Iran and Presidential War Powers, Explained

[Shabibilicious]

Iran and Presidential War Powers, Explained

The New York Times•January 7, 2020

 

 

FILE -- Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., speaking at a news conference in Washington, D.C., on Dec. 17, 2019.Erin Schaff/The New York Times)

WASHINGTON — Democratic leaders in Congress are moving to swiftly invoke the War Powers Resolution in an attempt to block President Donald Trump from taking the United States into a war with Iran, even as Iran vows revenge for his killing of Gen. Qassem Soleimani and Trump is threatening disproportionate strikes inside Iran if it does retaliate.

But Congress’ control over decisions about going to war has been eroding for generations, and administrations of both parties have established precedents that undercut the resolution as a meaningful check on presidential war-making authority.

Here is an explanation of the legal issues raised by the rapidly evolving crisis:

What is the War Powers Resolution?

It is a law Congress enacted in 1973 — overriding President Richard M. Nixon’s veto — in an attempt to regain control over war decisions that had eroded during the Cold War.

Although the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, the U.S. military kept a large standing force deployed around the world as World War II gave way to the Cold War. Presidents, invoking their role as commander in chief, had directed those forces to launch or escalate wars, including in Korea and Vietnam.

One part says presidents may only introduce forces into hostilities after Congress has authorized using force or if the nation has been attacked. No subsequent president has respected that narrow list of when he may unilaterally dispatch forces into combat.

Another part requires presidents to consult with Congress before deploying troops into actual or imminent “hostilities.” Most presidents have obeyed this, but Trump did not before ordering the Soleimani strike.

Yet another part — important here — says if a president deploys combat troops without authorization, the deployment must end after 60 days unless lawmakers approve it in the interim. It also empowers Congress to direct the president to terminate the operation before that deadline.

What are Democrats trying to do?

They are trying to use the War Powers Resolution to block a war with Iran.

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., has already proposed a joint resolution to do so, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on Sunday that the House would act this week on a similar measure. The House version’s sponsor will be Rep. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., a former CIA and Pentagon analyst specializing in Shiite militias.

Kaine’s resolution declares that Trump has already introduced U.S. armed forces into hostilities with Iran without congressional authorization and directs him to stop within 30 days of its enactment.

Does the resolution have enough political support?

There are reasons to be doubtful.

Even if such a resolution passes both chambers, it seems inevitable that Trump would veto it. Overriding that veto would require a two-thirds majority in both chambers, which would require significant numbers of Republicans to break with him.

Last year, majorities in both chambers tried to use the War Powers Resolution to force Trump to end U.S. support for Saudi Arabia’s intervention in Yemen’s civil war. But Trump vetoed it, and an override vote in the Senate failed 53-45, with only seven Republicans joining Democrats in challenging the president.

Would it be constitutional?

That is debatable.

Trump might claim a constitutional right to defy such a resolution even if it gets through Congress. Courts have been reluctant to adjudicate disputes between presidents and Congress over their war powers, raising the possibility of a standoff.

Attorney General William Barr has long espoused a maximalist interpretation of executive power, and once told President George H.W. Bush that he could launch the Persian Gulf War of 1991 without congressional permission and even if lawmakers voted against it. Many executive branch lawyers in Republican administrations have been hostile to the War Powers Resolution.

Many constitutional scholars view the law as a valid constraint on executive power, and Democratic administrations have not raised constitutional objections to it. But there is no controlling precedent to settle the matter, in part because no such confrontation has come to a head.

Perhaps the closest political precedent occurred in 1983. Congress enacted a bill declaring that a peacekeeping mission in Lebanon — after a firefight in Beirut, its capital, killed several Marines — had evolved into “hostilities” covered by the 60-day rule. At the same time, lawmakers granted authority for that mission to continue for 18 months.

President Ronald Reagan signed the law but said in a signing statement that his approval should not be interpreted as a concession that the War Powers Resolution could constrain his authority as commander in chief, though he stopped short of declaring it unconstitutional.

Does the War Powers Resolution apply?

There might be a legal fight over this question, too — especially if any escalated conflict with Iran remained limited to airstrikes and cyberattacks rather than a ground invasion.

Presidents of both parties have argued that the War Powers Resolution did not apply to particular deployments for various reasons. In a 1993 dispute over a peacekeeping mission in Somalia, for example, the Clinton administration argued that the fighting was too intermittent for the law to cover the operation.

And during the 2011 NATO air war in Libya, the Obama administration — despite internal disagreement — argued that American participation could last more than 60 days without congressional authorization because the operation was too limited to count as the sort of “hostilities” the War Powers Resolution covers.

Has Congress already authorized such a war?

The national security adviser, Robert C. O’Brien, has claimed that Trump’s order to kill Soleimani was “fully authorized” by the 2002 law in which Congress authorized the use of military force in Iraq, in addition to Trump’s constitutional authority to carry out acts of self-defense.

The implication appears to be that it is lawful to defend U.S. troops in Iraq because they were deployed under the 2002 law — even if the threat comes from an Iranian. If Iran responds by attacking U.S. forces in Iraq, the Trump legal team might similarly say the 2002 law covers an escalating response.

Kaine’s resolution, which states that the Soleimani killing had no congressional authorization, rejects the idea that the 2002 law covers the growing conflict with Iran.

Was killing Soleimani an “assassination”?

It is unclear. It depends both on the definition of “assassination” and on the strength of the secret intelligence that the Trump administration has said backs its claim that Soleimani was plotting an “imminent” attack on U.S. forces in Iraq.

As a legal matter, Executive Order 12333 bans government officials from engaging or conspiring in assassinations, but neither it nor any federal law defines the term.

The executive order traces back to a rule imposed by President Gerald R. Ford after accusations came to light in the 1970s that the CIA had been involved in plots to kill foreign elected leaders with communist sympathies. Later, as the United States grappled with Islamist terrorism, executive branch lawyers under both parties wrote secret memos developing the idea that targeted killings in self-defense are not assassinations.

The Obama administration also developed the idea that what counts as an “imminent” threat — which permits violent acts undertaken in self-defense — can be stretched for terrorists who are continuously planning attacks from the shadows, so that they can be struck during any fleeting opportunity even if they pose no literally imminent threat at that moment.

But no American court precedent exists adjudicating whether either theory is legitimate.

Soleimani was a high-ranking official of a national government, not a leader of a nonstate terrorist group. But further complicating matters, last year Trump designated the branch of the Iranian military that Soleimani led a foreign terrorist organization, the first time the United States deemed a state entity to meet that criteria.

Has Trump threatened to commit war crimes?

Yes.

Trump has said on Twitter that if Iran strikes any Americans or American assets in retaliation for Soleimani’s killing, he will order the military to attack sites that include some that are “important to Iran & the Iranian culture” and that the American strikes back will be “perhaps in a disproportionate manner.”

Part of The Hague Convention requires sparing, as far as possible, “buildings dedicated to religion, art, science” and “historical monuments” so long as they are not being used for a military purpose. The War Crimes Act makes it a felony under domestic law for an American to violate this ban, punishable by up to life in prison or execution if someone is also killed.

The law of war also requires distinguishing military targets from civilian people and property, which cannot be intentionally targeted. While some collateral damage is permissible as a side consequence of striking a legitimate target, it must be proportionate to the military objective.

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

© 2020 The New York Times Company

 

https://news.yahoo.com/iran-presidential-war-powers-explained-131153917.html

 

GO RV, then BV

[umbertino]

 

I read this article a few mins ago and was considering posting it here,...

 

 

You beat me to it, Shabbs....

[Shabibilicious]

5 minutes ago, umbertino said:

 

I read this article a few mins ago and was considering posting it here,...

 

 

You beat me to it, Shabbs....

 

Gotta be quick, my friend.  

 

GO RV, then BV

[coorslite21]

I guess if any country makes any move against the US we need to wait for the dysfunctional Congress to weigh in on the situation.....you know.......kind of similar to Bengazzi....time kills....

 

 

There are 3 branches of Government....the Office of the President is one of them.....which happens to include the title of Commander in Chief ......Pelosi is once again over stepping her authority....same as trying to tell the Senate how they need to run impeachment proceedings......simply delusional......  CL

[Karsten]

Why didn't they care about the War Powers Act when obama abused it?

 

At this point the liberals are so desperate to get Trump No Matter What It Takes they are willing to let Iran blow the Crap out of us and will refuse POTUS Trump any means of retaliation what so ever..

 

The were pissed they weren't informed about the Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi Raid.

 

Now they are pissed about not being informed about Qassem Soleimani.

 

They care more for the lives of and protecting Terrorist than they do for the American People were they Made/Stole their Fortunes.

 

This is going to get way ugly before it gets better.....I don't mean in the ME either....I mean right here at home.

 

The American People are now fighting a number of battles.

 

Illegal Immigration to include MS-13 and any other groups crossing the open Borders.

 

Radical Islam

 

Sanctuary Cities

 

The battle for keep Our 2nd Amendment Rights.

 

Ans now it will soon be the Democrats that support all of the above and are willing to destroy America to save their collective corrupt asses from being exposed and justice served.

 

Karsten

 

 

 

[8th ID]

Watch what happens now that Iran just fired a least a dozen missiles onto our bases over there. It’s time to wipe them off the map!

[Pitcher]

We will have to see how Trump responds. Maybe, just maybe, those rockets were allowed to be fired to appease the revenge hungry citizens of Iran.  Maybe there is some negotiating going on behind closed doors.  Things are never the way they appear in these kind of matters.  We’ll have to wait and see what happens next.  Escalation or Diplomacy.  

[Karsten]

I don't know who the Lame Stream Media to pulling for other than Iran.......If you watch the Iraqi Citizens are fed up with the GOI as well as Iran meddling in their lives.

 

The Iranian People are fed up with the Mullah's and want them gone (listen to the Anni Cyrus Video's I post in the Face of Islam).

 

Had the last administration supported the Iranian Revolt a few years ago things could very possibly turned out different....No obama sent them pallets of cash to further their (And His ) Anti American Efforts.

 

The losers in this mess will be both the Iraqi People as well as the Iranian Civilians....both of which are fed up with the way their counties are being ruined.

 

Karsten

[cranman]

20 minutes ago, Pitcher said:

We will have to see how Trump responds. Maybe, just maybe, those rockets were allowed to be fired to appease the revenge hungry citizens of Iran.  Maybe there is some negotiating going on behind closed doors.  Things are never the way they appear in these kind of matters.  We’ll have to wait and see what happens next.  Escalation or Diplomacy.  

I know I would have a serious problem with that if it was the case. No reason in the world could justify possibly killing soldiers to appease anyone. I think the president would have a crisis here if that was the case.

[Pitcher]

 I totally agree cranman.  From what I’ve been able to read so far there’s been no real damage or injuries but I’ve been out for an hour.  

I’ve been on the phone to some oil people I know. Oil is up and all eyes are on the Straits of Hormuz and Iranian Refineries for escalation. 

[FlyHi]

Here is another thought to ponder. 

Iran has responded with next to zero harm to US Military lives as the forces had warnings and made into bomb shelters in good time.

This sums up what the MSN is not saying

 

[Shabibilicious]

9 hours ago, FlyHi said:

Here is another thought to ponder. 

Iran has responded with next to zero harm to US Military lives as the forces had warnings and made into bomb shelters in good time.

This sums up what the MSN is not saying

 

 

Will Trump allow the Iranians to save face, that's the question?  

 

GO RV, then BV

[coorslite21]

This War Powers Bill that Pelosi wants to spend time on is just more partisan fluff...

 

Congress can pass it by 1 vote

Senate has to have 67

 

Best part though.....if they both pass it.....it goes to the President...

 

Anyone think any sitting President would sign a Bill limiting his authority?

CL 

[Shabibilicious]

13 minutes ago, coorslite21 said:

 

Anyone think any sitting President would sign a Bill limiting his authority?

CL 

 

No narcissist I've ever heard of would limit themselves.

 

GO RV, then BV

[coorslite21]

1 minute ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

No narcissist I've ever heard of would limit themselves.

 

GO RV, then BV

 

My bet then would be given this situation......1 thru 45 would all fall into your  narcissist definition.

 

Perhaps it even makes good sense.....who would strive to be the most powerful person on the planet.....only to limit themselves, once there?

CL

[Shabibilicious]

1 minute ago, coorslite21 said:

 

My bet then would be given this situation......1 thru 45 would all fall into your  narcissist definition.

 

Perhaps it even makes good sense.....who would strive to be the most powerful person on the planet.....only to limit themselves, once there?

CL

 

I'm gong to give 1 through about 4 a pass.....they understood the importance of serving the greater good and the people's voice, i.e....elected representatives and senators....separation of powers, 3 co-equal branches of government.  They wrote the rules after all.  As always, just my opinion.

 

GO RV, then BV

[coorslite21]

Just now, Shabibilicious said:

 

I'm gong to give 1 through about 4 a pass.....they understood the importance of serving the greater good and the people's voice, i.e....elected representatives and senators....separation of powers, 3 co-equal branches of government.  They wrote the rules after all.  As always, just my opinion.

 

GO RV, then BV

 

I am agreeable to that....CL

 

 

 

[learning all i can]

Just a thought here.  Trump has in the past continously said that if Iran were to harm or kill Americans that there would be consequences.  The "Red line" was drawn sometime back.  Everybody has known from his previous action that he does what he says,  why would now be different?  Are the Dems so use to mealy-mouthed Presidents and get nothing done Presidents that they just think Trump is the same?  If they had thought ahead instead of only being one minded about getting Trump out of office, why didn't  they invoke authority before Trump did what he had already vowed.  Nancy has really done herself in this time.  She has now double jeopardy haunting her abilities to lead.  She has actually destroyed any kind of respect that most held for her by letting her 4 talking heads take control of what little common sense she once had.  This is proof that the Dems do not have the ability to look ahead and are incompetent.  I just can't wait for the November elections.  Surely changes will be made.  Statistics tell us that most people vote straight down the line in the Presidential election. We can only hope and pray this will be the case in Nov.  I know it will be for me.

[Shabibilicious]

41 minutes ago, learning all i can said:

Just a thought here.  Trump has in the past continously said that if Iran were to harm or kill Americans that there would be consequences.  The "Red line" was drawn sometime back.  Everybody has known from his previous action that he does what he says,  why would now be different?  Are the Dems so use to mealy-mouthed Presidents and get nothing done Presidents that they just think Trump is the same?  If they had thought ahead instead of only being one minded about getting Trump out of office, why didn't  they invoke authority before Trump did what he had already vowed.  Nancy has really done herself in this time.  She has now double jeopardy haunting her abilities to lead.  She has actually destroyed any kind of respect that most held for her by letting her 4 talking heads take control of what little common sense she once had.  This is proof that the Dems do not have the ability to look ahead and are incompetent.  I just can't wait for the November elections.  Surely changes will be made.  Statistics tell us that most people vote straight down the line in the Presidential election. We can only hope and pray this will be the case in Nov.  I know it will be for me.

 

I'm sure people will vote like their lives, their loved ones lives, and the survival of the planet depend on it.....the majority won't make the same mistake again.  As always, just my opinion.

 

GO RV, then BV

[learning all i can]

6 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

I'm sure people will vote like their lives, their loved ones lives, and the survival of the planet depend on it.....the majority won't make the same mistake again.  As always, just my opinion.

 

GO RV, then BV

lol, you might be right. But if that were to happen, we will see the biggest downfall this country has ever been faced with.  I give credit to most Americans to know and understand this.  You have to understand that many stand firm with their family upbringing and vote for that reason alone.  The rest are the ones that vote for what's best for the future of their loved ones not just to get free stuff for themselves today.  Either way, we shall see.

[Shabibilicious]

5 minutes ago, learning all i can said:

lol, you might be right. But if that were to happen, we will see the biggest downfall this country has ever been faced with.  I give credit to most Americans to know and understand this.  You have to understand that many stand firm with their family upbringing and vote for that reason alone.  The rest are the ones that vote for what's best for the future of their loved ones not just to get free stuff for themselves today.  Either way, we shall see.

 

Actually the Electoral College (law of the land) agrees with you.....not "most Americans".  Just for clarification.    November should be interesting...heck, the impeachment trial should be interesting.  Going to be a wild year.

 

GO RV, then BV

[Synopsis]

Real time assessments and actions to neutralize credible threats to The United States Of America Citizens and Allies is hardly an act of war especially if the neutralized actors and activities have a past history of similar plans and implementation. Terrorism, and State Sponsored Terrorism, is asymmetric and counter measures would be difficult to classify as Acts of War. There are Constitutional provisions to focus to limit counter measures and these are in place and working.

 

Withholding sharing of sensitive intelligence that may induce credible threats to The United States Of America Citizens and Allies is also is a necessary practice. Philosophically misaligned or even well meaning people may not effectively contain the information and, thereby, actually increase potential threats.

 

I am disappointed in Senator Mike Lee's and others' intelligence briefing assessment, "One of the messages we received was, "Do not debate" "Do not discuss the issue of appropriateness of further military intervention against Iran" "And then if you do, you'll be emboldening Iran". The implication is somehow we would be making America less safe by having a debate or a discussion about the appropriateness of further military involvement".

 

Best intelligence briefing advice for those interested in protecting The United States Of America Service Personnel and Allies lives.

 

Every enemy knows the best way to advance their agenda is to have The United States Of America divide and conquer from within without direct involvement.

 

Worked with the carpet bombing of North Vietnam in 1973. One week away from the full surrender of the North Vietnamese while Congress and anti Vietnam War activists stepped in to stave off the full surrender of the North Vietnamese. Ho Chi Minh knew it back then to have The United States Of America divide from within just like other current enemies of The United States Of America and Allies today.

 

 

I am certainly not a fan of any neutralizing action except for very real and credible threats. I would never want to risk the well being of The United States Of America Service Persons or Citizens as well as Allies with the enemy's intent on weakening The United States Of America's Intent and Resolve and necessary response.

 

The Act(s) of War with Iran has been blown way out of proportion as well as the rhetoric for treating the necessary responses to Iran in a debate type of framework.

 

I do not see the responses to Iran as getting out of hand and leading to War with Iran. Metered actions have and should be taken as have been and needs to continue to ensure the Iranian threats do not increase especially since the necessary responses have been to the asymmetric Terrorism and State Sponsored Terrorism sources.

 

Safest and Securest way to keep and maintain The United States Of America Service Persons or Citizens as well as Allies out of harm's way is to reciprocate as has been happening to include neutralization via various sanctions in a The United States Of America Unified Fashion.

[nstoolman1]

I would not brief any of Congress on the grounds they leak like a sieve. Brief a bunch of Muslim sympathizers and they would have told Iran our plans.  

[coorslite21]

29 minutes ago, Synopsis said:

Real time assessments and actions to neutralize credible threats to The United States Of America Citizens and Allies is hardly an act of war especially if the neutralized actors and activities have a past history of similar plans and implementation. Terrorism, and State Sponsored Terrorism, is asymmetric and counter measures would be difficult to classify as Acts of War. There are Constitutional provisions to focus to limit counter measures and these are in place and working.

 

Withholding sharing of sensitive intelligence that may induce credible threats to The United States Of America Citizens and Allies is also is a necessary practice. Philosophically misaligned or even well meaning people may not effectively contain the information and, thereby, actually increase potential threats.

 

I am disappointed in Senator Mike Lee's and others' intelligence briefing assessment, "One of the messages we received was, "Do not debate" "Do not discuss the issue of appropriateness of further military intervention against Iran" "And then if you do, you'll be emboldening Iran". The implication is somehow we would be making America less safe by having a debate or a discussion about the appropriateness of further military involvement".

 

Best intelligence briefing advice for those interested in protecting The United States Of America Service Personnel and Allies lives.

 

Every enemy knows the best way to advance their agenda is to have The United States Of America divide and conquer from within without direct involvement.

 

Worked with the carpet bombing of North Vietnam in 1973. One week away from the full surrender of the North Vietnamese while Congress and anti Vietnam War activists stepped in to stave off the full surrender of the North Vietnamese. Ho Chi Minh knew it back then to have The United States Of America divide from within just like other current enemies of The United States Of America and Allies today.

 

 

I am certainly not a fan of any neutralizing action except for very real and credible threats. I would never want to risk the well being of The United States Of America Service Persons or Citizens as well as Allies with the enemy's intent on weakening The United States Of America's Intent and Resolve and necessary response.

 

The Act(s) of War with Iran has been blown way out of proportion as well as the rhetoric for treating the necessary responses to Iran in a debate type of framework.

 

I do not see the responses to Iran as getting out of hand and leading to War with Iran. Metered actions have and should be taken as have been and needs to continue to ensure the Iranian threats do not increase especially since the necessary responses have been to the asymmetric Terrorism and State Sponsored Terrorism sources.

 

Safest and Securest way to keep and maintain The United States Of America Service Persons or Citizens as well as Allies out of harm's way is to reciprocate as has been happening to include neutralization via various sanctions in a The United States Of America Unified Fashion.

 

Excellent post!

CL

[Shabibilicious]

Political players mostly embrace the U.S. Constitution.....until it threatens their lawlessness.  As always, just my opinion.

 

GO RV, then BV