Iran

[Griz882]

In the name of clarity, the House passed a “non-binding” resolution that limits nothing. Even if they are able to align their version with the Senate version (somewhat unlikely), it is intentionally designed to be non-binding (e.g. not a law). Congress (and I mean both sides of the institution) are shockingly lazy. They are fine if their letter (D or R) is blasting away at some little nation(s), but they love the showmanship of “limiting” the powers of the other side. All the House did this week was make some news noise to excite their base, but such is life in an era of constant campaigning and little to no governing.

 

[Jim123]

In the name of clarity, the House passed a “non-binding” resolution that limits nothing. Even if they are able to align their version with the Senate version (somewhat unlikely), it is intentionally designed to be non-binding (e.g. not a law). Congress (and I mean both sides of the institution) are shockingly lazy. They are fine if their letter (D or R) is blasting away at some little nation(s), but they love the showmanship of “limiting” the powers of the other side. All the House did this week was make some news noise to excite their base, but such is life in an era of constant campaigning and little to no governing.

Yep, and how I would love to see something like that pass for the right reasons- checks and balances between the branches, to limit adventurism and "forever wars." But this one is mostly just showmanship, not real legislation.

 

[Brett327]

There has been a lot of really good legal analysis out on the various podcasts since the Soleimani killing. One I found particularly interesting was Preet Bharara’s interview with Jack Goldsmith about all the factors that go into War Powers, etc. Bottom line is that a lot of the law is highly contested and it really boils down to precedent and norms more than black and white legal framework for how POTUS exercises Art II use of force. Worth a listen.

 

[taxi1]

Yep, and how I would love to see something like that pass for the right reasons- checks and balances between the branches, to limit adventurism and "forever wars." But this one is mostly just showmanship, not real legislation.

Showmanship means at least a little, or else Matt Gaetz wouldn’t have suffered the #$@ storm that he did for his “show vote”.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

The house voted to limit his powers because he almost got us into a war, and congress needs to be a part of getting into wars. It is actually written into our Constitution.

You trust the Iranian ballistic missile engineers enough to trust that they were going to precisely hit unoccupied spots on our bases? That their guidance systems were that good? An impressive feat, actually, one that could have been easily gone wrong with dead Americans resulting. No idea if we tried to shoot them down, but if so we could have disrupted its controls and turned it into an unguided bomb at low altitude, where it lands nobody knows. What then? Off to the races? 52 cultural sites attacked as promised?

Folks were absolutely hair trigger that night. They shot down an airliner, that’s how tightly wound they were. The fact that Trump actually talked sort of like an adult the next day is telling too.

Remember when the previous administration went to war with Libya without seeking authorization? Then when 90 days were up they argued they still didn’t need authorization because going to war with Libya didn’t constitute “hostilities”?

Perhaps it’s different if the commander in chief has already received a Nobel peace prize.

 

[Goodfou]

The house voted to limit his powers because he almost got us into a war, and congress needs to be a part of getting into wars. It is actually written into our Constitution.

You are absolutely right! How dare Trump shoot down Iranian drones, sink oil tankers, blow up Saudi oil fields, provide backing to “Proud Brother” militias who killed Iranian citizens in Iraq, as well as destroying their embassy-all in matter of months....shame on him. That saber rattler! War monger! We should all apologize to Iran!

 

[taxi1]

Remember when the previous administration went to war with Libya without seeking authorization? Then when 90 days were up they argued they still didn’t need authorization because going to war with Libya didn’t constitute “hostilities”?

Perhaps it’s different if the commander in chief has already received a Nobel peace prize.

Actually, wrong is wrong. Wrong then, wrong now.

From a practical standpoint, Libya didn’t hold Iraq by the short hairs, threaten the entire length of the Gulf, and have the weaponry or the terror connections throughout the Middle East like Iran does. War with Iran would be the invasion of Iraq times some multiplier. Libya was not so much.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

Actually, wrong is wrong. Wrong then, wrong now.

From a practical standpoint, Libya didn’t hold Iraq by the short hairs, threaten the entire length of the Gulf, and have the weaponry or the terror connections throughout the Middle East like Iran does. War with Iran would be the invasion of Iraq times some multiplier. Libya was not so much.

Libya also hadn’t attacked us recently

 

[Brett327]

You are absolutely right! How dare Trump shoot down Iranian drones, sink oil tankers, blow up Saudi oil fields, provide backing to “Proud Brother” militias who killed Iranian citizens in Iraq, as well as destroying their embassy-all in matter of months....shame on him. That saber rattler! War monger! We should all apologize to Iran!

I think you're missing the point here. This isn't about whether Iran is a bad actor - It clearly is. This is about a larger conversation that we need to have in this country about how much power the Executive branch ought to have and what are appropriate mechanisms that Congress can/should have at their disposal in exercising their Art I responsibilities as the branch that the Framers intended on having a much stronger role in the decision to use military force.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

I think you're missing the point here. This isn't about whether Iran is a bad actor - It clearly is. This is about a larger conversation that we need to have in this country about how much power the Executive branch ought to have and what are appropriate mechanisms that Congress can/should have at their disposal in exercising their Art I responsibilities as the branch that the Framers intended on having a much stronger role in the decision to use military force.

It is a conversation worth having in general. Killing Soleimani was actually a lot more clear cut than some other recent executive military decisions. We were actually attacked by the forces he organized/equipped/funded/commanded, and he was actually in Iraq when he got smoked.

Much of the current hand wringing has more to do with opposing Trump no matter what, some going as far as blaming Trump for the Iranians shooting down an airliner.

 

[insanebikerboy]

I think you're missing the point here. This isn't about whether Iran is a bad actor - It clearly is. This is about a larger conversation that we need to have in this country about how much power the Executive branch ought to have and what are appropriate mechanisms that Congress can/should have at their disposal in exercising their Art I responsibilities as the branch that the Framers intended on having a much stronger role in the decision to use military force.

The annoying thing is Congress passed non-binding resolutions, so they in essence passed the buck on actually doing anything.

I personally like the idea of going back to the Constitutional idea that Congress controls the war strings. Precedent is hard to overcome though and Congress essentially opened Pandora’s box when they bottom lined the Iraq AUMF and the War Powers Act.

 

[Austin-Powers]

That time when @Brett327 warned us that Max”is a bad actor.”

That's why they call it acting.

 

[insanebikerboy]

That's why they call it acting.

It’s funny you posted that clip, because I thought of this one with the resolutions Congress passed this week.

 

[Brett327]

The annoying thing is Congress passed non-binding resolutions, so they in essence passed the buck on actually doing anything.

I personally like the idea of going back to the Constitutional idea that Congress controls the war strings. Precedent is hard to overcome though and Congress essentially opened Pandora’s box when they bottom lined the Iraq AUMF and the War Powers Act.

Yeah, there were a lot of things that Congress and the Executive branch did in the aftermath of 9/11 that seemed necessary at the time that may not stand up to the scrutiny of history.

I personally think the framework of the War Powers Act would be a good one if it had a bit more teeth in it for Congress. The immediacy of world events today makes the ability of POTUS to act quickly/decisively extremely important, and I don't think we ever want to limit that, but that must be followed up with a deliberative process between the two branches of government.

The fact that the language in the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs was incredibly broad has not been helpful in finding the right balance on war powers.

 

[Spekkio]

Yeah, there were a lot of things that Congress and the Executive branch did in the aftermath of 9/11 that seemed necessary at the time that may not stand up to the scrutiny of history.

I personally think the framework of the War Powers Act would be a good one if it had a bit more teeth in it for Congress. The immediacy of world events today makes the ability of POTUS to act quickly/decisively extremely important, and I don't think we ever want to limit that, but that must be followed up with a deliberative process between the two branches of government.

The fact that the language in the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs was incredibly broad has not been helpful in finding the right balance on war powers.

Congress rescinded their own Constitutional authority. If they want it back, they simply have to pass a new bill (most likely with a 2/3 majority to override the inevitable veto). They don't want it though because Congress is largely populated by career politicians whose safe space is to avoid making a decision on anything as an out to take whatever politically convenient stance on issues come election season. Also see: the annual budget 'crisis' due to indecision.

With modern communications technology, I can't imagine a situation where the President would have to act before Congress can vote for an authorization of force. That should take an hour at most, and they could even do semi-annual drills to practice such measures.

Besides, unit self defense doesn't require Presidential authorization.

PS: Before anyone misconstrues my post, I think it's a good thing that we got Soleimani and the President was within his authority to make the call the way the law is currently constructed... but I think it's possible to get to a state where the President has to get Congressional authorization before doing so.