Log in

What happened to cooperation and consultation? - What we have here -- is a failure to communicate....

> Recent Entries
> Archive
> Friends
> Profile

The Memory Hole
BBC News
The Nation
The Economist - Country Briefings
News Is Knowledge (Politics)
Weekly Presidential Recap
Federal Register
Supreme Court Decisions
Fed Code (laws)
CA Code (law)
Patriot 2
OMB Watcher
US Dept of State - Office of the Historian
National Security Archive - Declassified
Mapping the Global Future (NIC/CIA)
CIA's FOIA Reading Room

January 27th, 2007

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
02:57 am - What happened to cooperation and consultation?

First, I thought declaring war required Congress' full consent and declarations wax seals and suchlike.... or am I thinking of a democracy....?

President Bush, on a collision course with Congress over Iraq, said Friday "I'm the decision-maker" about sending more troops to the war. He challenged skeptical lawmakers not to prematurely condemn his plan. [more]

Second, are we picking more fights?
Seems our CIC has a bug up his butt....

U.S. troops allowed to kill Iranians plotting attacks in Iraq

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration has authorized the U.S. military to capture or kill Iranian agents in Iraq who are plotting attacks against U.S. and coalition forces, a U.S. national security official said Friday.

The policy, approved by President Bush in the last couple of months, is aimed at Iranian agents planning attacks with Iraqi militiamen, the official said. Bush told reporters on Friday that he had no problem with the policy, if it protects U.S. soldiers.

(Watch Iraq's foreign minister on whether his government was consulted Video) [more]

Current Mood: curiouscurious

(10 opinions | Speak up!)


[User Picture]
Date:January 27th, 2007 11:05 am (UTC)
Sweetie, what are you dong up? And looking at such insomnia-inducing horrors.
[User Picture]
Date:January 27th, 2007 04:58 pm (UTC)
I was having dreams about global politics and had to get up and read the headlines. Talk about a head case.
[User Picture]
Date:January 27th, 2007 02:38 pm (UTC)
1) He already has authorization for this war.

2) Even if he didn't, the War Powers Act of 1973 enables him to do this for a short time.
[User Picture]
Date:January 27th, 2007 04:57 pm (UTC)
I would be grateful if you could describe the provocation for us to be in Iran with deadly force (immediate imperatives or otherwise, but please, leaving out our hunt for 'terrorists'... if we include that, we may as well suspend all the founding documents and rules of the US and call the spade a dictatorship with elections for puppet representation) -

...then, if there's still char space left, would you say some more about how long an undeclared war can last without a Congressional Act of War (hopefully in a manner I can understand) against a specific foe? I understand there's a legislative voice for it, but I have not seen the actual declaration of war. Now, for us to engage in 'Police-Actions', sure, maybe (well, very tenuously) - but putting our own hostile forces inside another country smacks of U.S. terrorism to me -- especially with the government of that country not being exactly thrilled about it? Kinda worries me.

Every time I read about our CiC raiding for peace, freedom, and the (!fanfare!) American Way (/!fanfare!), I can't help but think what our reaction would be if the shoe were on the other foot.

One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist
[User Picture]
Date:January 27th, 2007 05:53 pm (UTC)
Well, the easy answer is that he can expand the war on terror to iran if he chooses, but the War Powers Act would still apply if he didn't choose to do so under the auspices of the GWOT. But no one's saying "enter iran with deadly force": the authorization only accoutns for Iranian agents in Iraq.

Meanwhile, undeclared war? We haven't "formally" declared war in decades, and I think, technically, we're still at war in Vietnam and Korea.
[User Picture]
Date:January 27th, 2007 04:58 pm (UTC)
Actually, I think the President, as Commander-in-Chief, can tell the military to do anything he wants that doesn't contradict US law. Congress controls the purse-strings, so if he doesn't get approval from Congress, he runs out of money to buy bullets in a matter of weeks or months.

Granted, there is a significant amount of US law on the books listing things the President can't do with troops, ranging from the Bill of Rights saying he can't put them in your spare bedroom on to posse commitatus (sp? or something like that) that says the army can't be used to enforce civilian law and police matters, to prohibitions on assassination of foreign heads of state, etc.

But for once, I agree with Bush. I guess even a broken clock is right twice a day.
[User Picture]
Date:January 27th, 2007 05:05 pm (UTC)

please say the last five years have been a hunter s thomson delusion

While I agree that we cannot just pull out of Iraq (we have a moral obligation to see their rebuilding and stabilization through at this point), I do not think we should fan out into other countries with blatant deadly force visible without the express permission of that government.

Seems like we are just stirring the pot. I am not prepared at present to instigate anyone to bring about the end of the world as I know it.
[User Picture]
Date:January 27th, 2007 08:15 pm (UTC)

Re: please say the last five years have been a hunter s thomson delusion

Oh, I agree that it's stupid, I'm just saying that for once he isn't breaking any laws by doing what he feels like.
[User Picture]
Date:January 28th, 2007 06:08 am (UTC)

Re: please say the last five years have been a hunter s *thompson*delusion

by the way - there's supposed to be a 'p' in that there thompson....

...though wishing I could wake up from this bad season of Dallas is real!
[User Picture]
Date:January 28th, 2007 08:30 pm (UTC)
Only Congress can declare war, it's true. However the President doesn't need a declaration of war in order to use his powers as CinC of the Armed Forces. So he's got the legal right to do what he's doing. The only option Congress has is to cut off his money.

> Go to Top