Declaration of War in the USA, Congress required or not? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Those who do not remember the past are condemned to relive it. Note: nostalgia *is* allowed.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14906908
skinster wrote: https://www.rt.com/op-ed/424186-us-allies-syria-lie/

This article you offered is incorrect in a myriad of ways. I would call your attention to the following statement as an example.

General Mattis tried to dance around the legality, stating, “the president has the authority under Article II of the Constitution to use military force overseas to defend important United States national interests.”

But he is wrong, this does not permit the US to illegally bomb a sovereign nation

I will refer your attention to the earliest precedent I know of, the "War" against the Barbary Pirates waged at the direction of Thomas Jefferson. "The shores of Tripoli" refered to in the Marine Hymn. A war that was decreed by the president and prosecuted by the US Navy without any approval by congress. We won of course.

Posting such Bogus reports only discredits yourself and your ideals.

Zam

Noemon Edit: Thread Split from here: viewtopic.php?f=42&t=173268&start=380
#14906914
That journalist has been inside of Syria numerous times throughout the war on the country and can speak Arabic. What are your credentials?

And no, you can't just run around bombing wherever you want.

I mean, you can, if you're the empire and its allies, because they can and do and have done repeatedly (see OP), but it is considered illegal under international law. I didn't write the laws, but they exist.
#14906920
skinster wrote:That journalist has been inside of Syria numerous times throughout the war on the country and can speak Arabic. What are your credentials?

Which qualifies him as knowing dick about what is and isn't allowed by the US constitution. Beyond that his "Bias" is readily apparent. He's not a Journalist, he's a stooge.

Credentials? I'm a citizen of the USA. One of the people this constitution represents.

And no, you can't just run around bombing wherever you want. I mean, you can

You're catching on, but please note, we try to only do so when there is a clear necessity.

Zam
#14906923
Zamuel wrote:I will refer your attention to the earliest precedent I know of, the "War" against the Barbary Pirates waged at the direction of Thomas Jefferson. "The shores of Tripoli" refered to in the Marine Hymn. A war that was decreed by the president and prosecuted by the US Navy without any approval by congress. We won of course.
Posting such Bogus reports only discredits yourself and your ideals.


For starters you have selectively omitted the UN approval part when you quoted nitpicked parts of the article and that Mattis merely danced around the illegality by offering another excuse as camouflage, rendering your ad-hom argument against its author as worthless. However the historical argument you made still has some value even though:

a) Your comparison is silly, in the Barbary wars, the US's national interest was compromised because the Pirates had taken American hostages and were extracting tribute from the US. Is Assad extracting tribute from the US that we are unaware of?
b) Congress did authorise Jefferson to carry out acts of war against Tripoli and Tripoli had already declared war on the US.

Before learning that Tripoli had declared war on the United States, Jefferson sent a small squadron, consisting of three frigates and one schooner, under the command of Commodore Richard Dale with gifts and letters to attempt to maintain peace with the Barbary powers.[30] However, in the event that war had been declared, Dale was instructed "to protect American ships and citizens against potential aggression," but Jefferson "insisted that he was 'unauthorized by the constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense.'" He told Congress: "I communicate [to you] all material information on this subject, that in the exercise of this important function confided by the constitution to the legislature exclusively their judgment may form itself on a knowledge and consideration of every circumstance of weight."[28] Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed American vessels to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify." The American squadron joined a Swedish flotilla under Rudolf Cederström in blockading Tripoli, the Swedes having been at war with the Tripolitans since 1800.[5]

Enterprise capturing Tripoli
On 31 May 1801, Commodore Edward Preble traveled to Messina, Sicily, to the court of King Ferdinand IV of the Kingdom of Naples. The kingdom was at war with Napoleon, but Ferdinand supplied the Americans with manpower, craftsmen, supplies, gunboats, mortar boats, and the ports of Messina, Syracuse and Palermo to be used as a naval base to launch operations against Tripoli, a port walled fortress city protected by 150 pieces of heavy artillery manned by 25,000 soldiers, assisted by a fleet of 10 ten-gunned brigs, 2 eight-gun schooners, two large galleys, and 19 gunboats.[31]

The schooner Enterprise (commanded by Lieutenant Andrew Sterret) defeated the 14-gun Tripolitan corsair Tripoli after a one-sided battle on 1 August 1801.

In 1802, in response to Jefferson's request for authority to deal with the pirates, Congress passed "An act for the protection of commerce and seamen of the United States against the Tripolitan cruisers", authorizing the President to "…employ such of the armed vessels of the United States as may be judged requisite… for protecting effectually the commerce and seamen thereof on the Atlantic Ocean, the Mediterranean and adjoining seas."[32] "The statute authorized American ships to seize vessels belonging to the Bey of Tripoli, with the captured property distributed to those who brought the vessels into port."[28]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Bar ... l_blockade
#14907117
noemon wrote:For starters you have selectively omitted the UN approval part when you quoted nitpicked parts of the article and that Mattis merely danced around the illegality by offering another excuse as camouflage, rendering your ad-hom argument against its author as worthless.

The permanent members of the UN Security Council have a get-out-of-jail-free card with their veto. That is also part of international law. The UN General Assembly is meaningless, more or less like the European Parliament. The UN Security Council is where actionable decisions get made. In that sense, the UNSC is a WWII victors conference.

Suntzu wrote:Nobody has paid much attention to the constitution as it applies to war since 1942. :roll:

War involves a taking of land and the destruction of competing political institutions. There are not too many examples of acts of war taking land by a major power. Russia's annexation of Crimea comes to mind. Iraq's invasion of Iran and Kuwait also comes to mind.
#14907120
Without reading previous responses, my understanding is that president can call the military to short term military campaigns. Something like 90 days. However, after that, congress needs to approve actions beyond. Also, congress controls the money that military needs so even if the president orders the military to engage in prolonged wars, they ultimately can't without funding (and thus approval) from congress.
#14907128
I find it darkly amusing that in every recent case of legally and morally questionable military interventions, the pro-war crowd have to resort to the "well, technically, the President/PM can do whatever they like" argument as a substitute for making a real case.
#14907131
Rancid wrote:Without reading previous responses, my understanding is that president can call the military to short term military campaigns. Something like 90 days. However, after that, congress needs to approve actions beyond. Also, congress controls the money that military needs so even if the president orders the military to engage in prolonged wars, they ultimately can't without funding (and thus approval) from congress.

I think you summed it up nicely ... Congress can limit presidential initiative and $$$ is a key factor. Look how they (officially) tied Reagan's hands in Nicaragua. That said, I wouldn't expect the present legislature to oppose anything Trump does. Can we have the midterms early this year?

Zam
#14907151
Russia and US engage in 'military base race' in Syria

The U.S. has a military presence in several key locations, but there are two areas with heavy U.S. troop presence that are being transformed to military bases, according to a military source: The first is located in Al Tabaqah near Al Raqqa north Syria, where the U.S. special forces troops are training Kurdish groups; the other is constructed in Al-Tanf where the U.S. troops prevent Syrian and Russian armed forces from crossing.
#14907157
maz wrote:Russia and US engage in 'military base race' in Syria

“The U.S. has a military presence in several key locations, but there are two areas with heavy U.S. troop presence that are being transformed to military bases, according to a military source: The first is located in Al Tabaqah near Al Raqqa north Syria, where the U.S. special forces troops are training Kurdish groups; the other is constructed in Al-Tanf where the U.S. troops prevent Syrian and Russian armed forces from crossing.”

These are not "permanent bases." they are fortified camps, strategically located and consistent with mission tasking. Everybody has to sleep somewhere (relatively safe and secure.)

Zam
#14907159
Zamuel wrote:These are not "permanent bases." they are fortified camps, strategically located and consistent with mission tasking. Everybody has to sleep somewhere (relatively safe and secure.)

Zam


Is it legal for the US to build fortified camps in Syria? I'm not sure where you read that I said the bases were permanent.
#14907174
maz wrote:Is it legal for the US to build fortified camps in Syria? I'm not sure where you read that I said the bases were permanent.

Maybe I'm old fashioned but a "Base" is something I consider to be permeant ... at least "long term." "Basing troops" (as we do in Germany) generally refers to an approved agreement with the hosting country, this is not the case in Syria. It's kind of a matter of context.

At this point, we are cleaning up Isis, that's the US justification. Part of an international coalition agreement. Realistically, yes, we are preventing Syrian attacks on rebel held territory. Either we get out (as Trump had intended, or we declare ourselves an involved party in the civil war. (as I see it - who knows what Trump may pull out of his ass.)

Zam
#14907198
I thought the historical importance of declaring war with the Barbary pirates was in declaring war against an entity without a nation. It was used as a compare/contrast for justifying war against al qaeda and the teliban.

Also, the laws regarding war may be modified by the treaties to which youre a signatory. Your constitution only gets you so far. For example be it neighbour or nation, you can't blow things and people up by declaring them a threat.
Election 2020

If anything, they justify their fanatical view be[…]

So how deadly is it?

Yeah, the death count has been wildly inflated, t[…]

synagogue discipline? One can see you are not a […]

You and I don't agree here. Putin is making the […]