of fighting not considered war in this world.

[leveymg]

10. Exactly correct. Operations "less than war" include propaganda,

political warfare, and some forms of sabotage and terrorism. Exactly the kind of crap that BushCo and AIPAC hope will provoke Iran to overreact.

This whole campaign is rather half-hearted and inept, because the American professionals in the uniform military and intelligence agencies are either actively resisting it, have asked to be reassigned, or have resigned.

[Kagemusha]

11. It can include limited war too. Long ago, was an "undeclared war with France"

So the precedents go back very far...

The issue, of course, is whether Congress actually gives a damn to stop such things. Ripping out the language against conflict with Iran without prior Congressional approval (short of a direct attack from Iran against US forces in the field or against actual US territory) is Congress publicly declaring no, it does not give a damn about stopping such things so please, go right ahead if it is your esteemed judgment as President to do so.

It really ticks me off.

[leveymg]

12. One expects that there are going to be provocations, likely by proxies.

In recent months, there been several terrorist bombings in western Iran carried out by separatist groups supported by either the U.S. or Israeli, or both.

The Iranian leadership knows that the intent behind them is to goad Iran into retaliating in kind. They aren't going to play that game.

What does that say about Bushco and Olmert, if Iran is the one that exercises restraint while "our side" supports terrorists?

[Kagemusha]

14. Oh, about that.

Iraq's opened a judicial inquiry into the main group suspected of being behind the bombings, the MEK, which the State Department considers a terrorist organization and which the Office of the Vice President considers an ally against a common enemy. (In this case, I mean Iran, not the State Department.)

So the US government will likely be taking a very, very dim view of that inquiry.

[Toots]

13. If this were true Bush* should be Impeached for bombing Somolia and Philipenes

They had to be illegal acts because I know Congress did not authorize it.

[leveymg]

17. If you read the War Powers Act, it requires the President to consult with Congress

prior to committing U.S. forces -- "in all possible instances" -- to an environment of actual or imminent hostilities.

Commencing a war with a major regional power, like Iran, is a very different thing from small-scale actions encompassed by the GWOT. The September 2001 Congressional resolution specifically authorized the use of military force against al-Qaeda. AC-130 gunship barrages against several discrete targets inside Somalia suspected of being actively involved with al-Qaeda are the sort of activities permitted by the AUMF.

I'm not sure what actions in the Philippines you're referring to.

[MiniMe]

18. *co is claiming that the IWR resolution gives them authority

Does it? Of course not. But when has that ever stopped this group before.

[DemReadingDU]

20. morning kick