re: "The Attack on Libya Crossed a Very Bright Constitutional Line"

Rep. Tom McClintock (R–CA) at Big Government laid out the Constitutional facts.


Money quote(s):

"When the President ordered the attack on Libya without Congressional authorization, he crossed a very bright Constitutional line that he himself recognized in 2007 when he told the Boston Globe “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” "

&

"To contend that the President has the legal authority to commit an act of war without Congressional approval requires ignoring every word the Constitution’s authors said on this subject – and they said quite a lot.

There seems to be a widespread misconception that under the War Powers Act, the President may order any attack on any country he wants for 60 days without Congressional approval. This is completely false. The War Powers Act is clear and unambiguous: the President may only order our armed forces into hostilities under three very specific conditions: (quoting directly from the Act): “(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.”

Only if one of these conditions is present can the President invoke the War Powers Act. None are present or alleged to be present, and thus the President is in direct violation of that Act.
The United Nations Participation Act requires specific congressional authorization before American forces are ordered into hostilities in United Nations actions. The North Atlantic Treaty clearly requires troops under NATO command to be deployed in accordance with their country’s constitutional provisions. The War Powers Act specifically forbids inferring from any treaty the power to order American forces into hostilities without specific congressional authorization.

The only conclusion we can make is that this was an illegal and unconstitutional act of the highest significance."

BG - Faster citizenship in uniform

From my archive of press clippings:

Boston Globe

Faster citizenship in uniform


February 19, 2009


THE MILITARY has long had a policy of offering accelerated citizenship to legal immigrants with green cards who volunteer for service. Now it is going to offer the same inducement to immigrants who are refugees or on temporary work or student visas. While thorough background checks will be needed to make sure the recruits aren't sleeper agents for enemy states or terrorist organizations, the program should help the Pentagon cope with two wars and the need to be prepared for other conflicts.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"The Army, which is taking the lead on the new policy, hopes to use it to draw immigrants who have medical training or linguistic skills and familiarity with foreign cultures. The service is quick to point out that the new program is not a means of meeting overall recruitment goals."

&

"(T)he two wars of this decade have taught the military how critical it is to have troops with the ability to speak languages used in the world's hot spots, from the Pushtu of Pakistan and Afghanistan to the Somali and Swahili of East Africa. The new program also recognizes the large number of immigrant doctors and nurses working in this country, whose skills are also needed in the military. To qualify for enlistment, the immigrants will need to have been in the United States at least two years. Once sworn in, they can immediately apply for citizenship and can get it in as little as six months.

To protect against sleeper agents, all the recruits will be subject to screening by the Department of Homeland Security, in addition to the initial DHS screen done before they received their visas."