re: "Khadafi's Box; Climate Change Experiment: anyone want to bet?"

Dr. Jerry Pournelle at Chaos Manor (" The Original Blog and Daybook. ") expressed his misgivings about the U.S., er, NATO waging of war against Libya.

Money quote(s):

"They are now displaying Khadafi laid out on a child’s mattress stuffed into a freezer in a mall. Sic semper tyrannis, and it couldn’t happen to a nicer guy, but it does raise some problems of International Law.

The UN mandate to NATO and the US strike forces was to protect the civilian population of Libya from Kadaffi and his sons and his mercenaries and his tribal supporters and the Libyan fascisti who found his rule congenial. I don’t understand how shooting up his 40 vehicle convoy fleeing his home town was any larger threat to the civilian population of Libya than the 42 vehicle cavalcade in which President Obama is riding. Surely Qadafi wasn’t driving through shooting everyone he saw. Surely he was no threat to the civilians?" (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

The "responsibility to protect" figleaf seemed to quickly transmute into acting as the rebel militia's air force (and navy) in order to perform decapitating strikes and otherwise disrupt the dictator's command, control, and communications capabilities.

Nothing disrupts one's C3 ability like being dead, of course.

"Now of course I do not mourn Khaddaffi and his sons. But I do mourn blows to the Constitution of the United States, which clearly gives the Congress the power to declare war. We understand that the war powers are and must be ambiguous – particularly so in the thermonuclear ear. During the Cold War the President had the power to order the release of thousands of nuclear weapons in retaliation for an incoming strike to the United States. One of the problems I worked on was how to structure the chain of command – now just organizationally but physically – so that the counterstrike could happen without putting the power to begin Armageddon into the hands of a bored Captains and Lieutenants sitting in concrete bunkers in bases out near the end of nowhere; and how to train those Captains and Lieutenants to make it credible that they would, at need, launch those birds at need."

Not just captain and lieutenants, but staff sergeants and privates first class, as CAA has reason to recall.

"All those war and peace decisions in which a mistake could wipe out a significant portion of humanity — Herman Kahn asked, “Will the survivors envy the dead?” – all those decisions might have to be made in minutes. There wouldn’t be time for a Congressional debate or even to summon Congress into session. I do not believe that is true of Khadaffi, It seems to me that if we wanted to wage war on Khadaffi – and I certainly argue that shooting up his convoy, killing his sons and bodyguards, is close enough to war as to make no never mind – if we are to wage war on Qadhaffi then let the President go the Congress and explicitly say so. That is what the Constitution demands." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

CAA doesn't believe in standing too much on ceremony when it comes to declarations of war; it's not like there's a "e-Form" that can be completed online and then sent electronically to Congress. Any format and font will suffice so long as Congress tallies the yays and nays.

"I do not mourn the tyrant, and he go not more than he deserved, and less than he meted out to others. His sons were not such rapacious monsters as the Sons of Saddam Hussein are reliably said to have been, and I know those who argue that had power passed from the Colonel to one of his sons the result would not only have been good for Libya, but better than the Libyans will now get; but I do not know that my opinion is worth much. I do know that the tyrant of Syria must be frantically casting about trying to buy at least one nuke from North Korea. If he isn’t, he hasn’t thought out the situation."

Countries with their own nukes get respect; said "respect" being defined as not-invaded-or-attacked-by-other-nuclear-powers.

10/21

re: "BLOG COMMENT OF THE DAY"

Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit ("very little independent factual reportage") shares his selection, with commentary:

"The President gets to make these calls. Of course, when the President makes this sort of a call, in a war that never had any sort of Congressional approval, it’s pretty risky — or, if you prefer, “gutsy” — but that choice is the President’s to make, and the political risks are his to run."

re: "Obama and the War Powers deadline"

Crush at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") has both clarity and a suggestion for lawmakers.

Money quote(s):

"Section 1544(b) of the War Powers Resolution states that "the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces" at the end of the 60-day period unless Congress:

1.declares war or authorizes the use of force
2.extends the deadline
3.is unable to meet as a result of armed attack

I am not a lawyer, but 1,2, or 3 have not happened.

If the will of the people was to fight in Libya, either due to threatened interests or some internationalist Responsibility to Protect doctrine, Congress would have authorized force or declared war. Since they didn't, the campaign should be over. Just as you or I can't pick and chose which laws we will obey, the president can't either."

Just like consular officers don't get to pick and choose about implementing citizenship and immigration laws, so is the president similarly constrained.

However.....

There are such things as co-equal branches of the federal government, presidential authorities, and the like. There's a balance of power. The president has powers and authority as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, but not unlimited power in that regard. Just where the line gets crossed is a bit blurry, particularly the last few decades, and the War Powers Act may actually have made things worse, even as it attempted to both bind the president and to delegate some power back over to him.

"(W)hat Congress needs to do now is to craft clear and concise laws instead of the problematic War Powers Resolution. What is a "war?" What does it mean to "declare" war? What constitutes an "enemy?" These should be black-and-white answers and not subject to debate. Therefore, future adventurist presidents will be constrained from sending troops in instances where U.S. security and interests are not threatened."

I'm not sure if some of this is even Constitutional. Can Congress (or the president, or the supreme court) go ahead and attempt to define or refine Constitutional provisions by statute rather than through the amendment process? It seems to me that the War Powers Act tries (and fails) to do that already.

re: "In Case Anyone Cares, Obama Is Fighting What Is Actually, Demonstrably an "Illegal War" "

Ace at Ace of Spades HQ gets this about ninety-percent correct.

Money quote(s):

"The scheme of the War Powers Act is that a president can make war, absent authority, for sixty days. Once that sixty day limit is reached, he must begin winding down the effort as soon as possible, and must end all confrontation (even of the retreat/withdrawal under fire type) thirty days after that.

Now, the President can of course seek authorization for war in that sixty day window, in which case the Constitution is satisfied and the War Powers Act no longer applies.

The President has not sought any resolution or authorization. Has not even sought it."

There are some exceptions to this, such as when U.S. forces or territory come under attack.

According to the Library of Congress: "the President's powers as Commander in Chief are exercised only pursuant to a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization from Congress, or a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States (50 USC Sec. 1541)."

"Clinton did the same thing with Bosnia. So this isn't the first time.

Odd that only Republican Presidents need to, and do in fact, seek resolutions of war, while the Democrats who scream the loudest about this part of the Constitution (one of the few they like) just ignore it again and again.

Obama's theory (as was Clinton's) is that because this is being fought "by NATO," then it's not... what, war? I don't get this."

It's always been my understanding that the U.S. was a fully-vested, voting member of NATO. And that the current supreme commander in NATO is a U.S. Navy admiral.

"Most nations go to war as part of an alliance of some kind. They always have. They likely always will.

Where does this idea spring from that when a Democrat wants to go to war without constitutional authorization, he can point to whatever countries he's in alliance with and say "I know the Constitution says I need an authorization of war, but look, I've got Martinique on my side, Hoss. Gold standard." "

&

"I(t) doesn't bloody matter what organization is nominally in charge of a war, or what combination of countries you're allied with. The Constitution does not say that you need either a declaration of war or France has your back.

There is one statement. It applies to all circumstances. It doesn't matter if we're doing it on behalf of the UN, NATO, the G-8, the NAFTA trade zone, SEATO, or fuck-all else."

re: "Lawfare v. Warfare: Bin Laden family uses a little “Alinsky” on US and Obama"

McQ at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") understands the mental judo being attempted through lawfare.

Money quote(s):

"(T)he “bin Laden family” condemns the attack on their father and demands that there be a reckoning"

There was a reckoning. That was the whole point.

"They’re also threatening to take the case to the International Criminal Court which would be an interesting turn of events.

The hidden premise, of course, is OBL was a criminal, not an unlawful combatant and we violated the law."

Which "law" was that exactly?

International law, like the international community, is a fiction. It's a useful one, sometimes, but it's more aspiraational than real. The "World" has no court. The "World" has no policemen. Sovereign nations do, and sometimes let international organizations like the U.N. use them.

"The death of bin Laden is being described in some quarters as an “extrajudicial killing”. In fact, bin Laden was always considered to be an “unlawful combatant” by us and as such had no such protections. In warfare, the targeted killing of an enemy, in this case unlawful combatant, is quite legal.

So what you are seeing here are competing premises, one saying terrorism is simply a criminal act and therefore terrorists must be treated as common criminals would be treated as well as afforded various rights because of that status. The other says they are enemies who have declared war on the US, committed numerous acts of war and, in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, are “unlawful combatants” and enemies whose targeted killing is an accepted practice of warfare.

Lawfare vs. warfare.

I think we’ve been pretty clear since the beginning, with the AUMF (which the Obama administration ironically used as the legal basis for its raid into Pakistan), that we’re at war (and yes, I also accept the AUMF as a declaration of war) what we consider these terrorists."

While, as a traditionalist, I would prefer our declarations of war to have "DECLARATION OF WAR" printed in bold typeface at the top of a sheet of parchment, with heavy maroon wax seals in gilt skippets suspended by wide red ribbons, that's just not how congress rolls these days.

"This is not a criminal matter. It is a military matter and it was executed as such. The lesson it teaches other terrorists who’ve declared war on “the Great Satan” is we are relentless and remorseless. Those are two good messages to send." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

re: "This Week at War: Send in the Lawyers?"

Robert Haddick at Small Wars Journal ("facilitates the exchange of information among practitioners, thought leaders, and students of Small Wars, in order to advance knowledge and capabilities in the field") answers the question "Why the president's legal advisors are in no hurry to justify the bin Laden raid."

Money quote(s):

"Osama bin Laden's fourth son Omar along with some of his brothers have called for an international investigation into the killing of their father. A statement written by the sons and published in the New York Times calls for President Barack Obama to cooperate with their demand for a U.N. inquiry into the question of "why our father was not arrested and tried but summarily executed without a court of law." Should there be no response within 30 days, the sons have pledged to assemble a "panel of eminent British and international lawyers" to pursue legal action against the U.S. government and its officials."

This is called lawfare.

"Bin Laden's sons as well as other analysts outside the United States view the raid in the context of the procedures of criminal law. By contrast, Holder and most observers inside the United States view the raid as a military mission with bin Laden just another combatant. Enemy military personnel are not subject to the rights due a suspect under criminal procedure but rather are at risk of ambush and sudden lethal attack without warning. In the military context, it doesn't matter if the combatant is not holding a weapon, is not in a military uniform, or is in an "unthreatening" posture (such as asleep). The only circumstances under which military forces are required to "give quarter" is after an enemy combatant has completed a surrender or is too wounded to resist, something very unlikely to have occurred in the bin Laden compound given the aggressive rules of engagement issued to the assault team. Bin Laden's sons reject this interpretation, viewing bin Laden as a criminal suspect deserving the rights of legal process."

Those inclined to take the criminal law/enforcement model seriously (Sen. Kerry, call your office) will do so. All young Omar and his ilk deserve from the U.S. Government is, perhaps, the traditional telegram notification sent to next-of-kin.

"The U.S. view is that the 9/11 attacks sparked an "armed conflict" between the United States and al Qaeda, a legal status that both the Congress and the United Nations quickly affirmed. The "armed conflict" status has allowed the United States to use its military power and the international laws of war to permit such techniques as lethal drone attacks and commando raids against combatants -- legally delivered without warning or legal process.

All modern conflicts involve irregular non-state actors as combatants. These combatants and their fellow travelers seek to emphasize their status as civilians when useful, both for defense against modern military technology and in an attempt to take advantage of legal rights. Conversely, the United States government will seek, when necessary, to achieve an international recognition of armed conflict status against its irregular adversaries in order to take advantage of the military and legal advantages it gains from such a status. The government's challenge will be justifying the particular circumstances that warrant unsheathing the government's armed conflict powers against specific adversaries."

Considering that UBL had issued his own declaration of war against the U.S. as early as the 1990s, plus all those fairly damning video diatribes, it's difficult to imagine a more clearcut case of an irregular non-state actor qualifying as a combatant (unlawful or otherwise).

re: "The Lawfulness of Killing Bin Laden"

Butch Bracknell at Small Wars Journal ("facilitates the exchange of information among practitioners, thought leaders, and students of Small Wars, in order to advance knowledge and capabilities in the field") lays out the legalities of schwacking UBL.

Money quote(s):

"Much has been made of the recent revelations that Osama bin Laden was unarmed at the moment he was killed by U.S. special operations forces in close quarters battle. Let us put this issue to rest with dispatch, once and for all: Killing bin Laden was not an extrajudicial execution, a murder, or a war crime. It was a combat engagement lawful under U.S. and international legal authority – full stop."

Mr. Bracknell takes some care explaining the self-defense and jus in bello rationales before continuing:

"Osama bin Laden was an enemy combatant – again, full stop. His status as a virtual enemy of the United States is grounded on several factors: his declaration of war (fatwa) by Al Qaeda, of which he was the nominal chief, against the United States; the Congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) of September 18, 2001 (Public Law 107-40); and, most likely, declaration of a state of hostilities (essentially, a state of “war”) by the President against an opposing belligerent: Al Qaeda, its footsoldiers, and its leaders. The qualifier “most likely” indicates that if the President has, in fact, declared Al Qaeda to be a hostile, belligerent force, the designation probably would be classified and non-public. It is also superfluous, as Congress supplied the necessary authority in the AUMF to make combat actions against Al Qaeda lawful. They described a category of combatants who may be targeted by U.S. forces, and Osama bin Laden fell squarely into that category more precisely than any other person in the world. Targeting bin Laden was based on bin Laden simply being bin Laden: his conduct as he stared down the wrong end of an MP-5 was immaterial.

Once designated a hostile enemy combatant, there are only two ways a combatant can be exempted from lawful targeting: by manifesting a clear and unequivocal intent to surrender, and by becoming wounded or otherwise incapacitated and incapable of resistance (hors d’combat). There is no evidence bin Laden was wounded prior to administration of the lethal force which ended his life. Moreover, U.S. forces engaged in armed conflict are under no obligation to give an enemy combatant a chance to surrender; the enemy combatant must practically force his surrender on the U.S. force by manifesting it clearly, timely, and in a manner which enables U.S. forces to discontinue the use of lethal force. At this instant, a shield of legal protection descends around him, and U.S. forces are obligated to treat him humanely and consistent with the laws of armed conflict pertaining to detainees. Until the shield is present, triggered by manifest surrender, it is absent. Without the shield that only he could initiate through his surrenderous conduct, bin Laden remained a legitimate target and was treated so by the assaulting U.S. force.

Bin Laden’s death was a triumph for the American intelligence community and the armed forces and provides, at long last, some solace to the victims of 9/11 and Al Qaeda’s other terroristic acts. His death will likely prove to be a strategic gain, and it eliminates a continuing threat to Americans at home and her citizens and forces abroad. It also was completely sanctioned under U.S. and international law."

Bottom line: it was a righteous shoot.

re: "Lawmakers sue President Obama over Libya"

Pamela Geller (who had a birthday this week) at Atlas Shrugs ("Evil is made possible by the sanction you give it. Withdraw your sanction.") isn't crazy about the plaintiffs, but likes the suit.

Money quote(s):

"Finally, elected officials are holding a runaway President to account. Does anyone know what the hell we hope to accomplish in Libya? What is Obama's endgame in Libya, aiding al qaeda? On May 20th, the 60th day of Obama's war in Libya, Obama was requird by law to get Congressional approval to continue his ops in Libya. The war he consulted no one about, the war he did not go to Congress on, the tyrant's war.

He is now engaged in four wars: Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and a secret war in Yemen, and his strategy in Afghanistan and Iraq has resulted in the highest US military casualty rates, year over year, since these engagements began (in July 2009, I called it -- Obama's Afghanistan strategy: target US military). He refuses to identify Islamic terror, jihad or religious motivation. His counter terror adviser, John Brennan, says, "jihad is a legitimate tennt of islam," so what exactly is Obama fighting in these four wars, and who is he fighting for?"

U.S. participation in the Libyan action has been troubling me as well, but I'm of a somewhat literalist turn of mind when it comes to things like the powers of government, including the presidency.

re: "President Sued For War Crime"

DMartyr at The Jawa Report ("you know, sand people") has some breaking news.

Money quote(s):

"No, the loony democrats are not suing George W. Bush for going into Iraq to kill Islamic terrorists (at least, not yet). Republican Bipartisan lawmakers are suing President Obama for illegally going to war against Libya"

I suppose they've got standing, after all, given what the Constitution actually says. It'll be quite interesting to see how this plays out in the courts.

re: "The Daily Caller - The Libyan intervention is not wholly legal"

David Kopel at The Daily Caller is troubled by the legalities.

Money quote(s):

"Is President Obama’s war against the Libyan government legal? It is arguably compliant with modern international law, because it has been authorized by the United Nations Security Council. Nothing in international law, however, can change the United States Constitution’s procedures for when the United States can go to war — which require the consent of Congress."

Nothing in the U.N. Charter about it superseding the Constitution. I read it (the Charter) decades ago, and if it had said something like that I feel certain it surely would have stuck in my memory.

"(T)he Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power “To declare War.” Some persons claim that the president’s commander-in-chief power includes unilateral authority to make war on his own initiative. The founders believed otherwise."

There is indeed a fuzzy bit of Constitutionality about the president's role as commander-in-chief and Congress' responsibility for declaring war. This is one of those areas that gets hashed out over time and there's often some back and forth over this stuff. That being said, it shouldn't be considered beneath the dignity of the commander-in-chief to comply with either the Constitution or at least the War Powers Act. Or so one might have thought.

"America’s first war in Libya — two centuries ago — complied with the Constitution. The Barbary pirates, who were supported by the government of Tripoli, seized American ships in the Mediterranean because the Americans would not pay protection money. While President Thomas Jefferson dispatched the American Navy to guard the ships, he asked Congress for permission to take further action. As his message to Congress acknowledged, authorization for offensive war is an “important function confided by the Constitution to the Legislature exclusively.”

Congress passed two separate authorizations for military force in 1801 and 1802."

Has anyone checked to see if one of those has, perhaps, gone unexpired all these two centuries now and might still be in force?

"Placing U.S. forces under a NATO command changes nothing. Even if the NATO Treaty could somehow authorize war, that treaty only requires nations to fight in response to an attack against the territory of a NATO member."

Considering that the commander of NATO is a U.S. Navy admiral (and a good guy, by all reports), this would be a rather thin fiction at best.

re: "The Constitution and Libya"

Michael Ramsey at Opinio Juris ("a forum for informed discussion and lively debate about international law and international relations") offers his learned opinion.

Money quote(s):

"Every major figure from the founding era who commented on the matter said that the Constitution gave Congress the exclusive power to commit the nation to hostilities. Notably, this included not only people with reservations about presidential power, such as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, but also strong advocates of the President’s prerogatives, such as George Washington and Alexander Hamilton. As President, Washington on several occasions said that he could not undertake offensive military actions without Congress’ approval. Hamilton is especially significant, because his views on the need for a strong executive went far beyond those of his contemporaries. Yet Hamilton made it very clear that he read the Constitution not to allow the President to begin a war – as he put it at one point, “it belongs to Congress only, to go to war.” "

This seems clear enough. Congress has subsequently, during the Vietnam "Conflict" undertaken to delegate a little bit of that power across branches of government to the presidency, in the War Powers Act. But only within certain expressly circumscribed parameters.

"The fact that our use of force is limited to air strikes should not matter. Limited wars were well-known in the 18th century (Britain and France fought a limited war at sea and in North America during the American Revolution). The U.S. fought two limited wars early in its history, against France beginning in 1798 and against Tripoli in 1801. So far as I know, every person commenting on these events at the time thought that Congress had to authorize any initiation of force, even limited naval attacks. (In 1801, Hamilton argued that authorization wasn’t needed because Tripoli, not the U.S., began the war; but he agreed that congressional authorization would otherwise be necessary even in the context of an attack on a single Tripoli warship.)

Thus the founding generation thought the Constitution reserved war-initiation power to Congress. How could this be, though, if Congress has only the power to “declare War”, which we may think refers to making a (now-outmoded) formal announcement? Why can’t the President begin a war informally, merely by ordering an attack, without a declaration?

The answer is that in founding-era terminology war could be “declared” either by formal announcement or by military action initiating hostilities."

Fair enough. Deeds then, when words would be superfluous.

"Perhaps, though, the President also has power to declare war (after all, the Constitution expressly says only that Congress has it, not that the President doesn’t, and it could be part of the President’s power as commander-in-chief). Returning to Hamilton, a key passage in his Federalist 32 argued that often constitutional power could be held concurrently by different entities. But, he continued, an exclusive grant of power would arise where concurrent power would be “totally contradictory and repugnant” – that is, when one branch’s exercise of a power would wholly undermine an express grant to another branch. Hamilton didn’t give the example of declaring war here, but it fits his model: war, once launched, cannot be undone without consequences. If Congress’ power is to decide when war should begin, it follows that the President cannot independently launch attacks."

That's one of the (several) drawbacks of the War Powers Act; aside from the "nuclear options" of denying funding to American troops under fire and engaged in mortal combat OR initiating impeachment proceedings against, variously, the president and/or the secretaries of defense and state.

"(T)he founding generation’s views are clear and have firm basis in the Constitution’s text: the declare war clause gives Congress the exclusive power to decide when war should be “declared” – meaning begun by “word or action.” In Libya, President Obama has “declared” a war – a limited one, to be sure, but still a war by 18th century definitions – without congressional approval. That contravenes both the Constitution’s text and the founding era’s consensus understanding."

So what is to be done? It would seem that "standing" to do anything rests with two bodies: the Congress and the electorate. It remains to be seen which one, if either, will act, if at all. Neither Congress nor the public wish to deny support to our soldiers, airmen, and sailors who are doing their jobs and going into harm's way. Been there, done that. But note the lack of any "bump" in the president's poll standings.

People (and congressmen) are waiting, giving the benefit of the doubt, but when or if the U.S. begins to take casualties, particularly if "mission creep" occurs and there are "boots on the ground," then all bets are off.

re: "War Powers"

Dr. Jerry Pournelle at Chaos Manor ("The Original Blog *") is a pretty bright guy.

Here's his take:

"(T)here are two holes in the roof of Gaddafi's palace as I reported last night, but the US military now says that Gaddafi is not a target. This probably means that some component of the Tripoli air defense system was installed in or on the palace. Possibly there was a radar on the roof."

These were my thoughts exactly. After all, it's not been unknown, even in the U.S., to station elements of some sort of air defense arrangement on the grounds of presidential palaces, particularly during wartime. As time goes on, however, we're starting to see air strikes on items (tanks, boats) whose connection with enforcement of a no-fly-zone eludes me.

"The President claims the War Powers Resolution as the authorization for the gunboat style bombardment of Libyan air defense forces. I presume he uses Harvard Law School logic: the US is a signatory to the UN treaty. The UN has called for a no-fly zone in Libya. The US is obligated to carry out the mandates of the UN, because treaties are the supreme law of the land and rank with the Constitution. The War Powers Resolution gives the President the power to resist attacks on US forces. Any attempt to impose the no-fly zone would inevitably expose US forces to attack from Libyan air defenses, and therefore it would be absurd to send in US aircraft over Libya while those air defense forces are intact; therefore carrying out the UN resolution did expose US forces to attack, and therefore the preemptive strikes on Libyan air defense targets was within the powers given by the War Powers Resolution. QED."

Dr. Pournelle cuts right to the heart of this matter. It's not as if the U.S. doesn't have a window into the machinations of the U.N. Security Council. As I learned, long ago, when I used to do "model U.N." as a high schooler, the U.S. has a permanent seat on the Security Council. And the U.S. has a permanent veto power in that body as well. So when the U.N. Security Council tells us something, it's somewhat like whispering in our own ears.

"Note that there is in fact some validity to the President's logic as explicated above. (Note also that I made it up: this is not based on any official statement I know of.) If you grant that the US is obligated to respond to the UN resolution imposing a no-fly zone, then the rest certainly follows, and any President who sent in US forces without adequate preparation would and should be condemned. However: the US holds a veto over such UN resolutions, and in fact the US sought that resolution. The counter argument here is that a UN resolution cannot give the President of the United States power to make wars without the consent of Congress, and if the President believes the US is obligated to act when the UN mandates such an action, then he ought not consent to such a UN resolution without authorization of Congress. That, however, contradicts the almost universally approved doctrine that matters of foreign policy are pretty much the business of the President and the President alone, and while Congress and particularly the Senate may advise the President, neither Congress nor Senate have any veto over how the President uses the UN votes and veto powers." (Bold typeface added for emphasis - CAA)

"Usually when we debate the limits to the power of the president to make (as opposed to declare) war, it is already too late: we are in, and the Legions need our support. This time we are not yet in, and we have no particular obligations to anyone. A good time for a real debate on these matters.

As to my views, I have no objection to wringing Gaddafi's neck, but I do not believe that decision belongs to the President alone. This is a matter for the Congress of the United States to decide. The nature and quality of debates on this matter should be illustrative. They might even change people's opinions about the present leadership qualities in the United States."

Just so. The Libyan dictator isn't exactly on my Christmas card list. He's a bad guy, has the blood of American servicemen and civilians on his hands (and has had so for decades) and belongs on any clear-thinking American's "better off dead" list.

But when it comes to the Constitution, I'm something of a stickler for form. Let's do this right. As both my long-time readers here will be aware, I consider the Iraq War Resolution to have sufficed as a declaration of war for Constitutional purposes, so I'd have the same reasonably wide benefit of the doubt for something like that here.

re: "President Obama Goes to War - Without Congress"

Wesley Clark, MD, at American Thinker ("a daily internet publication devoted to the thoughtful exploration of issues of importance to Americans") considers the Constitutionalities and legalities.

Just read the whole thing.

_____

Hat tip to KG at Crusader Rabbit ("FOR LIBERTY").

JO - Clarity, Corruption and Censure

From my archive of press clippings:

Jamaica Observer

Clarity, Corruption and Censure

James Moss-Solomon


Sunday, March 07, 2010


"OH, what a tangled web we weave!" The Daily Observer of Wednesday, March 3 in its headline claims "PM Stares Down US", and the Gleaner headline of the same day says "Dudus defence". The situation has started to get out of hand and several innuendos have been made, although no one has directly pointed any fingers. The usual lawyers, both locally and overseas, have weighed in on the matter on the talk shows, and as predicted they have not been precise in their comments. On one hand they say 'this', and on the other hand they say 'that'. That has been my concern with lawyers in government; they argue like hell, but fail to take decisive positions or actions.

Read the whole column here.

Snippet(s):

"The element of corruption in Government as stated by the supreme spin doctors, the United States, would also have been resisted. As it is now, any defence under the rights of citizens within the extradition treaty has been reduced to a discussion of the levels of corruption within the Government by their dealings with a single individual. The entire ruling party has now been placed under a cloak of suspicion, which will again cause the rumour mills to churn. Already it is being said that the visas of prominent Jamaicans are being cancelled as an act of "revenge" by the government of the United States.

I have no doubt that in other circumstances the USA has taken action based on rumours, but we are such small fish that we should not attribute it to revenge. Let's face it, we are no bin Laden, neither do we possess any "weapons of mass destruction". We can hardly manage our own criminals, let alone a war. So in the final analysis, our lack of clarity has led to the accusations of vast corruption in the Government."

&

"The events have opened us up to the realities of censure by the United States Government. The annual reports to Congress are a requirement which I believe started in earnest following the attack on the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001. Under their concept of "sovereignty" they are able to take a wide range of punitive actions on what they believe to be non-compliant with their policies. These measures range from a slap on the wrist, prohibition of airlines accessing their airspace or ships sailing in their territorial waters, trade sanctions, breaking of diplomatic relations, to perhaps even a declaration of war."

re: "When Will The Islamic Republic Apologize?"

Robert at Expat Yank ("one American Living in the South of England") is still waiting, as are the rest of us.

Money quote(s):

"(T)he U.S. had diplomatic relations with the Islamic Republic at its inception. Those ceased when the Islamic Republic made relations impossible. How?

Americans are still waiting to hear “sorry” from the Islamic Republic for its having orchestrated the overrunning of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran on November 4, 1979 in complete rejection of centuries-long diplomatic practices. The staff were taken hostage, threatened with death, and 52 of them were imprisoned in Iran until January 1981.

Iran was lucky, then, that the U.S. only broke off relations six months later, and did not declare war on the regime. U.S. restraint at that time was remarkable, and demonstrated how “slow to war” is the country."