“Red Line”, Eh?
Former SECDEF Hagel is in the news again. And this time, it looks like he’s talking about his former boss.
In a recent interview, Hagel claims that he gave the OK in 2013 to plans for a strike on Syria – on Damascus, specifically. Hagel indicates he OKed those plans on 30 August 2013, after Assad’s forces had apparently used chemical weapons. The POTUS had very publicly previously indicated that use of chemical weapons by Assad was a “red line” that would result in US action.
Hagel claims, point blank, that the POTUS overruled him later that day, while forces were standing by awaiting orders to execute.
Here’s what the Administration had to say in reply:
A senior administration official defended the decision to Foreign Policy, saying Obama was not prepared to take military action without consulting Congress first – and the diplomatic deal that had Assad relinquish his weapons resulted in a Syria “free of its chemical weapons program.”
Pure bullsh!t. The current Occupant, 1600 Penn Ave, Wash DC, and his enablers didn’t give a hoot in hell about Congressional authorization for the use of force when we conducted military operations against the government of Libya in 2011 – nor did they comply with the War Powers Act’s requirements for Congressional notification as the operation dragged on. The Administration’s claim here nothing but a transparently obvious attempt at spin. Nor do I believe for one minute that Syria has given up 100% of their chem weapons, either.
Fox News has a longish article about Hagel’s claims. Regardless of what you think of Hagel, this one’s probably worth reading.
Category: "Teh Stoopid", "The Floggings Will Continue Until Morale Improves", Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Big Pentagon, Foreign Policy, Military issues
The inept manner that bodaprez and his minions have handled everything… they are as screwed up as Bernath when it comes to getting/making things right.
Yes, Danny… you’re as screwed up as Obama…
Hondo you’re not seriously bringing up the War Powers Act are you? That thing is a joke. An irrelevant, unconstitutional joke.
I’m pretty sure even the Dems don’t bring up the WPA, it’s an embarrassment to them.
It may or may not be Constitutional, Martinjmpr. It’s never been considered by the SCOTUS. The only time it was taken to court, the DC Circuit punted. (Clintoon finished Kosovo operations within the act’s second 90-day window in 1999 anyway, rendering further court action moot at that time.)
In any case, the War Powers Act is current Federal law. It remains such until it’s repealed or the courts rule it invalid.
And the last time I checked, the POTUS was the Chief Executive. His job, along with that of the rest of the Executive Branch, is to execute those Federal laws – not ignore them when they are “inconvenient”.
This POS POTUS follow the law…
Surely you jest…
The WPA is unlikely to ever be tested in court, though, because who would have standing to do that?
Furthermore, there is no remedy in the WPA that Congress doesn’t have WITHOUT the WPA. Sure, if Congress doesn’t like what the President is doing, they can deny him the money to do it. But they don’t need the WPA for that, they can do that independent of the WPA.
The WPA was just a Congressional temper tantrum against the already wounded Nixon administration, nothing more.
The WPA may well have been a Congressional “temper tantrum” directed at Nixon. But it’s hardly clear that it’s unconstitutional.
In fact, one can argue that Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress explicit authority to require everything in the WPA. Among the list of authorities given to Congress there is the following:
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
This does not say “persons in the land and naval Forces”. Congress specifying conditions under which the land and naval Forces may and may not be used absent a formal declaration of war are thus also arguably “rules for the Regulation of the land and naval Forces”. They are rules and/or regulations specifying the allowable usage of those forces short of war.
Telling the Commander-in-Chief of those land and naval Forces when he must report specific items of information to Congress, and when he must cease hostilities that have not been explicitly authorized by Congress, would therefore also seem to be within the scope of authority granted Congress by Article I Section 8.
In short: while it’s arguable, I think the WPA is Constitutional. IMO Article I Section 8 of the Constitution appears to give Congress the authority to do what the WPA does. Whether it is sound public policy is a different question.
Well, we’re splitting hairs here but I disagree with your interpretation. “Rules for the Government and Regulation of the Land and Naval Forces” seems to me such things as the Articles of War or the UCMJ – i.e., the laws by which the Army and Navy operate.
Allowing Congress to make rules on how and where the President as CIC may use the Army and Naval forces would seem to say that Congress and the President both have the authority to command the military which can’t be true as this would eviscerate the power of the president as Commander in Chief.
The president is either the CIC or he’s not. Period. He’s not “sort of the commander in chief but has to get permission from Congress.”
Congress no more has the authority to invade the specified powers of the president than the president has to invade the specified powers of congress.
But set all of that aside for a minute: Assuming arguendo that the WPA is “constitutional”, so what? There is no specified remedy for a violation of the WPA other than Congress denying the president the funds he needs to continue his military action.
And the fact is, Congress has that power even WITHOUT the WPA. Congress can deny the president the funds he needs for any reason Congress deems valid, or for no reason whatsoever. The power of the purse is absolutely within Congress’s hands so although Congress may consider a “violation” of the WPA as a “red line” of their own (see what I did there? 😉 ) that could trigger a congressional denial of the necessary funds to continue a war, Congress could do that just as easily if the WPA never existed, as their authority to do so is explicitly enumerated in Article 1.
The WPA does two things: It allows Congress to put limitations on the president’s powers as CIC which violates the Separation of Powers doctrine, and it gives Congress the authority to do something that Congress has the authority to do anyway even without it.
It is true that the “Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces” clause has been traditionally interpreted to mean the UCMJ and it’s forerunners. It’s not clear that was the sole intent of the Founders. As I noted above, they did not say that the clause applied “to the persons serving in” the land and naval forces. They were generally rather specific in their choice of language when drafting the Constitution; both inclusions and omissions of phrases in general were intentional. Then there are those pesky little other powers granted to Congress in Article I, Section 8: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; Collectively, it seems clear that the original Constitutional intent was for Congress – not the President – to be the branch of government that committed the US to sustained hostilities. It is only since World War II that we’ve accepted the (IMO erroneous) theory that the POTUS, acting alone as Commander-in-Chief, has the authority to commit the US to sustained hostilities overseas. The argument that the POTUS, as Commander-in-Chief, has the inherent unilateral authority to commit US forces to sustained hostile acts beyond immediate self-defense (or at most short-term reprisal actions in response to provocations) is IMO exceptionally weak, on both historical and Constitutional grounds. IMO he does not have that authority, and prior to Korea such authority was never claimed by the POTUS (even Wilson and FDR requested declarations of war… Read more »
Eh, the only thing the chem “deal” did is allow Assad to get the outdated weapons destroyed.
Yep, he’s got plenty of “interesting” slime at his disposal over there.
Hondo, if you keep saying harsh things about the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, you’ll bring ole Larsie back here in high dudgeon, outraged that you’re being nasty to the pResident. He’ll call us names and things.
What’s the big deal? It was just going to be an almost unbelievably small airstrike!
I dunno but we dropped a couple of unbelievably small nukes on Japan 70 years ago and they’re still bitching about it.
“The current Occupant, 1600 Penn Ave, Wash DC, and his enablers didn’t give a hoot in hell about Congressional authorization for the use of force when we conducted military operations against the government of Libya in 2011 – nor did they comply with the War Powers Act’s requirements for Congressional notification as the operation dragged on.”
Due to sidestepping the WPA, the administration also made the decision not to issue Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal to service members who took part in the operation.
DOD did authorize acceptance of the NATO medal, the only instance where a foreign award has been authorized without a corresponding US decoration.
Interesting. The CSAF apparently didn’t get the “no US awards” memo or ignored same. He authorized USAF personnel who participated to receive the Air and Space Campaign Medal (ASCM).
http://archive.airforcetimes.com/article/20121224/NEWS/212240301/Libya-air-campaign-participants-can-get-medal
Yes he did (I believe it was the 1st time it was awarded). The CSAF did it under their authorities.
The Army has never had its own campaign/expeditionary medal; though I assume the SECARMY has the authority to create one.
The Navy did not issue its medals (Navy Expeditionary Medal/Marine Corps Expeditionary Medal), as it has been long standing Department of the Navy policy not to issue the NEM/MCEM when an operation include element for outside the Navy/Marine Corps.
Still, interesting that DOD didn’t award the AFEM, when it was awarded for the raid on Libya in the 80’s (which was only one night).
Nowhere near the first award, actually.
The ASCM has existed since 2002, and has been awarded for quite a number of operations, most of which seem to involve support for US forces in the Balkans. A list can be found at
http://www.afpc.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet_print.asp?fsID=7818&page=1
Once again, I shouldn’t doubt you on such things! Though, as all the listed operations were retroactive I’ll ask for partial credit as it was the 1st operation to take place after establishment of the award.
But, if it can be awarded for remote support to operations why does the Air Force still push for a seperate award for RPA folks?
Chucky was just there to beggar the military. His usefulness ended with that accomplished, and he had to go.
Hagel truly obama’s tool and a fool.
Trying to recover what little honor and integrity he possessed before working for obama.
….before working for obama
Hagel is such a phony fuck. He should just have the good sense to go away.