Skip to main content

View Diary: War Powers Resolution is not optional (188 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That is not true. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis

    Congress is most definitely involved in national security decisions.  

    The Confederation Congress was deeply involved in running the Revolutionary war.  They were dysfunctional which is why the presidency was created, but that does not dismiss how much the Founders wanted Congress to be involved in National Security.

    The Constiuttion gave Congress no less than seven separate clauses involved in its foreign policy and war powers.

    The Congress most certainly was involved in important national security decisions in the Civil War when they enacted of the first national draft or the first income tax (wars cost money).  Or in World War II with the Lend-lease act.

    Or as someone in this thread has pointed out when they created the National Security state we currently live in with the National Security Act of 1947 and the remobilization fo the armed forces after World War II.

    "Now we are engaged in a great civil war testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure."

    by nklein on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 06:08:46 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Involved, yes; making the necessary decisions, no (0+ / 0-)
      Congress has never had the role of making the necessary decisions to guarantee our national security, and the reasons for that should be completely obvious.

      Only the president has the ability to make timely decisions to protect our national security.  The Framers recognized this and thus made the president's power as Commander-in-Chief unconditional.  Presidents have constantly exercised this power under many circumstances and Congress has never had the leading role in national security.

      •  I disagree entirely. . . (0+ / 0-)

        Congress has a role in strategy and other necessary decisions, such as when they banned aid to the Contras.  My problem is that Congress is dysfunctional and will not do what is right which is approve the mission in Libya, but I still think that Congress most definitely has a role in war.

        If we hadn't remobilized after World War II, we would not be having this discussion.  Congress did that.  Congress most definitely makes necessary decisions.

        "Now we are engaged in a great civil war testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure."

        by nklein on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 08:05:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The aid to the Contras (0+ / 0-)

          was a CIA operation and did not involve the U.S. military (except for the rogue officer O. North).  So Reagan was not exercising his power as Commander-in-Chief when he supported the Contras and he never invoked that power.

          If we hadn't remobilized after World War II, we would not be having this discussion.

          So we should not have had a standing army after WWII?  Wow!

          •  How is the CIA not part of the President's CIC. . (0+ / 0-)

            duties?  The CIA is a cladestine organization that operates in foreign intelligence.  Who o you think that intelligence is for many times?  The CIA are definitely part of the president's CIC function.

            And I didn't say anything about remobilization aside from the the fact that it was a strategic decision advocated by the president, but made by Congress.

            "Now we are engaged in a great civil war testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure."

            by nklein on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 02:54:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  CIA is NOT part of the military (0+ / 0-)
              The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is a civilian intelligence agency of the United States government, reporting to the Director of National Intelligence, responsible for providing national security intelligence assessment to senior United States policymakers.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/...

              Since it is not part of the military, the President's power as Commander-in-Chief is not applicable to the CIA.

              •  Just because they are not part of the organization (0+ / 0-)

                does not mean that the president's authority over them is any different than the military.  The CIA was authorized by the "National Security Act of 1947."  It grew out of the OSS.  And it conducts paramilitary operations.

                The president's authority over CIA activiities is through his/her CIC authority.  That's just a fact.

                "Now we are engaged in a great civil war testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure."

                by nklein on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 09:31:39 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Any legal authority for that assertion? (0+ / 0-)
                  The president's authority over CIA activiities is through his/her CIC authority.

                  The National Security Act of 1947 has nothing to do with the military so the idea that the president is acting through his CiC power in directing the CIA makes no sense.

                  •  Really? Nothing to do with the military? (0+ / 0-)

                    It only completely restructured Armed forces of the country.

                    Title II is titled "The National Military Establishment."  It has sections on Department of the Army, of the Navy, of the Air Force. (Oh yeah, it was this act that created the Air Force as a separate branch of the military).
                    Creating the Secretary of Defense.  The National Security Council.  Takes the CIA out of the organized Armed Forces.

                    Do you want to revise that statement?

                    "Now we are engaged in a great civil war testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure."

                    by nklein on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 07:22:35 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Just to clarify (0+ / 0-)

                      Is it your contention that Congress, under its power to declare war, should have direct control of CIA operations as well as those of the military?  

                      For example, was the President's use of the CIA and the military to find and kill Bin Laden unconstitutional in your view because Congress has not declared war on Pakistan and therefore the invasion of its sovereign territory was wrong?

                      •  No. There is a reason why there is a seperate (0+ / 0-)

                        executive branch.  Furthermore, that operation was authorized by the AUMF in 2001.  What I am saying is that Congress does have a role in strategic decisions in foreign policy and the military.  A point you seem to want to refute.

                        "Now we are engaged in a great civil war testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure."

                        by nklein on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 03:06:41 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site