Process, process, process
by digby
Rand Paul declared the war against ISIS illegal because the congress has not declared war.That may be true as far as it goes but this argument has been going on for a very long time. Here's a list of the official congressional declared wars in American history:
The rest:
And here are the 11 conflicts governed by congressional legislation authorizing force but not declaring war, per the CRS report.
May 28, 1798 and July 9, 1798. FRANCE. Legislation authorizing the president to instruct commanders of U.S. Navy warships to “subdue, seize and take any armed French vessel which shall be found within the jurisdictional limits of the United States, or elsewhere, on the high seas...”
February 6, 1802. TRIPOLI. Legislation authorizing the president to “equip, officer, man, and employ such of the armed vessels of the United States as may be judged requisite...for protecting effectually the commerce and seamen thereof on the Atlantic ocean, the Mediterranean and adjoining seas" in response to threats from Tripoli.
March 3, 1815. ALGERIA. Legislation authorizing the president to use the U.S. Navy, “as judged requisite by the President” to protect the “commerce and seamen” of the United States on the “Atlantic Ocean, the Mediterranean and adjoining seas” in response to conflict with the Dey and Regency of Algiers.
March 3, 1819. PIRATES. Legislation enacted “to protect the commerce of the United States, and punish the crime of piracy.”
January 29, 1955. FORMOSA. Legislation authorizing the president to “employ the Armed Forces of the United States as he deems necessary for the specific purpose of securing and protecting Formosa, and the Pescadores against armed attack....”
March 9, 1957. THE MIDDLE EAST. “To undertake, in the general area of the Middle East, military assistance programs with any nation or group of nations of that area desiring such assistance.”
August 10, 1964. SOUTHEAST ASIA. Gulf of Tonkin resolution.
October 12, 1983. LEBANON. "The Multinational Force in Lebanon Resolution."
January 12, 1991. IRAQ. Congress passed the “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution.”
September 18, 2001. TERRORISTS. A joint resolution to authorize "the president to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
October 16, 2002. IRAQ. "Authorization for Use of Military Force against Iraq Resolution."
Update: "Where is Korea?" the commenters, below, cry. That is a good and tricky question. The Korean War was not authorized by Congress. President Truman committed American troops in Korea in 1950 under the United Nations Participation Act of 1945, which was ratified by the U.S. Senate, citing resolutions passed by the United Nations Security Council in 1950. This precedent -- the constitutionality of which has been debated -- has been cited by subsequent presidents as justification for using military force without congressional authorization, as in Panama in 1989 and Iraq in 1990 under George H.W. Bush, and Haiti and Bosnia under President Clinton in 1994. According to a 1995 article in the American Journal of International Law, "Presidents and their advisers point to more than two hundred incidents in which Presidents have used force abroad without first obtaining congressional approval."
That also doesn't count the civil war, obviously, or the slaughter of native Americans. Let's just say there's very little evidence to suggest that the congress has been unwilling to authorize military action or that they're inclined to deny the president the funding necessary to run whatever military action he chooses.
I understand that it's a dictatorial power used by presidents of both parties and it should be challenged on the principle. But it won't make any difference. The wars will happen one way or the other. Even Rand Paul admits that his railing against this latest military action in the middle east isn't over the substance of the action, it's over the abstract principle involved:
"Taking military action against ISIS is justified. The president acting without Congress is not," he wrote, reiterating a stance he's held since September. This fall Paul has described the airstrikes in Syria as appropriate action but said Obama's method for doing so was "unconstitutional."
So, as an exercise it's a good idea. We should have a debate and politicians at every level of the federal government should have to formally weigh in. All of that is fine. But I hope nobody's pinning his or her hopes on the congress ever being much of a brake on military action, especially when the war demagogues and PR firms have been engaged.
.
