Would the Military Stop a War With Iran?
by paradox

By now it’s perfectly clear from alert bloggers, veiled threats in Bush’s speech Wednesday night, a very disturbing attack on the Iranian consulate in Iraq, and a Naval man appointed to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs as extra naval assets steam toward the Gulf that war with Iran is actually possible.

It’s instantly clear to everyone with nuclear force the total insanity of such an action by the United States except for, apparently, the President and some of his advisors. It’s incredible but this is serious, rumors of war with Iran are abuzz everywhere, it might happen.

Bush has no authority whatsoever under any circumstance to initiate war with Iran. He was not granted those powers in the Iraq war authority act, and even if some event (staged or not) on the Iranian border occurs Bush has no legal authority whatsoever to attack Iran in any way, at any time, for any reason.

Do the Joint Chiefs of Staff know that? Do the Secretaries of each service? All the Generals, Admirals, Commanders, Lieutenants, Ensigns, Captains, Majors, and Colonels in each branch of the armed services, are they aware of the total insanity and extreme danger in war with Iran?

They’ve sworn to uphold the Constitution too, and they’re the ones who will actually carry out the criminal insanity. Would they obey Bush and start a clearly illegal and insane war with Iran, or refuse for the honor and safety of the country?

I don’t know. It’s a bad sign I don’t, and if I was forced to make a choice I’d say yes, they’d carry out the orders from a President, no matter how illegal and insane. Ingrained discipline would be too great for the military to resist; for it to work the officer response would have to be unified, something which seems totally unlikely.

Hey, I got a swell idea.

Declare your house to be an Iranian consulate, start doing suspicious stuff like having known terrorists showing up to visit, and see if the police hesitate to raid your home to see what you are up to. According to the BBC the building was not declared to be a diplomatic facility.

Your making quite a stretch...

A. Nothing goes down in Kurdistan without the Kurds knowing about it.. I'm sure they probably turned in the Iranians; and had the US forces play the heavy so they could keep in the graces of their neighbor and trading partners Terahan.

B. The majority of IED material....... that's the stuff that goes boom on the soldiers everyone here "Supports" not to mention the women and children in the markets..... has been traced back to your beloved Iran.

C. Only Congress can declare war... and they did on Iraq. As I recall both Democrats and Republicans voted for the measure. Iranians smuggling arms inside Iraq are fair game in my book.

PEACE

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/warpower.htm

© The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or [b](3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

I suppose Section 2 © of the 1973 War Powers Resolution could give the POTUS the authority to use military force in Iran if Iran is providing material support to insurgents in Iraq who target the U.S. military. But I think he would have to provide "proof" that the situation has created a national emergency for the U.S. which would be a stretch, to say the least, IMO. So, I believe Bush would need "specific statutory authorization" for use of force in Iran.
Notice this language in the Iraq War Resolution:
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20021002-2.html

Folks I've talked to say it's been a long time since an IED is an old arty shell with wires run out of it back to a car battery. What they been up against for at least the last two years been professionally manufactured mines and booby traps where the the word improvised in IED has got nothing to do with reality. This crap is being shipped in from Iran and killing American boys and girls. Democrats need to pluck their heads out of their rears long enough to realize Iranians are killing Ameicans.....AGAIN.

You’re wrong, the US Congress has not declared war since 1941. Your hero has been working off a resolution provided by Congress that was specific pertaining to who he could go after. He’s already looking at an impeachment for his loose interpretation of said resolution, so if you really don’t care about the sanctity of the US Constitution, you’ll continue to encourage the unlawful activities this idiot president continues to pursue.
And don’t you think bush is doing a peachy job of being Commander and Chief, setting examples that will impact our way of life for generations to come. Don’t you love the way he has mustered the support of the American people, something like 18% are agreeing with his new old plan, and just think, you’re part of that 18%.
The problem as I see it is OBL, where is he, what’s he up too, how many of his people have been trained in Iraq and are now out around the world somewhere. While you and bush are making zero progress in Iraq, OBL is somewhere taking advantage of our being diverted, does this help you sleep better at night?

Not one single President since the War Powers Act was passed regards it as constitutional.

Not necessarily.

The al Qaaka munitiona dump, clearly noted by UN weapons inspectors prior to the invasion, was not visited by US troops for a month. By that time it was empty. Gone was 380 metric tons of RDX.

Well Vaughn the way I see it is he's doing a whole lot than any of his predecessors attempted. We been getting attacked for almost thirty years now.

I can not quote any sources or documents...... I'm sure they would be available to your congressman or senator if they asked. .. so for you that believe Iran is a nuetral element being picked on by the US I would recommend you have your representative inquire into the incident;

The days of piecing together munitions to "improvised" devices are long gone as Marine has said.

They are manufactured accross the boarder in your beloved Persia and smuggled to Iraq to be used on US Soldiers, Iraqi leaders and Iraqi Civilians.

AND IRANIANS INVOLVED IN THIS ACTIVITY ARE FAIR GAME; DIPLOMAT OR NOT.

I can't beleive that everyone could be so suspcious of our Governments activities but don't hold other Governments the same account either because they are so blinded by local politics or just plain crazed with anti Bush fever that you've become delerious.

I'm pissed with alot of things with our current government but this ain't one of them.

Polls be damned brother if one American soldier is saved and Iraqi's can go to the market in peace. Nice of you to categorize me as a hero worshiper of the CInC, you couldn't be farther from the truth.

Amy;

I'm no lawyer but it would seem that Congress and the Executive Branch came to some kind of agreement over Iraq..... or we wouldn't be there now.. If not then well we all got snookered; more likely congress just making loopholes for themselves in the event things are going bad....

Yes, things have changed. Explosives today can be shaped charges that can blow through an Abrams' armor. The electronics can be more sophisticated than cell phones that can be jammed or garage door openers. We whitewash too much when we discuss Iraq. Most people do not have access to reliable sources of first hand information.
Certainly, all the ammo that was 'abandoned' by Saddam and not hit by EOD after the invasion hasn't been all used up yet (there was that much), but there is no doubt outside sources are becoming more and more important.

What's the legal reasoning behind them regarding it as unconstitutional? Do you have solid evidence to back up your statement? I believe only Congress has the constitutional authority to take us to war. It is true that Congress's passage of the IWR gave that authority to the POTUS. I also believe the 1973 War Powers Resolution might be unconstitutional, but only because it hands over a constitutional authority of the Congress to the POTUS. Of particular concern to me is the language in Section 2 © 3.
PURPOSE AND POLICY
SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
(b)Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
© The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

So, if there is a national emergency such as we saw on 9/11, the language seems to imply the POTUS can intorduce the Armed Forces into hostilities without statutory authorization from Congress. Once the military is involved in hostilities we know how difficult it is for Congress to make "course corrections" through the cutting of funds or in any way. Not a good thing, IMO.

I enlisted because of the Embassy situation and the president at the time wouldn't do what was right. Instead we got a politically correct joint services fiasco. I do not believe that Reagan was perfect but the hostages were freed very quickly when he was sworn in.

They did..the IWR. I was referring to the POTUS taking military action in Iran without specific statuatory authority from Congress. I do not think the IWR or the WPR gives the POTUS the authority to attack Iran. That's just my opinion, of course.

I see, and I would agree with your assessment.

The incident above refers to Iranian "diplomats" being apprehended within Iraq.

On edit....I thought the U.S. military had authorization from the Iraq government and the Kurdish regional government. I was wrong on that. So, what legal authority would the U.S. military have to storm a consulate in Iraq without the permission of the Iraqi and Kudish governments? I would think it would be an "illegal" action. Just my opinion, of course.

It’s good to know you’re realistic about those whom you idealize.

Where do you draw the line? what’s fair and who decides what’s fair? “the decider?”

Didn’t our guys blow it when they failed to supply enough boots on the ground to prevent the bad guys from looting saddams many ammo dumps?

Marine,

From the article in your link:


From CNN:

I don't think the issue is really whether or not our forces took the time to find out if it really was a consulate or not, but the provocation of the raid itself. Whereas most administrations would err on the side of caution, these guys don't- they just err. Obviously the Kurds believed it to be a consulate and, according to this report and others, they were not consulted- and they're just about the only friends we have over there.

Moreover, this is a pattern with the Bush administration, both domestically and internationally: Use self-generated obfuscation to provoke and intimidate, and push the rule of law to its most absurd and self-serving interpretation.

You want examples? There are thousands...

One argument for the unconstitutionality of the War Powers Resolution — Philip Bobbitt's in "War Powers: An Essay on John Hart Ely's War and Responsibility: Constitutional Lessons of Vietnam and Its Aftermath," Michigan Law Quarterly 92, no. 6 (May 1994): 1364–1400 — runs as follows: "The power to make war is not an enumerated power" and the notion that to "declare" war is to "commence" war is a "contemporary textual preconception"; the Framers of the Constitution believed that statutory authorization was the route by which the United States would be committed to war, and that 'declaration' was meant for only total wars, as shown by the history of the Quasi-War with France (1798–1800); in general, constitutional powers are not so much separated as "linked and sequenced"; Congress's control over the armed forces is "structured" by appropriation, while the president commands; thus the act of declaring war should not be fetishized. (Bobbitt, the nephew of Lyndon Johnson, also argues that "A democracy cannot… tolerate secret policies" because they undermine the legitimacy of governmental action.)

A second constitutionality argument concerns a possible breach of the 'separation of powers' doctrine. The legislature may be impeding the executive in carrying-out the Oath of Office. "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability; preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." (US Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8) This type of constitutional controversy is similar to one that occurred under President Andrew Johnson with the Tenure of Office Act (1867). In that instance, the Legislative branch attempted to control the removal of Executive branch officers.

Thirdly, Congress is trying to grant it's self the power of a legislative veto over the rights and powers granted to the executive branch in the Constitution.

If the Supreme Court ever set it's teeth into the War Poweers Act it would be out the window PDQ.

If you want to read a thorough analysis here's and article prepared by an academian at the Air Force War College.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl32267.htm#_1_12

I will read through the material you put here. Thanks. But do you have any statements from presidents other than Bush2 about the constitutionality of the war powers act?

So the Kurds granted Iranians diplomatic status? That would be sort of like the NAACP telling North Korea it's ok to open an embassy in Atlanta, eh?

So far one of the biggest challenges in Iraq is Iranian interference in Iraqi affairs.

With Iran's past history I don't mind anyone provoking Iranians. Reagan should have nuked them soon we recovered our diplomatic personel they kidnapped and held hostage back in the late 70s.

OK, you are right. Iran is providing materials to blow up Americans. I hate it. I hate it for a lot of reasons: that we are in such a position in the first place is the most important.

However, according to Marine's own link, and according to CNN and at least a dozen other reputable sources, the building we invaded was more than likely a consulate. As such, it didn't matter if there were a hundred suitcase nukes and a billion tons of C4 in the living room, we cannot take over a consulate. Even if we were at war with Iran- which we are not- we could not take over their consulate in Iraq because Iraq is not at war with Iran. Like the United States in its relationship with England before we entered WWII, Iran is 'neutral on the side of the Shia'. Of course it is not in our national interest to allow such behavior from Iran, but it is in their national interest to do it. Bitch as we might, we can't expect a nation with whom we have no official contact to consider our national interests above their own. M-m-m-m-m, maybe if we talked to them... ya think?

Tell me one reason why we should NOT be suspicious of our government's activities? Jefferson told us we should always be suspicious of government, and over the last 6 years this government has made me more suspicious than ever. Aside from that, you are assuming that everyone is giving other governments a free pass. That's an awfully big assumption- and meaningless at that. As much as I despise the theocracy running Iran, there is not one damned thing I can to to make it accountable to its citizens. We can only make our government accountable to us, and we took a big step in that direction last November.

Gerald Ford http://content.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=5126
Jimmy Carter http://www.fed-soc.org/Publications/Terrorism/warpowers.htm
Ronald Reagan http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/lcp/artic...ing2000p125.htm
George Bush www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/warandtreaty.htm
Bill Clinton http://www.fas.org/man/crs/IB81050.pdf.

There is a huge amount of work done by numerous constitutional scholars siting this act as an abomination, try this google search and you might be astounded: +"war powers act" +unconstitutional

"We are all republicans -- we are all federalists," Thomas Jefferson told the American people in his first inaugural address. A "President above Parties" who believed factionalism jeopardized the safety and security of republican government, Jefferson was here setting forth the common principles shared by all patriotic Americans. Jefferson's election -- the "Revolution of 1800" -- would, he confidently predicted, put an end to the frenzied, hysterical party struggles in the 1790s. Moderate Federalists who had voted for John Adams would soon see the errors of their ways. But "if there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." In contrast to the Adams Federalists, who had sought to suppress their opponents with the Alien and Sedition Acts and had instead spurred Jeffersonian-Republicans on toward their electoral revolution -- Jefferson would allow his critics to discredit and disgrace themselves before the sovereign people

Whether we (Dems) wanted it or not. Bush and the modern day Republican Leadership have disgraced, and dicredited themselves before the American People with their attempts to reinstitute the Alien and Sedition Acts (Patriot Act) to attack anyone who criticizes them. A President should be above party, but this president isn't the "uniter" he claimed to be. Instead he is the "divider" and the "decider"! He even had my support when he went into Afghanistan. He lost it when he politicized 9/11 and let Bin Laden get away while attacking Iraq. All for the most insidious of reasons. Power for himself, and his rich Oil buddies. Who is the disgrace? He has lost our trust, because he has shown himself to be untrustworthy.

Funny, very funny. More like Pennsylvania or New Jersey allowing a consulate under the Article of Confederation. Iraq today is more like that; besides, according to credible sources, Emerald City actually did give its blessings to the endeavor.

It is the biggest challenge for American interests, without question, but Maliki seems to be OK with it. Maybe Shrub shoulda gotten a more complaint quisling.


So wiping 20 million people off the face of the earth would have atoned for an afront on our national honor... c'mon Marine, sounds macho, but get real.

Setting up a consulate.. for the purpose of or using one to support illegal activities can't be right no matter, lucky for all of us I'm not the President, I would have landed a patriot missile on the consulate door step, but I have a much more personal vendeta for the builders of shape charges that blow soldiers limbs and bodies apart. If you think it's wrong then have your congressperson look into the matter.

The Kurds are just posturing for the cameras.

Please be suspicious of all the government does.... and just as suspicious of others. Yes I do believe people are falling over backward in defense of Iranian arms smugglers for the purposes of political agendas. My two cents

In the story of Baron Von Munchusan, he is being given a tour of Vulcan's workshop by the God of the Forge Himself. Vulcan has been making weapons for Mars, the God of War, for millennia. They come upon a Nuclear Missile under construction. Vulcan tells the Baron that this weapon can destroy everything for many miles around, just by pushing a button, while sitting thousands of miles away. The Baron, a warrior himself, doesn't believe any warrior would use such a coward's weapon. Vulcan replies; "Oh? Well, you would be surprised, very surprised indeed!"

I believe our troops and our people are not so cowardly as to require such tactics to protect themselves. Belicose posturing by any leader is a sign of weakness. We need to show class and wisdom to the world. America would cease to be America forever more, were we to stoop to this monumental cowardice. IMHO!

Cowardice... yes like hiding behind the ruse of a consulate. Absolutely!!

Not sure what this has to do with his distrust of government in the lives of the governed. And just a reminder: Jefferson was the founder of the Democratic Party...

So what's the plan? To out cowardice the cowards? Nuking innocent people because the government is cowardly? When a man is hiding behind women and children, everyone knows what he is. When we shoot through them to get him, everyone knows what we are.

... but it is. Incidently, it is not illegal for one nation to provide arms to another. yep. ... would work well if the consulate were built atop an incoming missle... ... and I'm sure your feelings are justified- just as the feelings of Iraqi's are justified for the 'collateral damage' of our Tomahawks. ... and your evidence to support this position?Don't think I am not. I am deeply suspicious of any nation that wants to destroy another, and you can give that statement any meaning you wish; it's intentionally ambiguous.

Ain't nothing that any number of countries haven't done over the many centuries of warfare and diplomacy.
Not saying it's not right, just saying it's not unique.

There is no ruse. It's either a consulate or it isn't. If it is, you can call what goes on behind those doors whatever you want, but it's no more cowardly that what goes on within the borders of the nation itself. If it isn't a consulate, then break down the doors, kill all the bastards inside, burn it to the ground and throw salt on the ashes.

And remember, every American consulate has a CIA chief of station, a military attache, an information/propaganda operation, and an espionage network. So do the consulates of Burundi, Latvia, and Lichtenstein. It's what all consulates for all nations are expected to do: look after the national interests of the nation.

Well, I'm not convinced it even was a consulate. I guess if the Kurds formed their own nation they could allow anyone to have a consolate they wanted to.

The Iranians claiming the local Kurdish politicians allowed them to have this building as a consolate is evidence of Irans efforts to destablize Iraq. The local Kurdish politicians do not represent the nation of Iraq, claiming such is just an effort to minimize the central government in Baghdad and further destabilize the country. And accepting such is slap in the face of the central government of Iraq.

I always thought thart was Andrew Jackson.
http://www.answers.com/topic/democratic-party
Jefferson's party was the Democratic Republican party
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic-Re...(United_States)
But it splintered away to be unrecognizable by the mid 1820s

Interestingly they referred to themselves as Republicans but the opposition party, the Federalists, referred to them as democrats or Jacobins which was synomonous with what we call terrorists today. I got noting against Jacobites though, my great great great great grand father fled Scotland following the revolution of 1748 for being a Jacobite.

I guess the answer to this conundrum can be found in the Iraqi Constitution. I don't claim to be an expert on ours, let alone theirs. How much autonomy were the Kurds granted?

Again, I don't know any more about the Iraqi constitution that most Iraqis, but my understanding is that it is more loosely federated than that of our Articles of Confederaton. If that is anywhere near the truth, then an automous Kurdistan could have a consulate pretty much under its own terms. CNN also says that the central government had approved its credentials as a consulate.

From the Wikipedia link above:

Article 107:

The federal government shall have exclusive authorities in the following matters:

First: Formulating foreign policy and diplomatic representation; negotiating, signing, and ratifying international treaties and agreements; negotiating, signing and ratifying debt policies and formulating foreign sovereign economic and trade policy;

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5101201450.html

Thanks.
Now the question comes of implementation. Just how weak is the Baghdad government that it cannot enforce major provisions such as above?
Or, conversely, just how weak was the government under Saddam if he couldn't do the same?

From: Voice of America

I figure that, as an arm of the USIA, VOA might be considered authoratative.



From: CNN



My point again is: No one asked any questions before they raided the building. Most news stories are talking about 'a consulate'.

nobody asked the press if it was ok to raid the "consulate" or no one asked you? Do you think an activity like this would be taken lightly by the operational commander on the ground?

Ask your congressperson to look into the matter by all means I think it is worthy of an inquiry.

I'm also sure that it will be found justified.

I'd think that's a good example of using wording which alters the actual context of what happened Winston. I have to keep myself wary of it all the time, just because you hear something incessantly repeated doen't necessary make it true.

Hell, if they'd asked me I'da said, "Sure, kill all the bastards and throw salt on their ashes!" like the Romans did when they sacked Carthage. Jes' kiddin'...

I was talking about asking the Kurds or the Iraqis. Had anyone merely asked that question- is that building really a consulate?- we would not be having this conversation today. Might someone have tipped off the consular officials? Maybe. The point is, if it was a consulate, tipping them off would mean absolutely nothing because there would have been nothing we could have done anyhow. And if if wasn't a consulate, tipping them off would have forced them to remove the stuff we wanted removed anyhow, lest it be confiscated in our raid. Either way, we would not be having this conversation, would we?

And I have asked my congressman to look into the matter, but he's a Republican currently under investigation for income tax fraud and evasion; he's got enough on his plate.

From another perspective: if someone lies to you every time they open their mouth, and everyone else is saying the opposite, then who you gonna believe?

Again, the point is not whether or not it was a consulate. It's just that no one asked if it was, which allowed the Iranians to hoist the conjecture on a pitard for the world to see; it has made the Bush Administration look inept- but then, it is. It didn't have to be this way.