this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2024
253 points (85.0% liked)

News

23256 readers
4083 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] JustZ 9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Right but they pass laws granting authorization of military use of force, AUMF. That's the Congressional authority to declare war under the War Powers Clause of the Constitution.

If you read the annotations to that clause you will see that the framers intent, traditional interpretation, and certainly modern interpretation are in agreement that the Constitution does not foreclose executive initiated use of force in what would be considered self defense, and that would certainly include the measured and limited destruction of an enemy's ability to carry out further attacks on US interests, and would certainly cover such defensive measures when done in agreement and in concert with a broad coalition of allies.

[–] thisisawayoflife -1 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Yes, we call those "blank checks" to the executive branch. The Germans even have a word for it. We did it with Vietnam and it did not go well. One would have thought the generation in Congress would have learned their lesson given most of them lived through that shitshow.

It goes without saying that military resources can defend themselves when fired upon, there's plenty of precedent going back well before the formation of the US. The AUMFs were not that. They were very clearly blank checks to wage literal wars anywhere the executive desired while providing the flimsiest of evidence - and Shrub did just that. See: Iraq.

[–] AA5B 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Merely an overly large check. There are limits, and we need the executive branch to be able to respond to urgent threats - the War Powers Act seems to do that.

the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which further requires that presidents not only report to Congress within 48 hours when they deploy U.S. armed forces into hostilities without congressional authorization but also end U.S. participation in those hostilities within 60 to 90 days if Congress does not authorize it after the fact.

Then people here are complaining about A U Military Force but I only see such a thing specifying Iraq. Iraq can’t be pulled into every possibility yeah, I agree Congress needs to get its shit together and constrain or repeal - the Iraq conflict that was created for is done.

Meanwhile, the response to the Houthi terrorism/piracy seems exactly what these regulations provide for

[–] thisisawayoflife 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

There were two AUMFs. One for "terrorism" and one for Iraq.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

And the "terrorism" one is actually textually targeted at the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. It's not even itself overly broad, it's just been twisted into a global war on terror because the executives want to do that and no one stopped them.

[–] thisisawayoflife 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

It's not even itself overly broad, it's just been twisted into a global war on terror because the executives want to do that and no one stopped them.

Yes, therein lies the problem. It was a stupid mistake to make and those that voted for it should have known better.

[–] Maggoty 1 points 10 months ago

They thought they would just repeal it later.

[–] Maggoty 3 points 10 months ago

Go read the War Powers Act. Then tell me what decade long conflict the US has fought in without an AUMF since it was passed.

Go on.

[–] JustZ 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

In any event, no authorization from Congress is needed for this sort of strike, which was essentially just shooting back at someone shooting at us.

[–] thisisawayoflife 1 points 10 months ago

I'm not in disagreement, that also wasn't what my initial reply was about.