re: "Iran's war"

Tigerhawk ("thoughts of the day on international affairs, politics, things that strike us as hilarious and personal observations") keeps his eye on the ball.

Money quote(s):

"The Islamic Republic is up to no good, again"

Color me shocked. Shocked!

"Casus belli, for sure. I tend to believe that it is not in our interests to attack Iran -- at least not right now -- but it is important to remember that if we did our war would be just and lawful."

Not that it will matter: the same nuttering nabobs will whine as whined about our invasion of Iraq after a decade of their ceasefire violations.

re: "Rule of law watch: Does Barack Obama have a fool for a client?"

Tigerhawk ("thoughts of the day on international affairs, politics, things that strike us as hilarious and personal observations") remarks on the first stage of some recent opinion shopping.

Money quote(s):

"Long-standing fans of the back-and-forth will remember the enormous grief that the Bush administration got for following the opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel, particularly on the question of enhanced interrogation (or, if you are a liberal, "torture"). The accusation was, more or less, that the OLC's incumbent, John Yoo, was turning analytical cartwheels to arrive at the result that Dick Cheney wanted. Well, it turns out that on the question of the Libya war, Barack Obama overruled the OLC." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

&

"(I)t is "extraordinarily rare" for a president to overrule the OLC -- prior to Barack Obama, the last president to do it was FDR. Obama has now done it twice. Perhaps the president has such confidence in his own legal acumen that he does not need no stinkin' OLC approval."

re: "Why the Libyan War is important to us - and to our children"

Fabius Maximus ("A discussion of geopolitics – broadly defined as economics, government, sociology and the military arts – from an American’s perspective.") puts our intervention in Libya and the War Powers Act into mutual perspective.

Money quote(s):

"Summary: The Libyan War will have long-term consequences, no matter who eventually rules Libya. It’s another precedent. Another step away from the Second Republic (1788-) towards a new political regime. One with a far stronger Executive than the Founders wanted. One as strong as they feared."

This is not an uncommon viewpoint on the right side of the political spectrum.

"The Libyan War does not meet the requirements for Presidential authorization of military action. The relevant clauses are both brief and clear."

"US Code Title 50, Chapter 33: The War Powers Resolution, § 1541. Purpose and policy Section C: Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
1. a declaration of war,
2. specific statutory authorization, or
3. a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

No president, since the War Powers Act was first passed, has conceded that it actually binds them, but all have been punctilious about not violating it and complying with it, even if only as a courtesy.

"A cure will come only when we as a people decide to return to a Constitutional form of government. That would mean no public support for these discretionary wars, and the senior military leadership coming to a different understanding of how to balance their duties to obey the Commander-in-Chief and defend the Constitution.

The latter is an important and seldom mentioned point. I fear we’re slowly moving to a time where the two duties of our most senior officers will conflict, radically and unmistakably. Perhaps not in our time, but likely in our children’s time"

Accepting congressional resolutions authorizing the use of force, as was done for Afghanistan and Iraq, as constituting declarations of war is reasonable enough; it's not like the Constitution established any sort of format for this kind of document. It's up to Congress to make that sort of rule for itself, or not. It's once you start subcontracting that element of sovereignty outwith the federal system, to UN or NATO or other organs, that Constitutionalists get.... twitchy.

"The primary precedent expanding Presidential war powers; “The Korean War: On What Legal Basis Did Truman Act?“, Louis Fisher (Congressional Research Service), American Journal of International Law, January 1995 – American history might have taken a different course if our senior generals had gently requested that Truman first get Presidential approval. If they had only taken their oath more seriously."

_____

Hat tip to Tigerhawk ("thoughts of the day on international affairs, politics, things that strike us as hilarious and personal observations").

re: "Libya - Rank Speculation Regarding Our Silence"

Cardinalpark at Tigerhawk ("thoughts of the day on international affairs, politics, things that strike us as hilarious and personal observations") shares some speculation.

Money quote(s):

"I've been struck by the relative quiet from our current administration regarding events in Libya. Having said that, I am as yet reluctant to criticize our silence. It is possible that silence actually means something more intriguing and useful in this context. I'll grant you, this is an optimists view, but fueled by 2 possibilities - one highly likely, the other less so. The first - we have a material number of Americans and friends who need to be evacuated promptly so they do not become hostages to Qaddafi in the region. Active efforts to locate and evacuate them are better served by stealth rather than vocal antagonism."

Read the second speculation here.

re: "Indefinite detention: We knew this was coming"

TigerHawk ("thoughts of the day on international affairs, politics, things that strike us as hilarious and personal observations") has some news about unlawful, er, indefinite detention.

Money quote(s):

"(T)he Bush administration was not taking all that flack for nothing, and that there is no practical alternative in dealing with unlawful combatants in a stateless war."

&

"The sophisticated media also knew, of course, but was never going to admit it."

re: "A lefty blogger eyes the Gitmo flip-floppery"

Tigerhawk ("thoughts of the day on international affairs, politics, things that strike us as hilarious and personal observations") remarks on the absurdity of trying Gitmo detainees in federal courts.

Money quote(s):

"There is lots of "information" in the world, but very little admissible evidence, a distinction essential to many politicians and to all courts. The difference is also at the heart of the argument over whether jihadis detained on the battlefield by soldiers ought to be treated as illegal combatants or as criminals. One needs evidence (as opposed to mere information) to detain the latter, but not the former."

&

"Soldiers are not trained, ordered, or even gently encouraged to gather evidence, and if they should happen to come into possession of some their own institution lacks the procedures to maintain a chain of custody suitable to admit that evidence in a United States criminal trial."

re: "More Andy McCarthy on Interrogation"

Escort81 at Tigerhawk ("thoughts of the day on international affairs, politics, things that strike us as hilarious and personal observations") shares thoughts about criminalizing coercive interrogation.

Money quote(s):

"Even if you believe that the decisions of the Bush administration with regard to coercive interrogation were wrong and indeed criminal, it seems to me that: a) not many, even on the far left, want to prosecute those who actually conducted the interrogations, notwithstanding the diminished status of a "Nuremberg defense" (unless they actually went beyond the meets and bounds of the guidelines provided from above); b) going after the lawyers who provided advice will be difficult, unless the advice was along the lines of "oh, yup, it's OK to decapitate your wife if she changes the channel with 2 minutes left in the game and the score tied -- see Highlander v. Kurgan," that is, outrageous advice that is clearly well beyond the bright lines of legal conduct as set forth by ABA rules; c) you are left with going after the former president and vice president."

re: "Regarding Chas Freeman"

Tigerhawk ("thoughts of the day on international affairs, politics, things that strike us as hilarious and personal observations") takes a much more balanced view of this appointment.

Money quote(s):

"Freeman, Bush 41's ambassador to Riyadh, has a deep understanding of the Middle East and the Saudis in particular. He has used that understanding to recycle a lot of petrodollars, both in the service of American geopolitical objectives -- that money killed a lot of Soviet soldiers back in the day -- and his private clients. Since regular readers know that I believe that businessmen who recycle petrodollars to American advantage are making an important contribution to the economic health of the country, it stands to reason that I think that Freeman's results are positive even if I do not agree with many of his publicly expressed opinions."

&

"If you read the righty critics of Freeman, particularly as they relate to China policy, they say that he is a sort of hyper realist in the sense that actual power is far more relevant to him than principles. I do not know that is true, but I do think Barack Obama ought to have at least one such person on his national security staff."

re: "Iran, Hamas, and deterrence"

TigerHawk ("thoughts of the day on international affairs, politics, things that strike us as hilarious and personal observations") is drawing some conclusions about fighting Hamas in Gaza.

Money quote(s):

"Not only is our enemy Iran actively waging proxy war against Israel, but its Shiite radicals are, apparently, more than willing to do it through Sunni stooges. So much for that sectarian divide, which is supposed to preclude Iranian coooperation with Sunnis in armed struggle (see "myth" #7 in this Juan Cole post). Israel is our front line against those bastards, and anybody who thinks that they will suddenly go all peaceful once they have driven Israel into the sea is smoking something stronger than weed."

&

"This gets to the heart of Israel's geopolitical rationale, and its metric for "victory" in this context: Hamas was obviously not deterred before -- otherwise, it would have expected this overwhelming response to its rocket attacks. Hamas launched those rockets because it did not believe Israel's implicit or explicit threat to retaliate. Israel's objective is to reestablish that belief. Israel will have "won," therefore, not when it wipes out Hamas for all time (which probably is not possible), but when Hamas finally does expect massive retaliation for its aggression."

re: "A blog worth watching?"

Tigerhawk ("thoughts of the day on international affairs, politics, things that strike us as hilarious and personal observations") notes the establishment of a new web log, Madame Secretary.

Money quote(s):

"(T)he blog is therefore worth watching, especially if (when?) the State Department decides that it is going to subvert some aspect of President Obama's foreign policy (which, mark my words, will happen)."