9/11: Why Did RP VoteToGiveBush AuthOf MilForce RatherThanDemand a DeclarationOfWar?

[charrob]

9/11: Why Did RP VoteToGiveBush AuthOf MilForce RatherThanDemand a DeclarationOfWar?

i had this question on a post in the FP thread yesterday, but thought i'd put it under the General Politics.

RP seems principled in his votes, and i just wonder if anyone remembers why he voted to give Bush the authorization?

[Krugerrand]

Without looking it up ... my understanding was that he was okay with the hunt for bin Laden. A Declaration of War is against a nation. I don't think he was supporting a war against Afghanistan .... just supporting the military going after bin Laden.

[JoshLowry]

If you're talking about the Iraq Resolution, which should have been a declaration of war against a country, he voted no.

[charrob]

Without looking it up ... my understanding was that he was okay with the hunt for bin Laden. A Declaration of War is against a nation. I don't think he was supporting a war against Afghanistan .... just supporting the military going after bin Laden.

So a formal Declaration Of War by Congress would not have been allowed?

[Elwar]

To declare war against a group that is not a country makes the clear declaration of war more complex.

The proposed resolution is the only option we are offered, and doing nothing is unthinkable.

We must rally behind our President, pray for him to make wise decisions, and hope that this crisis is resolved a lot sooner than is now anticipated.

-Ron Paul

[jmdrake]

Everybody makes mistakes? Ron Paul early on said the felt Bush abused that power. I think Paul felt this was the closest he could get to a "letter of marque and reprisal" under the circumstances. That said, I'm glad he voted that way on a political level. It refutes the charge that Ron Paul is against the use of force in all circumstances.

[charrob]

If you're talking about the Iraq Resolution, which should have been a declaration of war against a country, he voted no.

no, i'm talking Afghanistan: here's the authorization that was passed at the time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Te rrorists

[jbrace]

I believe he voted for AUMF in Afghanistan, but no for using military force in Iraq.

[klamath]

RP tried to push for marque and reprisal against Bin Laden. It didn';t go anywhere.

[charrob]

Everybody makes mistakes? Ron Paul early on said the felt Bush abused that power. I think Paul felt this was the closest he could get to a "letter of marque and reprisal" under the circumstances. That said, I'm glad he voted that way on a political level. It refutes the charge that Ron Paul is against the use of force in all circumstances.

What exactly is a "letter of marque and reprisal" , and why couldn't that have been voted on?

[erowe1]

I'm still not sure if an authorization of force is not a declaration of war.

However, I know RP does think they're different, so your question still demands an answer from that perspective.

[JoshLowry]

The text of the AUMF does not reference Afghanistan.

It was voted on three days after 9/11 and was purposely vague.

I imagine he voted for that resolution because most of the text talks about America's right to defend itself at a moments notice.

[JoshLowry]

What exactly is a "letter of marque and reprisal" , and why couldn't that have been voted on?

http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2001/pr101101.htm

[low preference guy]

What exactly is a "letter of marque and reprisal" , and why couldn't that have been voted on?

Because Congressmen are idiots and don't care about the Constitution?

[charrob]

I'm still not sure if an authorization of force is not a declaration of war.

However, I know RP does think they're different, so your question still demands an answer from that perspective.


so exactly what powers did Bush get from the AUMF that he would not have gotten from 'the letters of marquis and reprisal' or a formal declaration of war?

[charrob]

http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2001/pr101101.htm

Thanks everyone for quick answers! Josh, this link really helps alot because it shows that RP was trying to follow the Constitution despite voting for the AUMF. -in some ways i wish he hadn't done that because people can say he was unprincipled in this vote and should have known the executive (Bush) would have abused it, but so much happened so fast at the time that, imho, he surely cannot be blamed.

[jbrace]

I'm glad you brought up this question because my friend and I were talking about the constitutionality of the wars a few days ago.

My friend stated:

There is no limit on Congress' power to tax. None. You've read the Constitution, right?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again... A congressional "declaration of war" is not something the United States Constitution requires for the invocation and execution of the President's war-powers as Commander in Chief.

Furthermore, if you look at the AUMF's, they are statutes... which makes them laws... which means the "militia" or National Guard CAN be called into the service of the united states to enforce them... or the Laws of the Union.


Jeremy, any idea how many times United States military personnel were involved in hostilities absent a "declaration of war" between 1798 and 1972? Ball park?

Thomas Jefferson... Instrumental in the framing of the Constitution? I think that's fair to say...

Did he get a "Declaration of War" to wage war against Tripoli? Or did he get authorization from Congress?



Someone else asked him:

Question: Where in the Congressional record did congress ever declair war on Afganistan?

His response: it didn't have to. That's the point.

I can tell you what's on page 25066 of the 1973 Congressional Record: a list of 199 military actions undertaken by US service men without a declaration of war beginning in the year 1798.

Again, I'm going to keep hammering the point about Jefferson and Tripoli... He waged war against "pirates" under the authority granted to him by Congress through a Feb. 6, 1802 statute which never did declare war even while it recognized the existence of a state of war.

[jmdrake]

no, i'm talking Afghanistan: here's the authorization that was passed at the time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Te rrorists

Wow! Just noticed that the only to not to vote "yea" in the senate were republicans! And one was Jesse Helms. :eek: The only "no" vote was a democrat in the house. There were 10 abstentions in the house. (The wiki page doesn't list them and I'm too lazy to look them up).

[Krugerrand]

What exactly is a "letter of marque and reprisal" , and why couldn't that have been voted on?

I know it's already been answered ... but this is a great article of LOMAR and how they can be applied to bin Laden:



The Dread Pirate Bin Laden

How thinking of terrorists as pirates can help win the war on terror.

By Douglas R. Burgess Jr.

INTERNATIONAL LAW LACKS A DEFINITION FOR TERRORISM as a crime. According to Secretary General Kofi Annan, this lack has hampered "the moral authority of the United Nations and its strength in condemning" the scourge.

But attempts to provide a definition have failed because of terrorists' strangely hybrid status in the law. They are neither ordinary criminals nor recognized state actors, so there is almost no international or domestic law dealing with them. This gives an out to countries that harbor terrorists and declare them "freedom fighters." It also lets the United States flout its own constitutional safeguards by holding suspects captive indefinitely at Guantánamo Bay. The overall situation is, in a word, anarchic.

read on here:
http://www.legalaffairs.org/printerfriendly.msp?id=851

[erowe1]

so exactly what powers did Bush get from the AUMF that he would not have gotten from 'the letters of marquis and reprisal' or a formal declaration of war?

As I said, I'm not sure that Bush got any more or any fewer powers from the AUMF than what he would have gotten from a declaration of war. In fact, of all the so-called declarations of war that Congress ever did pass for wars that are considered "declared wars" I don't really see what the essential difference is between those declarations and authorizations to use military force.