Soldier Takes Obama to Court Over War on ISIS

[Ikari]

Soldier Takes Obama to Court Over War on ISIS

A U.S. Army officer stationed in Kuwait argues the president has violated the War Powers Resolution in a case that carries major constitutional implications for the White House....

Related:
The War That Congress Won't Declare

Can the Supreme Court Force Congress to Own the War on ISIS?

Here’s How the Supreme Court Could Make Congress Own the War on ISIS

The War Powers Resolution is a joke. It's abused and ignored as a limitation of Presidential authority over the military. Now we have a situation where one man controls our military at their whim. That is far too much power for one person. The President should not cart blanche own our current military, if fact he was never supposed to. It should take actsbof Congress to call into action the US Military and it needs to be short term and well planned.

This lawsuit will go nowhere, but it's an interesting take on the problem.

 

[Tigerace117]

June 1942?

WWII was declared by Congress in December 1941, right after Pearl Harbor.

Captain Nathan Smith is a brave and principled defender of the US Constitution, a patriot in that sense, but after this very politically incorrect stunt he will never be promoted again. He has dared to show that the Emperor Wears No Clothes.

Well yeah. Publicity stunts by members of the US military are generally(see what I did there) frowned upon.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

President Obama has asked Congress to declare war on ISIS. They haven't. Congress enjoys being able to criticize the President's handling of the conflict without putting any skin in the game.

If Congress doesn't declare war than all military operations need to cease. We have vested way too much power, and responsibility, in the Presidency.

 

[Thoreau72]

In December 1941 was declared but not on everyone. In June 1942 when the US declared war on Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania was the last declaration actually using the term war.

Oh, an amended declaration of war, a superceding indictment.

 

[Thoreau72]

President Obama has asked Congress to declare war on ISIS. They haven't. Congress enjoys being able to criticize the President's handling of the conflict without putting any skin in the game.

If Congress doesn't declare war than all military operations need to cease. We have vested way too much power, and responsibility, in the Presidency.

I'm thinking it likely that IF Congress declared war on ISIS, it would also be declaring war on our NATO ally Turkey, who does business with and provides material support to ISIS.

Oh, the web we weave when first we practice to deceive. :roll:

 

[Thoreau72]

Well yeah. Publicity stunts by members of the US military are generally(see what I did there) frowned upon.

Yes, in this day and age, demanding the US Constitution be followed is seen by many citizens to be a publicity stunt and tending towards the unpatriotic. Yes, we have the government we deserve.

 

[Grant]

Define elsewhere?

You need 'elsewhere' defined???

 

[Grant]

that's also true. however, i still don't think that anyone can fix the Middle East other than the Middle East. i think that the best thing that we can do is to encourage regional powers to fix their own region.

That was Neville Chamberlain's philosophy as well but we understand now that it didn't work and, furthermore, that Islamism has already gone international.

There is no way any country anywhere can remain isolated from Islamic terror and by thinking we can do that is just, like Neville Chamberlain himself, horribly and dangerously naive. We are hoping the genocide and mass murders remain in the Middle East but it's too late for that.

 

[JANFU]

You need 'elsewhere' defined???

What you meant by "elsewhere".

 

[Tigerace117]

Yes, in this day and age, demanding the US Constitution be followed is seen by many citizens to be a publicity stunt and tending towards the unpatriotic. Yes, we have the government we deserve.

He didn't submit a complaint through the chain of command. He made a big deal and ensured the press knew all about it. It's unprofessional at best.

 

[Grant]

What you meant by "elsewhere".

Elsewhere means another place. Somewhere else. Perhaps you should ask someone in your home for the definition.

 

[Thoreau72]

He didn't submit a complaint through the chain of command. He made a big deal and ensured the press knew all about it. It's unprofessional at best.

I read the NYT article and the one linked to here. It seems that Captain Smith DID try to remedy the situation by way of administrative processes and the chain of command, just like Drake, Binney and a few others in the intelligence community.

Could you cite that part of the story saying he did not try the chain of command as you claim?

 

[Tigerace117]

I read the NYT article and the one linked to here. It seems that Captain Smith DID try to remedy the situation by way of administrative processes and the chain of command, just like Drake, Binney and a few others in the intelligence community.

Could you cite that part of the story saying he did not try the chain of command as you claim?

I don't know--- it doesn't seem like he did to me. Usually if an officer has taken that step they would have mentioned it, but most of the article just talks about the Vietnam War and the guy's lawyer.

 

[Helix]

That was Neville Chamberlain's philosophy as well but we understand now that it didn't work and, furthermore, that Islamism has already gone international.

There is no way any country anywhere can remain isolated from Islamic terror and by thinking we can do that is just, like Neville Chamberlain himself, horribly and dangerously naive. We are hoping the genocide and mass murders remain in the Middle East but it's too late for that.

yes, i understand that to neoconservatives, every problem is Hitler, and everyone who opposes repeating policies that won't work is Chamberlain. in the really real world, though, it's a bit more nuanced.

anyway, though, since we're talking internet tough, how much should your taxes go up to fund the latest round of Middle Eastern interventionism? what should Saudi Arabia contribute? what's your plan to get them to do that?

 

[Grant]

yes, i understand that to neoconservatives, every problem is Hitler, and everyone who opposes repeating policies that won't work is Chamberlain. in the really real world, though, it's a bit more nuanced.

In fact it really isnt that 'nuanced' at all. When there are people committing mass murder and genocide they should be stopped. It's really quite clear. You can hope that they stop, as Chamberlain did, and others did with Communism, but millions would have to die before it all finally ends.

anyway, though, since we're talking internet tough, how much should your taxes go up to fund the latest round of Middle Eastern interventionism? what should Saudi Arabia contribute? what's your plan to get them to do that?

"Internet tough"? Are you an 'internet weakling"? If taxes are your main concern you should have done something about that long ago.

 

[Helix]

In fact it really isnt that 'nuanced' at all. When there are people committing mass murder and genocide they should be stopped. It's really quite clear. You can hope that they stop, as Chamberlain did, and others did with Communism, but millions would have to die before it all finally ends.

"Internet tough"? Are you an 'internet weakling"? If taxes are your main concern you should have done something about that long ago.

so wait, how much? let's get that straight before i waste time on borrow and spend internet neoconservative hawkish chest beating.

 

[Northern Light]

The whole reason why congress can be bypassed is that technically we haven't declared war on anyone, we're going after individuals and non-state actors. This has led to forever wars that have been renamed to "interventions". Most of the countries we're invading now is under the guise of fighting insurgents in order to provide "help". We usually do this by ousting the current government and then installing a new leader within the 30 day period, so that the leader can "ask for our help".

There are so many slimy loopholes to our own morally constructed laws. Laws aside, everyone knows that this is a war and that it doesn't have democratic approval.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

The U.S. and Russia, and other big nations, need to relearn a basic lesson learned in early childhood - might does not make right.

 

[sangha]

The whole reason why congress can be bypassed is that technically we haven't declared war on anyone, we're going after individuals and non-state actors. This has led to forever wars that have been renamed to "interventions". Most of the countries we're invading now is under the guise of fighting insurgents in order to provide "help". We usually do this by ousting the current government and then installing a new leader within the 30 day period, so that the leader can "ask for our help".

There are so many slimy loopholes to our own morally constructed laws. Laws aside, everyone knows that this is a war and that it doesn't have democratic approval.

No, that's not it. Absent a national emergency resulting from an attack on the US, The War Powers Resolution requires the President to get approval for any military deployment that circumstances indicate will lead to hostilities. Its' wording does not allow it to be circumvented by using some other term for the deployment

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.

The real reason why Congress can be bypassed is that Congress lacks the spine to enforce this law.

 

[Thoreau72]

The whole reason why congress can be bypassed is that technically we haven't declared war on anyone, we're going after individuals and non-state actors. This has led to forever wars that have been renamed to "interventions". Most of the countries we're invading now is under the guise of fighting insurgents in order to provide "help". We usually do this by ousting the current government and then installing a new leader within the 30 day period, so that the leader can "ask for our help".

There are so many slimy loopholes to our own morally constructed laws. Laws aside, everyone knows that this is a war and that it doesn't have democratic approval.

By way of the sophistry known as AUMF, Congress abdicated its constitutional obligations and any moral leadership that might have been appropriate. Congress bailed with AUMF, and completely forgot or ignored the requirements of the War Powers Act. Bush could have been sued on that point too, but nobody in those days had the courage of Captain Smith.

I predict the courts will also abdicate their obligations under the law and demonstrate yet again that the rule of law in this country is dead in the water. Captain Smith will never make Major.

 

[RetiredUSN]

And the congress, notwithstanding all the republican tough talk, is too scared to declare war on ISIS

LOL.........ok?

 

[sangha]

LOL.........ok?

Care to explain why the republicans in congress have failed to authorize any military action against ISIS?

 

[Thoreau72]

Care to explain why the republicans in congress have failed to authorize any military action against ISIS?

Care to consider what Article II of the Constitution means? FYI, as FDR noted, POTUS has the legitimate power to WAGE war wherever and whenever he wants to. He cannot declare war, but he can wage war.

That is, congress need not "authorize" POTUS to do anything with the military.

War Powers Act rather fine tunes that authority, as Captain Smith's suit points out.

 

[sangha]

Care to consider what Article II of the Constitution means? FYI, as FDR noted, POTUS has the legitimate power to WAGE war wherever and whenever he wants to. He cannot declare war, but he can wage war.

That doesn't explain why Congress has failed to authorize military action.

That is, congress need not "authorize" POTUS to do anything with the military.

That doesn't explain why Congress has failed to authorize military action.

War Powers Act rather fine tunes that authority, as Captain Smith's suit points out.

That doesn't explain why Congress has failed to authorize military action.

 

[Bodi]

No, that's not it. Absent a national emergency resulting from an attack on the US, The War Powers Resolution requires the President to get approval for any military deployment that circumstances indicate will lead to hostilities. Its' wording does not allow it to be circumvented by using some other term for the deployment


The real reason why Congress can be bypassed is that Congress lacks the spine to enforce this law.

Succinct and 100% accurate...