Posted on 08/13/2014 5:53:30 AM PDT by Kaslin
The legality of President’s Obama’s sustained and targeted airstrike campaign in Iraq against ISIS forces is a matter of contention among some constitutional scholars.
What they all seem to agree upon, however, is that any targeted military operation, lasting no longer than a few days, does in fact pass constitutional muster (via The Hill):
“I think any conflict of a couple days in nature could be justified,” said Louis Fisher, a scholar at the Constitutional Law Project, “but as President Obama said last weekend, this is not going to be for just a couple days or weeks, it could go on for a year or two. …
Under the War Powers Act, Obama is required to report to Congress within 48 hours of the airstrikes commencing, Fisher said. At that point, he has 60 days to convince Congress to get on board, or else pull out the troops.
President Obama could extend that period by 30 days if the troops’ lives would be endangered by an immediate withdrawal.
By this legal reasoning, the president should already have asked for Congress’ permission to continue taking out ISIS military targets in Iraq. (He hasn’t). And yet, the situation only becomes more convoluted when legal experts deliberate on the nature of the attacks. Part of the reason airstrikes were first deemed broadly lawful is because they were launched outside the city of Erbil, with the explicit purpose of protecting American citizens. Recent airstrikes, however, are being launched solely to protect the ethnic minority population in northern Iraq. And while there might not be a moral difference between protecting American lives and Iraqi lives -- the US’ stated objective is saving as many lives as possible -- this nuance under the law has all sorts of legal implications:
Obama has defended the airstrikes against ISIS near Mt. Sinjar as a “humanitarian effort” necessary to prevent genocide.
The airstrikes at Mt. Sinjar are a “little different situation, because Obama’s not defending Americans,” [Professor Peter] Raven-Hansen said.
“President Obama, arguably, has no constitutional authority to use American forces in combat to defend foreigners,” he added.
Of course, that’s only one expert’s opinion, and not all constitutional scholars agree on this point:
Robert F. Turner, a national security professor at the University of Virginia, though, defended Obama’s actions in Iraq.
Turner said that Obama can continue ordering airstrikes against ISIS, because they are not a foreign state, just a terrorist group.
“What he’s doing, it’s not an act of war,” Turner said. “He’s essentially coming to the defense of Iraq. Nobody recognizes ISIS as a state. They’re not set up as a government, they’re just a band of terrorists.”
Whatever the case may be, the president has pursued targeted airstrike campaigns in the past without Congress' approval, and against the wishes of his top legal advisors. If he does this again, however, it's safe to say cries of executive overreach will only grow louder, even if his actions are warranted and well-intentioned.
No need to comment. That’s why the tag line says what it says.
Obama is worried about doing something that’s against the constitution? That’s funny.
I haven’t heard one republican demanding he get congress’ approval.
What is a Republican? What is a Congress?
Reading articles on this you would think they do not exist
First of all, the War Power of the United States is OUR power, delegated or granted to a Congress for a specific reason. It has NOTHING to do with the President, in fact, his designation as Commander-in Chief of the Army and the Navy only makes sense as the executor of powers located elsewhere.
Look at this: " the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan…"
Authorized and directed. As it should be.
“All I can say in this case is that Obama did the right thing. And, Congress should approve!”
No, no, no. Iraqi oil exported to the EU through Turkey will thwart Putin’s influence over the EU and delay his conquest of Ukraine and the Baltics. We can’t have that! Quick, we must alert the FSB Influence Agents to activate their conservative, anti-US government, isolationist assets to stop anti-imperialist aggression.
Quick, someone post the picture of John McCain with “ISIS spokesman Abu Masa” in Syria. We must make it clear this is all the fault of the US so the US has no moral authority to oppose ISIS or Russian conquests. We will tell them opposing ISIS or Russia is actually “helping Obama” improve his poll numbers. Is good.
/s
I’d go with Bob Turner’s statement. He’s a longtime friend of mine, a two-career Vietnam veteran (soldier and diplomatic staff), one of the US’s top scholars on law and war, and perhaps the top scholar on Thomas Jefferson and the wrongful reporting that TJ fathered a child with a slave named Sally Hemmings (it was his brother, re DNA tests).
Our Vietnam Veterans for Factual History (VVFH.org) just held a press conference in DC last week in which we discussed some of these issues re the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and the circumstances around it re going to war against No. Vietnam.
There is, as Bob says, a major difference between going to war against an established state as opposed to taking counter-terrorism actions against a genocidal bunch of maniacs who have also threatened to attack our country.
I would add the following: Continue to kill all the Islamic Jihadist bastards and let the buzzards and lawyers sort them out in the sand graveyards of Iraq.
To #11> Good observation about “two authorizations to use military force that are still in effect”.
One of my son’s medals for service in Kuwait and Iraq is the “Global War on Terrorism” one. He’s very proud of having received it.
I believe that this “Global War on Terrorism” authorization is also still in effect.”
I’d go with Bob Turner’s statement. He’s a longtime friend of mine, a two-career Vietnam veteran (soldier and diplomatic staff), one of the US’s top scholars on law and war, and perhaps the top scholar on Thomas Jefferson and the wrongful reporting that TJ fathered a child with a slave named Sally Hemmings (it was his brother, re DNA tests).
Our Vietnam Veterans for Factual History (VVFH.org) just held a press conference in DC last week in which we discussed some of these issues re the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and the circumstances around it re going to war against No. Vietnam.
There is, as Bob says, a major difference between going to war against an established state as opposed to taking counter-terrorism actions against a genocidal bunch of maniacs who have also threatened to attack our country.
I would add the following: Continue to kill all the Islamic Jihadist bastards and let the buzzards and lawyers sort them out in the sand graveyards of Iraq.
I’m pretty sure that if he promises “days, not weeks” he has an eight month window for unlimited airstrikes.
And I agree with you 100 percent
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.