Declaring War without the President

[ParanoiA]

Was watching an hour long interview with Dr. Ron Paul on a Google special - I guess they're interviewing candidates in some kind of town hall setting. And the subject of war, of course, came up and Ron made a point that I haven't really considered before.

 

Many of my conservative friends are turned off by Ron because he sees no moral obligation to protect Israel, or come to the defense of Taiwan. But, and this is one of the reasons why I really like Dr. Paul, he spends more time making the point that you shouldn't be looking to your president to wage war in the first place. Only congress can declare war and only congress should declare war. It doesn't matter if the president doesn't want to protect Israel or not, the people and congress can do it themselves - and in fact, is really supposed to under the design of our constitution.

 

I believe the last five major military conflicts have all been various forms of resolutions granting basic war powers to the president. In other words, our presidents have been waging war, not the congress who's actually endowed with that responsibility. While you can argue that passing resolutions is effectively the same thing, it really isn't since you remove accountability.

 

So, two things here...

 

1) Why worry so much about your presidential candidate supporting or not supporting certain alliances and so forth when they really have no particular power to wield in this arena? It's your congress that keeps empowering our presidents to be war figures.

 

2) Why have we strayed so far away from the basic principle of declaring war when we...uh...go to war?

 

If we didn't allow our legislators to ignore the constitution - which, by the way, is what they are sworn to protect and uphold - would we even be in Iraq?

[lucaspa]

So, two things here...

 

1) Why worry so much about your presidential candidate supporting or not supporting certain alliances and so forth when they really have no particular power to wield in this arena? It's your congress that keeps empowering our presidents to be war figures.

 

But in the first few critical hours of an attack, there is no time to call in Congress. The President must send in the military under his authority as Commander-in-Chief. So what happens if Congress approves a mutual defense treaty but the President decides not to honor it?

 

By the time Congress can get together and declare war, Taiwan might already be occupied by the mainland Chinese. Is Congress going to spend a LOT of American lives trying to reverse a fiat accompli?

 

2) Why have we strayed so far away from the basic principle of declaring war when we...uh...go to war?

 

Partly because of nuclear weapons we have limited wars. Wars where there is no clear cut victory. When Congress declared war in the past, there was a very clear cut agenda: defeat a nation.

 

In Korea we couldn't "defeat" China using conventional war. China was too large and our conventional military too small. We ended up fighting only to preserve the status quo and that war has never officially ended. We have an armistice, not a peace treaty.

 

In the conflict over Quemoy and Matsu in the mid-1950s, it was a test of political will and no one wanted a full-scale war.

 

In Vietnam it was partly an internal insurrection. Otherwise, if we were in a declared war and the Soviet Union started helping North Vietnam, under the rules of a declared war, we would have had to declare war on the Soviet Union. Back to nuclear war. Having an undeclared war allowed the politicians to keep it limited.

 

Al-Queda isn't a nation. Neither is the insurecction in Iraq. If you declar war, how do you say the war has stopped?

 

This is not to say that the current system is good, but to explain to you how we got in that situation. Going back to only Congress declaring war doesn't address the reasons why the current situation is in place.

[Pangloss]

Going back to only Congress declaring war doesn't address the reasons why the current situation is in place.

 

I agree.

 

If the legislative branch wants to retain that power then it should deny war authorization bills from the executive branch. That should have happened with Iraq.

 

The fact that it didn't, and their behavior since that time, says a great deal about the quality of people we put in legislature.

 

It's worth mentioning at this point that of the three senators who are front-runners for president, none of them can claim moral high ground here, even Obama who wasn't in the senate at the time that the authorization was voted on. Obama wouldn't have voted for it, but I'm not convinced that his reasons are compatible with mine. Or put another way, I'm not sure he would have voted for war on Afghanistan either, which was absolutely warranted.

[ParanoiA]

But in the first few critical hours of an attack, there is no time to call in Congress. The President must send in the military under his authority as Commander-in-Chief. So what happens if Congress approves a mutual defense treaty but the President decides not to honor it?

 

A defense treaty is a different animal, at least in my mind. I guess I'm assuming a sitting president understands his obligations to treaties and will act per the agreement, not by his political opposition to the act. Otherwise, would this not be criminal? Not sure really. Good answer though.

 

Partly because of nuclear weapons we have limited wars. Wars where there is no clear cut victory. When Congress declared war in the past, there was a very clear cut agenda: defeat a nation.

 

And that's where I'm coming from really. How well has this served us? Our founders warned of this mentallity. That's why it was carefully crafted to indicate a declaration of war to be necessary - to keep this kind of waffling out of international conflict. Isn't that obviously dangerous? And when examining and considering the constitution, doesn't it also indicate a misuse of power? Aren't we missing the signals built into our system? Kind of like how the first act of an oppressive government is to reverse the second amendment?

 

And, can't we declare war on Al Quada? I know it sounds silly, but isn't it actually possible to declare war on this entity, without there being a reference to geographical location or nation destruction? Again, I'm not sure, just asking.

 

Both of your replies are good points though. The nuclear issue certainly complicates things, which is why I prefer the non-interventionist method of trade. Leave war for when it's really necessary, and straight forward.

[Sisyphus]

I don't know if declaring war on Al Qaeda really makes sense. The idea behind declarations of war is to establish formal legal status in both parties, with the goal of certain treaties and conventions being in effect, most obviously the legal means to end the war through mutually recognized treaty. A declaration of war against a non-legislative entity would be an empty gesture, I think. Even if the organizational structure of Al Qaeda allowed such a thing (and I have no idea if it does), I very much doubt either "party" would welcome those kinds of constraints.

[ParanoiA]

I don't know if declaring war on Al Qaeda really makes sense. The idea behind declarations of war is to establish formal legal status in both parties, with the goal of certain treaties and conventions being in effect, most obviously the legal means to end the war through mutually recognized treaty. A declaration of war against a non-legislative entity would be an empty gesture, I think. Even if the organizational structure of Al Qaeda allowed such a thing (and I have no idea if it does), I very much doubt either "party" would welcome those kinds of constraints.

 

Which is just as well then. If it's really more of a police action than a war, how do we mobilize combat units within the guidelines of the constitution I wonder? I mean, the president can authorize troops for 60 days, if I remember correctly, but how does a congress authorize use of force on an entity like Al Qaeda?

 

Dr. Paul also mentioned that he did not vote in favor of the resolution concerning Afghanistan, but did vote in favor of going after Bin Laden. His reasoning was that he did not agree with the nation building in Afghanistan.

 

So, now I'm wondering how that fits in the constitution. If he's going to say that congress has to declare war rather than pass resolutions for the president to handle it, then how does he reconcile congress authorizing going after Bin Laden? That suggests that congress can mobilize troops without declaring war either doesn't it?

 

Depending on that answer, it could shed some light on alternatives to passing resolutions for presidential control over warfare. I'm just thinking that by authorizing the president to wage war, you still effectively shift blame and responsibility to the administration - even if you are guilty of granting that responsibility. Which is what we see today from democrats and some republicans. They conveniently passed the buck to Bush and now they can deny responsibility for the aftermath, rather than to have to make these decisions themselves and take the heat for it. Not giving Bush an out here, just not allowing the rest of them to have an out either.

 

Going back to only Congress declaring war doesn't address the reasons why the current situation is in place.

 

Not sure I agree 100% though. If congress can't shift the blame to the administration, then they have to answer for it themselves, which is probably another reason why they do this now. So, maybe in that context they may not have agreed to invade Iraq. Sure, they can still shift responsibility amongst each other and point fingers at each other, but I doubt they'd have the convenience that one central figure gives them.

[jackson33]

The War Powers Act of 1973, actually took some power from the President, whom up until then under precedent had assumed additional powers not granted by the Constitution. It has been argued since as to whether a breach in the *Separations of Powers*.

 

The Constitution is not very clear in itself. The Supreme Court has ruled the President under the Commander In Chief title, meaning *State of War or eminent threat* can act alone. However the Constitution does require advise and consent from Congress and for either funding or declaration of War.

 

Opinion; Once an issue is determined of viable interest to National Concerns, I don't care for what reason, that determination must stand until the issue is either resolved or truly lost. In the Case of *Bush Doctrine for Afghanistan* and the over throw of Saddam or *Iraq Action*, all concerned parties and the general public in these cases were privy to much if not all the information, the President had or any other person, to make a decision. The decisions were properly made, accepted by Congress and according to the polls the American people. Coalition Nations, such as Spain, Australia, UK and others also had a choice and did participate in that Action. Every problem and accusation made since, has come from hesitation, political and changed minds of many parties. You cannot accomplish a goal under these condition when the goal of the original intent is continuously changed for reasons other than failure.

[lucaspa]

A defense treaty is a different animal, at least in my mind. I guess I'm assuming a sitting president understands his obligations to treaties and will act per the agreement, not by his political opposition to the act. Otherwise, would this not be criminal? Not sure really. Good answer though.

 

Take a look at the OP:

"Many of my conservative friends are turned off by Ron because he sees no moral obligation to protect Israel, or come to the defense of Taiwan. But, and this is one of the reasons why I really like Dr. Paul, he spends more time making the point that you shouldn't be looking to your president to wage war in the first place. "

 

So, if Ron Paul sees no moral obligation to come to the defense of Taiwan, and insists Congress has to declare war "in the first place", would he authorize troops BEFORE Congress can convene and declare war? That's the context of my reply.

 

How well has this served us? Our founders warned of this mentallity. That's why it was carefully crafted to indicate a declaration of war to be necessary - to keep this kind of waffling out of international conflict. Isn't that obviously dangerous?

 

Nuclear weapons weren't around when the Founders were alive. Wars didn't have the potential to escalate and destroy civilization and perhaps all human life on the planet.

 

As I said, a declaration of war invokes some rules. If you support a nation at war with materiel, you automatically become a "belligerent" -- at war with the enemies of the people you are helping. FDR did some tricky things to get around this problem in his "short of war" policy of helping Britain. If we had declared war against North Vietnam, then the presence of Soviet and Chinese military people operating SAM sites and piloting fighters would have made them belligerents. We would have been required to declare war on the Soviet Union and China. Any doubts about how that would have ended? Since it wasn't a declared war, we could were not required to take official notice of Soviet military personnel and materiel in North Vietnam. It kept the war limited.

 

So yes, on that level having undeclared wars has served us well. It served everyone well in Korea, Grenada, Panama, Zaire, and when Clinton used American planes in Kosovo and the no-fly zones over Iraq. It didn't work out so well in Vietnam and Iraq. That's because the people in charge screwed up.

 

And when examining and considering the constitution, doesn't it also indicate a misuse of power? Aren't we missing the signals built into our system? Kind of like how the first act of an oppressive government is to reverse the second amendment?

 

Yes, it does. But we need to look at the misuse by the individuals and punish them rather than perhaps change the system.

 

And, can't we declare war on Al Quada? I know it sounds silly, but isn't it actually possible to declare war on this entity, without there being a reference to geographical location or nation destruction? Again, I'm not sure, just asking.

 

I don't know. We haven't. Instead we have a "War on Terror", which is not the same thing as declaring war against al-Qaeda. OTOH, in a sense, we are acting sometimes as if it is a declared war. After all, that is Bush's justification for treating al-Qaeda prisoners as "enemy combatants" and keeping them locked up without trial. Also, we are using the military in Iraq and Afghanistan and not the police. We don't try to arrest al-Qaeda members but just kill them -- like killing enemy soldiers.

 

This whole situation is very confused because we are also treating al-Qaeda as criminals, not as combatants. We view what they are doing as going against criminal law, not waging war. So launching a "terrorist" attack is breaking the law, not engaging in a military operation. But bin Laudin declared war on us.

 

I think this goes back to what we did in the "John Edwards" thread: confused tactics with goals. We are against them not so much because of their goals to destroy us (maybe because they can't), but because of their tactics. We view "terrorist" attacks as morally and legally wrong.

 

I don't know if declaring war on Al Qaeda really makes sense. The idea behind declarations of war is to establish formal legal status in both parties,

 

And we don't view al-Qaeda as legal! So maybe you have the reason we didn't declare war: that ambivalence toward al-Qaeda I mentioned.

 

Not sure I agree 100% though. If congress can't shift the blame to the administration, then they have to answer for it themselves, which is probably another reason why they do this now.

 

But this isn't a reason it became as it is today. In 1950, Congress was used to declaring war. But Truman didn't go that route because he invoked the United Nations Charter and the commitment of US troops that way -- without a declaration of war. Bush senior did the same thing in 1991.

 

Opinion; Once an issue is determined of viable interest to National Concerns, I don't care for what reason, that determination must stand until the issue is either resolved or truly lost.

 

Who decides "truly lost"? In a declaration of war, Congress would have the power to force the President to a negotiated peace or surrender. Why can't Congress do the same thing here?

 

In the Case ...the over throw of Saddam or *Iraq Action*, all concerned parties and the general public in these cases were privy to much if not all the information, the President had or any other person, to make a decision.

 

Two problems:

1. Much of the "information" to decide to go to war was either mistaken or deliberate lies. So that negates "The decisions were properly made" In any contract law, if one side misrepresents the situation, the contract (decision) is no longer binding.

 

2. Congress authorized the overthrow of Hussein. It did not specifically authorize a 5 year occupation of Iraq. IOW, you can argue that Bush has exceeded the authorization Congress and the American people gave him.

 

(BTW, I NEVER agreed to this war. I knew from the beginning that the Bush administration was lying. It was easy to see in their shifting rationalizations for going to war and that we already had data contradicting 2 of their reasons

 

Every problem and accusation made since, has come from hesitation, political and changed minds of many parties. You cannot accomplish a goal under these condition when the goal of the original intent is continuously changed for reasons other than failure.

 

Well, aren't we supposed to change our minds when presented with new data? And who was it who changed the goal? The administration! First it was overthrow Hussein, then it was help the Iraqis establish their own government, and now it seems to be "defeat the insurgents". Whatever "defeat" means.

 

Also, most of the reasons for opposition is based on the perception that the mission has failed and it is impossible to accomplish "the goal".

[ParanoiA]

So, if Ron Paul sees no moral obligation to come to the defense of Taiwan, and insists Congress has to declare war "in the first place", would he authorize troops BEFORE Congress can convene and declare war? That's the context of my reply.

 

And my reply, poorly worded, was that perhaps he would because of the treaty. So, my question again, is why does a candidate's moral position really matter if he's bound to act by treaty anyway? Then when you consider congress declares war and all that...

 

Of course, I don't know any of this is true. I don't know that a treaty is worded in such a way that the president has to send troops before congress does it.

 

So yes, on that level having undeclared wars has served us well. It served everyone well in Korea, Grenada, Panama, Zaire, and when Clinton used American planes in Kosovo and the no-fly zones over Iraq. It didn't work out so well in Vietnam and Iraq. That's because the people in charge screwed up.

 

It's only served us well if you're an interventionist. I don't know that these things had to happen, and you don't know they still won't have consequences. International history has long, time endured, chain reactions.

 

But this isn't a reason it became as it is today. In 1950, Congress was used to declaring war. But Truman didn't go that route because he invoked the United Nations Charter and the commitment of US troops that way -- without a declaration of war. Bush senior did the same thing in 1991.

 

And I really don't like this, for obvious reasons.

[lucaspa]

And my reply, poorly worded, was that perhaps he would because of the treaty. So, my question again, is why does a candidate's moral position really matter if he's bound to act by treaty anyway?

 

"Perhaps". You use the "perhaps" because you recognize, like I do, that you can legitimately use morality to ignore or disobey a law. Think back to the Fugitive Slave Act and the disobedience of the people who ran the Underground Railroad to help escaping slaves. Think now of the debate over immigration. Some of us -- me included -- are arguing that the immigration laws are immoral and we don't see anything wrong with people disobeying and entering the USA illegally. So, if Paul thinks that it is immoral to order troops into action without a declaration of war, how can we be sure he won't follow his morality and ignore the treaty?

 

Of course, I don't know any of this is true. I don't know that a treaty is worded in such a way that the president has to send troops before congress does it.

 

Yes, the mutual defense treaties are worded such that the US MUST militarily come to the aid of another country. You could look on it that the Senate, by approving the treaty, has already said it has declared war. That may be a way for Paul to reconcile his morals and the treaty. Of course, I would require him to specifically say that before I voted for him.

 

It's only served us well if you're an interventionist. I don't know that these things had to happen, and you don't know they still won't have consequences. International history has long, time endured, chain reactions.

 

My point was that undeclared war has served us well in keeping the wars limited. It never said anything about whether the wars should have been fought in the first place: "Since it wasn't a declared war, we were not required to take official notice of Soviet military personnel and materiel in North Vietnam. It kept the war limited. So yes, on that level having undeclared wars has served us well."

 

So yes, we can argue whether Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo, etc. were "just" wars. I personally think some were, some weren't.

 

And I really don't like this, for obvious reasons.

 

You don't like invoking the United Nations? I think it works out rather well. Because of the checks and balances within the UN, the UN doesn't sanction violence except in the most egregious cases. IMO, Korea and Kuwait were actions that simply had to be reversed -- with force. The consequences of not doing so would be catastrophic down the road. I personally would like to see the UN sanction the use of force in Darfour and sanction it in Kosovo. But the UN did not/has not.

 

As I recall, Bush Jr, never really got an UN mandate for Iraq II. Instead, they interpreted earlier resolutions as being sufficient justification. You notice how many UN countries did NOT agree. Bush Sr. had a broad coalition. Bush Jr had a coalition of 4, and that's only if you count England, Scotland, and Wales.