Does Bush have the authority to bomb Somalia or any other country he chooses to at his whim?

[NNN0LHI]

Whats going on here? I didn't hear about any SWR. (Somalia War Resolution) Did anyone else? What gives this madman the right to start dropping bombs on top of people living in the cities of Somalia? Something is wrong here.

Don

[no_hypocrisy]

1. I don't understand why the U.N. isn't in an emergency meeting right

now, condemning this country for the bombing of Somalia.

[xultar]

2. Well what about when Clinton did it. Did the UN meet on that within 24 hrs

[ieoeja]

28. U.N. Authorized it in Advance

Somalia was in a multi-faceted civil war -and- famine. U.N. food convoys were getting hijacked by various factions to:

1. feed their side, and
2. starve the other side.

U.S. troops were sent in as part of a larger U.N. deployment. Food convoys were secured. Realizing the same problem would occur when the U.N. forces left, the U.N. decided to police the country while calling warring factions together to talk.

The side that was winning chose not to join these talks either because (A) they were winning and felt they had nothing to gain by talking, or (B) they felt the U.N. was there to help another side.

So the U.N. decided to go after leaders of the side that refused to talk.

[xultar]

30. KEWL...then lets fuck up the bastard. You know he didn't go to the UN.

The UN is very unlikely give him any lattitude.

[magellan]

3. I was asking the same earlier

It can't possibly be okay for Bush** to just order a bombing of Somalia without Congressional approval??

edited to add: I'm assuming the Dems didn't approve of this....Have any of them said anything about it??

[underpants]

4. POTUS can deploy troops for 60 days without going to Congress

That about all I know on this subject

I think that the bombing is covered by this too

[magellan]

7. Really?

Well then Bush** should have been more conservative with his timeframe for Iraq, then he wouldn't have needed the IWR.

[TechBear_Seattle]

13. The War Powers Act of 1973 has never, ever been invoked

It is as toothless as a rubber ball.

Wikipedia article

[Rosa Luxemburg]

18. Congress needs to pass legislation to curb megalomaniac presidents

this obviously needs to be passed this week.

[Bandit]

39. Deploy troops yes but attack a sovereign nation that has not threatened

the USA? We are bombing a sovereign nation without UN approval nor that of the American people. Somalia is in no way a threat to the USA nor does it possess any means to be so..Aggression of this sort is strictly forbidden by the International community. We are not there by governmental invite..We are invading another country with our bombing..

[Avalux]

5. Well, since they bombed evil terrorists, it's OK.

That's the mentality at work here. As long as those being bombed are labeled "radical islamic terrorists", any action necessary can be taken without consequence. I'm not saying we shouldn't go after terrorists, but there doesn't seem to be rules anymore when it comes to stuff like this.

[bdamomma]

34. so just because they label "radical islamic terrorists" gives this

maniac carte blanche to bomb countries, bush is conducting his own crusade/holy war and it will backfire, just who will it backfire on? is the question. This is just pure madness, other countries are not just going to sit back and watch this maniac bomb countries.

[rpgamerd00d]

6. Its perfectly legal.

Remember when Clinton sent cruise missiles after Osama ?

Same thing.

[magellan]

10. But BC told Congress he was doing it, didn't he?

Do we have any indication that Bush** informed Congress?

[MyNameGoesHere]

15. Perfectly legal? Or technically legal?

This resolution should never have made the light of day. It implies that the president Should alert congress. It also implies it should be enacted for a good damn reason. This never happens regardless who is pres. I like the original limitations set forth by the framers. Declare war or shut the hell up.

[The Stranger]

24. So we invoke Clinton to make it okay? I've heard that before somehwere.

[atreides1]

8. He sure does

And his Praetorian Guard will follow every order that he issues. No questions, no proof of guilt, just be good little robots and obey your orders.

Besides, he has to make sure that they'll do as they are told, because he will turn the Praetorians
on we the citizens that they are supposed to defend.

Someone convince me that the military won't follow his orders, should he decide to use them against
American citizens!!!!!

[Atman]

9. The IRW was so broadly, horribly written, it allow Bush to do ANYTHING.

At least that is their rationale behind the illegal wiretaps, the mail opening, the spying, the torture. They've claimed all along that the resolution gave Bush the powers to do virtually anything necessary to "fight the war on terra."

.

[Nutmegger]

11. Yes because they're fighting "terra".

Unless Congress revisits the IRW.

[thecrow]

12. He could bomb YOU if he wanted

He'd just say you were involved in terra.
That's how FUBAR this country has gotten

[donkeyotay]

20. The WOT has made him Emperor of the World

They warned us that the war on terror would last forever, involve many countries, be fought in many ways (some "dark" as the VP described it)and that he had the right to destroy preemptively. In effect, George is a global tyrant. He can cancel any government he deems unfit, invade where ever he pleases, have a UAV kill anyone he suspects, and as for checks and balances? There are none. All hail.

[On the Road]

14. The UN Recognizes the US-Allied Faction as the Legitimate Somali Government

So presumably the bombing has official Somali approval.

[The Stranger]

25. So now he can bomb citizens of countries recognized by the UN,

if he has "official approval," if that is even legally justifiable.

Wow, this is getting good.

[On the Road]

26. No, He Can Ally Himself

with a legally recognized government to provide air strikes against a group that had seized power in a civil war.

[The Stranger]

31. He cannot bomb civilians of other nations regardless of who recognizes what.

And if there is a civil war going on, it may not matter what you consider to be "legally recognized."

[On the Road]

42. It's Very Much Like Afghanistan

You have an internationally recognized government which does not have control of the country and which is eager for external support to retake control of the country. That would seem to legitimize military action against the insurgent group as long as it has the government's approval.

[The Stranger]

44. Their story on Afghanistan is that the Taliban were involved in the September 11 attacks.

But when the bombings by the most powerful superpower nation ever to exist are attacks are against a whole people, including civilians, without any evidence that even one of them was ever involved in the original attack -- even that seems unsupportable.

Do we even ask these questions? Or have so many false justifications and fake "wars" and "enemies" have been conceived (possibly constructed), and we have been fucked so far down the road, it is difficult to find the way back.

[bluewave]

16. What gave us the authority to go in to Somalia the first time?

We have no business in Somalia.

[ieoeja]

29. U.N. Authorized It (see post #28 above) n/t

[bdamomma]

36. bush feels he is the ruler of world, where is the International

Criminal Court on this?

[Oleladylib]

17. apparently-yes. Maniac in charge

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

19. Yes. But...

It's got to be justifiable. And congress can investigate.

[kestrel91316]

21. Does he? Apparently so.

I don't hear anybody in this new Congress talking about stopping him.

[datadiva]

22. He doesn't give a flying F**k whether it's legal or not

and that is his approach to everything. He thinks he's a king and can do whatever he wants. And up until now he has gotten his way. He's a spoiled child with way too much power.

[malaise]

23. Ding ding

we have a winner.

[bdamomma]

37. we have to knock him off that pedestal he is on!!!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. Congress abdicated it's responsibilities to declare war. CYA

Instead, rather than take the possible political heat for doing so, it ceded the power to the president.

[The2ndWheel]

32. Did anyone have the authority to take land to create America?

What's the difference?

[ShaneGR]

33. Technically, yes....

The strikes were aimed at one of the African Embassy bombing suspects. This suspect represents a grave threat to US National Security. Presidents don't have to go to Congress to order such attacks. This is particularly true in a nation like Somalia which not only was harboring islamistist terrorists but previous to the Ethiopian invasion was in danger of becoming another islamist national state. Bush's orders on this were no different than Clintons during the 90s.

[NNN0LHI]

35. Bush is putting back in charge the same warlords who killed our Marines in 1993

That doesn't bother you?

Don

[ShaneGR]

40. You are generalizing what has happened there....

A little over two years ago the islamic factions began, through force, to take over large swaths of Somalia. The warlords were losing power. The drawback is that those islamic forces, while openly harboring terrorists (including the one recently killed who was responsbily for the deaths of almost 1k people in 2 embassy bombing) were openly calling for the seizure of some sections of Ethiopia. It was the Ethiopians who recently invaded and defeated the islamic forces. Not the US and not Bush. As for the warlords themselves, I'd like to also point out that the current Prime Minister of Somalia is not a warlord though he's constantly in negotiations with them. The bottom line is, if Clinton had been in office he'd have done the same thing and I can't thing of one current presidential candidate on our side (except Kucinich) who wouldnt of either.

Iraq is one thing, a foolish colonial adventure doomed to failure. Taking out a mass murderer of American and African citizens is another. Just my two cents.

Oh, and so there is no confusion as to who this guy was:

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

[NNN0LHI]

41. It was all the Ethiopians? Do you really believe that nonsense?

Hussein Aidid, deputy prime minister of the Transitional Federal Government Somalia, in Nairobi, in this Dec 30, 2006 file photo. Hussein Aideed told The Associated Press that Somali government forces are unable to capture the last remaining hideouts of suspected extremists, who are bunkered in with enough food and water to last them for years. 'The only way we are going to kill or capture the surviving al-Qaida terrorists is for U.S. special forces to go in on the ground,' Hussein Aideed, a former U.S. marine said. 'They have the know-how and the right equipment to capture these people.' (AP Photo/Sayyid Azim)

~snip~
"As far as we are aware they are not on the ground yet, but it is only a matter of time," Aideed said.
~snip~

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070110/ap_on_re_af/somalia

Four-nation effort targets Al-Qaida forces in Somalia
By Jonathan S. Landay and Shashank Bengali
McClatchy Washington Bureau

NAIROBI, Kenya - The United States, Ethiopia, the transitional Somalian government and Kenya coordinated land, sea and air operations Tuesday against Al-Qaida operatives and remnants of Somalia's defeated Islamist militias in a southern corner of the war-ravaged African nation, U.S. and Somalian officials said.

U.S. participation in the effort marked a significant step-up in the Bush administration's anti-terrorist operations in the strategic Horn of Africa, where a 1,800-strong U.S. task force has been involved largely in aid and reconstruction work for the past five years.

The Boston Globe, quoting U.S. military and intelligence officials, reported that U.S. Special Forces have been deployed on the ground to track suspected Al-Qaida members near the Kenyan border.

A U.S. military official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that the special forces accompanied Ethiopian troops into Somalia roughly two weeks ago, the Globe reported.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/16425169.htm?source=rss

[kentuck]

38. He violated the War Powers Resolution..

in my opinion.

[deminks]

43. A good discussion also at Dkos

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/1/10/115340/548

The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed by Congress in September 2001 states:

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.


The War Powers Act of 1973 was a joint resolution passed by the legislature…

…to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances.

The War Powers Act limits a president's authority to commit U.S. forces to combat to 60 days without a declaration of war or specific authorization from Congress. Will Mr. Bush wait 60 days and the go to Congress and say, "Hey, y'all mind if I keep doing this?"