Skip to main content

View Diary: Say no to war with Syria - demand debate before any military action (284 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  My eyes are glazing over trying to decipher it (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DSPS owl, enhydra lutris, pgm 01, Justus

    but I think you're right:

    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.
    "Specific statutory authorization" presumably refers to something like the AUMF.

    warning: snark above

    by NE2 on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 06:09:16 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Yep (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pgm 01, lunachickie, caul

      "Specific statutory authorization" presumably refers to something like the AUMF.

      That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

      by enhydra lutris on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 08:00:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  don't forget the definition of 'imminent' is not (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      devis1, caul, tle, Justus

      what it used to be according to this administration.

      The white paper, however, spells out rules under which such attacks can be ordered that appear to be much less stringent that what administration officials have said.

      It says, for example, that the United States isn’t required “to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.”

      It also says the United States has the right under international law to act under the suspicion that an attack might take place.

      “It must be right that states are able to act in self-defense in circumstances where there is evidence of further imminent attacks by terrorist groups even if there is no specific evidence of where such an attack will take place or of the precise nature of the attack,” it says. “Delaying action . . . would create an unacceptably high risk that the action would fail and that American casualties would result.”

      Several experts called that an exaggerated rewrite of the legal definition of “imminence,” something that the administration has labeled “elongated imminence.”

      “That is a completely nonsensical case,” said Micah Zenko, an expert with the Council on Foreign Relations.
      (emphasis mine)

      Read more here:

      without the ants the rainforest dies

      by aliasalias on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:09:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site