Does The President Have The Authority...To Be The President?

Nothing Is What It Seems Anymore

 

Are we all getting that 'déjà vu' feeling again? I caught this on MSNBC's Hardball the other night. CLICK HERE FOR THE VIDEO: (Courtesy David Edwards)

Chris Matthews: "Does the President of the United States have the authority to attack Iran?"

Sen. Joe Biden: "No, not without congressional support, authorization I should say."

Chris Matthews: "Is that a consensus in your body?"

Sen. Joe Biden: "No. I don't think it's a consensus among Republicans or Democrats at this time. There is a consensus that we don't want Iran to be a nuclear power..."

So now Chris Mathews is having a fit because he may wake up one morning and the President has launched a strike against Iran without telling him, and putting an emergency call to Congress, which cannot decide whether the President has the authority in the first place? Is there anything in this blasted Constitution which is a fact, or is everything debatable. It seems ludicrous to me that questions like these, supposedly do not have a clear answer. Are we now seriously going to be debating whether the President has authority to strike Iran without alerting the entire world to that fact? Aren't we confusing declaration of war, which requires Congressional authorization. In any event, who the hell thinks that we want to declare war on Iran anyway, other than America's useful idiots, who consider all moves by the Administration as either acts of war or an attack on their personal liberty.

Have we really gone so far that we cannot even reach consensus on what precisely needs to have consensus?

Meanwhile Iran is not confused, and they do not seem to have the communication problems we are having. They know what they want:

Iran's Revolutionary Guards are making preparations for a massive assault on U.S. naval forces and international shipping in the Persian Gulf, according to a former Iranian intelligence officer who defected to the West in 2001.

The plans, which include the use of bottom-tethered mines potentially capable of destroying U.S. aircraft carriers, were designed to counter a U.S. land invasion and to close the Strait of Hormuz, the defector said in a phone interview from his home in Europe.

They would also be triggered if the United States or Israel launched a pre-emptive strike on Iran to knock out nuclear and missile facilities.

"The plan is to stop trade," the source said.

Between 15 and 16.5 million barrels of oil transit the Strait of Hormuz each day, roughly 20 percent of the world's daily oil production, according to the U.S. government's Energy Information Administration.[...]

The NDAJA document was just one part of a larger strike plan to be coordinated by a single operational headquarters that would integrate Revolutionary Guards missile units, strike aircraft, surface and underwater naval vessels, Chinese-supplied C-801 and C-802 anti-shipping missiles, mines, coastal artillery, as well as chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

The overall plans are being coordinated by the intelligence office of the Ministry of Defense, known as HFADA.

Revolutionary Guards missile units have identified "more than 100 targets, including Saudi oil production and oil export centers," the defector said. "They have more than 45 to 50 Shahab-3 and Shahab-4 missiles ready for shooting" against those targets and against Israel, he added.

The defector, Hamid Reza Zakeri, warned the CIA in July 2001 that Iran was preparing a massive attack on America using Arab terrorists flying airplanes, which he said was planned for Sept. 11, 2001. The CIA dismissed his claims and called him a fabricator.

The source also identified a previously unknown nuclear weapons site last year to this writer, which was independently confirmed by three separate intelligence agencies.

We will no doubt carry on with our 'stop or I'll say stop again' appeasement policy, dragging our feet of clay, until our choices are taken away, or until we can stop squabbling over whether the President needs authority or not to strike Iran, or to declassify the classified, or to listen to Aunt Mary chat to her friend Rashid al-Salami before he martyrs himself:

Iran has formed battalions of suicide bombers to strike at British and American targets if the nation’s nuclear sites are attacked. According to Iranian officials, 40,000 trained suicide bombers are ready for action.

The main force, named the Special Unit of Martyr Seekers in the Revolutionary Guards, was first seen last month when members marched in a military parade, dressed in olive-green uniforms with explosive packs around their waists and detonators held high.

Dr Hassan Abbasi, head of the Centre for Doctrinal Strategic Studies in the Revolutionary Guards, said in a speech that 29 western targets had been identified: “We are ready to attack American and British sensitive points if they attack Iran’s nuclear facilities.” He added that some of them were “quite close” to the Iranian border in Iraq.

In a tape recording heard by The Sunday Times, Abbasi warned the would-be martyrs to “pay close attention to wily England” and vowed that “Britain’s demise is on our agenda”.

At a recruiting station in Tehran recently, volunteers for the force had to show their birth certificates, give proof of their address and tick a box stating whether they would prefer to attack American targets in Iraq or Israeli targets.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned last Friday that Israel was heading towards “annihilation”. He was speaking at a Tehran conference on Palestinian rights aimed at promoting Iran as a new Middle Eastern superpower.

According to western intelligence documents leaked to The Sunday Times, the Revolutionary Guards are in charge of a secret nuclear weapons program designed to evade the scrutiny of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

One of the leaked reports, dating from February this year, confirms that President George W Bush is preparing to strike Iran. “If the problem is not resolved in some way, he intends to act before leaving office because it would be ‘unfair’ to leave the task of destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities to a new president,” the document says.

Alireza Jafarzadeh, a former spokesman for National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), an opposition group, said a secret, parallel military program was under way. According to sources inside Iran, the Revolutionary Guards were constructing underground sites that could be activated if Iran’s known nuclear facilities were destroyed.

The NCRI is the political wing of the Mujaheddin-e-Khalq, which is deemed a terrorist organization in Britain and America. However, much of its information is considered to be “absolutely credible” by western intelligence sources after Jafarzadeh revealed the existence of the Natanz plant in 2002.

Within the past year, 14 large and several smaller projects have been created, according to Jafarzadeh. Several are designed to be nuclear factories; others are for the storage of weapons, he claimed.

Don't miss reading the excellent symposium over @ The Claremont Institute on "How To Eliminate Iran's Nuclear Weapons".The contributors include Victor Davis Hanson, former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy, and Mark Helprin. When you are done read Edward Luttwak's "Three reasons not to bomb Iran -- yet." (Thank you to my friend Scott Johnson)

Comments

[MarcH]

"Does The President Have The Authority...To Be The President?"

Of course not. Only the MSM, academics and judges have the right to be President.

[GrenfellHunt]

The President unquestionably has the Constitutional authority to bomb Iran.

During the Constitutional Convention, the Congress was originally granted the power to "make" war. This was changed to "declare" war on the grounds that in times of crisis a president would do whatever was necessary to defend the country, and it was unwise for the Constitution to try to bind his hands in advance.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 gives the president power to go to war for up to 90 days in the absence of an express Congressional declaration of war.

http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

[Crusader.NoRegrets.]

I fear the Dems would likely obfuscate on the issue of Declaration of War against non-state entities. You can't currently declare war against terrorism, because it goes against your current consitution. Also you can't declare war on individuals either. What the terrorists have discovered is a method of waging war that simply gets around your constitution. Iran will exploit this to the full (it already is) and there isn't a thing you can do about it, because your congress has yet to realise that no war is ever like the previous ones, and for those that have realised it, the constitution has tied their hands.

I never thought I'd say this but: "Damn the constitution". America, you're fighting a new kind of war. Get dirty and win, or be prepared to lose BIG. This war has no rear areas. There is nowhere for your helicopters to run to.

[tankerboy]

We are in our current poor situation vis-a-vis the world and the War on Terror because we are not at war. If President Bush had asked for a declaration of war against international Islamic based terrorism we wouldn't have all these questions about Gitmo, detentions, etc. We would be at war and a different set of international laws and treaties would apply. See the Laws of Land Warfare as a reference. Destroying a soveriegn government, even one as loathsome as Saddam's, is an act of war. The President has committed the US for a large expenditure of blood and treasure. Now that people realize we are in for a "long slog" the Democrats can start to weasel out of supporting the war because it is "Bush's war". Bombing Iran is an act of war any way you look at it. One of the commenters mentions that Iran and the terrorists are already at war. I agree. They have been and our hands are tied behind our back because we are not. Bombing Iran will result in increased terrorism around the world (assymetric threat) targeted at Americans and their interests. Our representatives need to vote on this.

So what is my solution to Iran? Push for sanctions through the UN and if that fails then pass legislation that says we will not trade with anyone that trades with Iran. That should get China's attention real quick when their cargo doesn't get off-loaded at our ports. Russia is hopeless and base. They are slitting their own throats in dealing with various terrorist regimes. It will blow back on them at some point. We also need to let Iran know that with nuclear energy/weapons come the responsibility to ensure that they are not used for terrorism. I would publically present their representative in the UN our nuclear target list in the event a nuclear or "dirty" weapon is used in Israel, W. Europe, the Western Hemisphere or on any of our signatory allies. This would put the monkey on their back. This promise would work as long as Bush is in office. It may not work with other adminstrations down the road.

[Assistant Village Idiot]

I have sympathy with both KnightErrant and Crusader's views. Presidents have stretched and bent their war powers for generations. Bush is not a particularly egregious offender, but what presidents now consider standard does not square well with the Constitution. I would prefer a return to a stricter interpretation, but frankly, I don't see that either party is going to take us there.

The best we can realistically hope for at this point is to keep reminding politicians of their previous statements. If they have reasons for a change of heart, lay 'em out. Any president would be wise to get as much buy-in from the opposition party as he can. I don't know how possible this is in our current division.

It's another reason for soritition, the choosing of at least one house of congress by lot from among the eligible voters between 25 and 70 in each district. It will never happen, of course, but keeping in mind why that would be superior is instructive in how we approach our Elected Servants now.

[KnightErrant]

If you agree with Mr. Bumble (Oliver Twist, Charles Dickens) that "The law is an ass" (or, in this case, the Constitution is an ass), then it doesn't matter. But, that means when President Bush put his hand on a Bible and took the oath of office, his oath was meaningless. The President swore to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution." Not the country, the Constitution. Our Founding Fathers believed that protecting the Constitution was the only way to preserve the country.

[cracker-crusader]

Even the Nazis allowed the Soviet Ambassador to leave on the eve of Barbarossa...

I'm afraid a cavalier attitude to US embassies helps to obviate most of the discussion on formal declarations of war, doesn't it? What if "doing it legal" meant you lose the war? Or at least costs US lives. I think the US is already at war with Iran, at least the Iranians seem to think so, and now they've got a great loophole in which to attack US targets without fear of a US victory.

[KnightErrant]

Crusader.NoRegrets: If we are "already at war" then there should be no problem following the law and getting official authorization for war from Congress. Democracy, the Constitution, and basic human propriety require the consultation and consent of the governed before engaging in war in their name and with their blood.

You confused me as well. Where and when has Iran "invaded, occupied and annexed US territory?" If there has been an invasion of US territory, I've kinda missed it. Or, are you still fuming about the embassy takeover a quarter century ago?

I'm not saying Iran is not a dangerous, belligerent state. I am not saying war may not be eventually necessary. I am saying to do it right, do it legal. To answer Alexandra question (slightly rephrased), the President does not have the authority to be king.

[Crusader.NoRegrets.]

KnightErrant: how about sponsoring proxies to infiltrate sovereign states and kill their unarmed citizens? Invading, occupying and annexing US territory? Repeatedly threatening a sovereign people with genocide? Are those Acts of War? If they aren't, then what's the big deal about dropping bombs and missiles? If they are, the US is already at war, and so no declaration of war is needed, is it? Help out, I'm confused.

Michael van der Galien: what approach would you advocate to dealing with Iran? The things you listed seem to suggest annihilation of Iran, or our surrender are the only two options we have.

[KnightErrant]

If dropping hundreds of bombs and missiles on a country is not an act of war, what is? The Constitution is quite clear, the representatives of the people, Congress, are solely responsible for deciding whether or not we enter into war. The President, the Command-In-Chief, is solely responsible for the execution of that war.

As President Bush said several years ago, "if this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier." But, it is not a dictatorship. It is a democracy and the rules of our democracy - Congress first in deciding for war - must be observed.

[Michael van der Galien]

This is getting more serious every day. Everybody should be aware that attack Iran will prove different than attacking Iraq. Iraq was weak when the allied forces decided to attack. Iran is not weak at all. Instead I would venture to say that Iran is the most powerful Arab nation (not talking about Israel) in the Middle-East right now.

If Iran chooses to use force when the US / allied forces attack, the war will be larger than most will anticipate. Just some differences between Iran and Iraq:
- Iran has a very strong and large army
- Iran will not only use soldiers, but terrorists as well

Of course the list goes on and on.

There is also a difference between the regimes an sich. Saddam was not motivated by religion of any kind; the Iranian regime however, is motivated by a religion. Religious extremists like Ahmadinejad must be dealt with in a completely different manner; they fight differently. In the end they do not mind whether every single one of them will be destroyed or not, as long as they destroy their enemy as well. The Saddam regime was fighting to stay alive, so to speak, the Iranian regime will not fight to stay alive, but to destroy the, for instance, US.

The approach is completely different.

[The FLY]

According to one report, although Tony Blair says that nuclear fuel happy Iran "certainly does sponsor terrorism, there's no doubt about that at all", he has already made the decision to sit this one out. Go figure.