The War Powers Act carves out a 90 day period for the President to act constitutionally by himself. This measure by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations attempts to legislate Executive powers.
By 10-7, the Committee on Foreign Relations (click here) moved the measure to a full Senate vote, expected next week.
The proposal allows the use of force in Syria for 60 days with the possibility to extend it for 30 days. It prevents the use of US troops on the ground.
President Barack Obama is battling to build support at home and abroad for military action.
Despite Wednesday's vote, the bill's ultimate fate in the wider Senate is unclear. And the US House of Representatives must also approve the measure....
The only place found in our Constitution for the Commander and Chief is the Executive Branch. The Congress can't tie his/her hands. This bill is bad law. This is not Megan's Law. It is not a specialized situation that will spawn a policy that will apply universally to a specific set of circumstances. This is the USA military. This law is not only bad law, it is a dangerous precedent. This bill re-legislates The War Powers act and limits the actions of the President to 60 days with a 30 day review.
It also encourages mission creep. When the President comes back after about 30 to 45 days to review the actions of the military and there is need for that extension; there is also the question what will resolve in thirty days that could not be resolved in 60 days. Either the last 30 days is to clean up the actions of the 60th day or it is an extension into a greater war.
It takes almost that long to turn a battle ship fleet around yet alone carry out a war.
Since when does the Legislature of the USA break international law? Simply because Bush/Cheney ran their own war without end, doesn't mean the legislature should go along with it. Illegal is illegal.
This is just wrong. From start to finish it is wrong from every aspect of it.
This is ridiculous. Paragraph One is too broad, HOWEVER, it DOES cover Paragraph 4 if left as is because it allows troops on the ground to prevent the transfer of weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups or other non-government groups, etc.
This is a declaration or war, well masked, but impossible to carry out as it is sculpted without a USA invasion into Syria.
Either that or there will be drones carrying out strikes without any intelligence to know who exactly is being killed.
Paragraph Four demands either troops, drones or both and does not guarantee those targeted are soldiers which makes it a complete affront to the Geneva Conventions.
By 10-7, the Committee on Foreign Relations (click here) moved the measure to a full Senate vote, expected next week.
The proposal allows the use of force in Syria for 60 days with the possibility to extend it for 30 days. It prevents the use of US troops on the ground.
President Barack Obama is battling to build support at home and abroad for military action.
Despite Wednesday's vote, the bill's ultimate fate in the wider Senate is unclear. And the US House of Representatives must also approve the measure....
The only place found in our Constitution for the Commander and Chief is the Executive Branch. The Congress can't tie his/her hands. This bill is bad law. This is not Megan's Law. It is not a specialized situation that will spawn a policy that will apply universally to a specific set of circumstances. This is the USA military. This law is not only bad law, it is a dangerous precedent. This bill re-legislates The War Powers act and limits the actions of the President to 60 days with a 30 day review.
It also encourages mission creep. When the President comes back after about 30 to 45 days to review the actions of the military and there is need for that extension; there is also the question what will resolve in thirty days that could not be resolved in 60 days. Either the last 30 days is to clean up the actions of the 60th day or it is an extension into a greater war.
It takes almost that long to turn a battle ship fleet around yet alone carry out a war.
Since when does the Legislature of the USA break international law? Simply because Bush/Cheney ran their own war without end, doesn't mean the legislature should go along with it. Illegal is illegal.
This is just wrong. From start to finish it is wrong from every aspect of it.
This is ridiculous. Paragraph One is too broad, HOWEVER, it DOES cover Paragraph 4 if left as is because it allows troops on the ground to prevent the transfer of weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups or other non-government groups, etc.
This is a declaration or war, well masked, but impossible to carry out as it is sculpted without a USA invasion into Syria.
Either that or there will be drones carrying out strikes without any intelligence to know who exactly is being killed.
Paragraph Four demands either troops, drones or both and does not guarantee those targeted are soldiers which makes it a complete affront to the Geneva Conventions.
The
Senate Foreign Relations Committee approves a resolution authorizing
the limited use of force against the Assad regime in Syria. The senators
respond to reports of a chemical weapons attack against Syrian citizens.
McCain is the only one that remotely makes sense. He knows this legislation is
political nonsense. What McCain doesn't care about is the illegal reality to
those actions by the USA. He believes the sheer power of the USA military
should go unquestioned, regardless, of international law and countries. McCain
is wrong, but, he doesn't see it that way. He believes the USA is above reproach
in every policy and action it takes.
the limited use of force against the Assad regime in Syria. The senators
respond to reports of a chemical weapons attack against Syrian citizens.
McCain is the only one that remotely makes sense. He knows this legislation is
political nonsense. What McCain doesn't care about is the illegal reality to
those actions by the USA. He believes the sheer power of the USA military
should go unquestioned, regardless, of international law and countries. McCain
is wrong, but, he doesn't see it that way. He believes the USA is above reproach
in every policy and action it takes.
