Jeff Huber’s Column Top 10 War-Powers Myths at the ePluribus Media Journal outlines the ten biggest myths the Bush Administration propagates about the legality of the President’s so called War Powers.
Our personal favorite is Number 4, but that may be because it has to do with Cheney, who is much in the press these days.
4. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 unconstitutionally limits the president’s ability to wage war.
This is one of Vice President Cheney’s favorite mantras, and like so much of what Dick Cheney says, it’s almost entirely delusional. A better argument says that the resolution is unconstitutional because it gives a president too much power.
In a nutshell the resolution limits to a maximum of 90 days the time in which a president may commit forces to combat without specific statutory authorization or a declaration of war from Congress.
The Constitution itself grants the president no authorities whatsoever to send troops into combat without Congressional approval.
Which of these Myths is your favorite?
- The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) does not apply in wartime.
- The president has sole constitutional authority to conduct foreign policy.
- The Bill of Rights becomes void in time of war.
- The War Powers Resolution of 1973 unconstitutionally limits the president’s ability to wage war.
- In the case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court upheld the president’s right to spy on Americans without court orders.
- The president has the authority to ignore international treaties, such as the Geneva Convention and the United Nations Convention on Torture, because they are not part of United States law.
- It is the job of the attorney general and other key administration attorneys to determine the scope of the president’s constitutional authorities.
- “In the exercise of his plenary power to use military force, the president’s decisions are for him alone and are unreviewable.”
- The Constitution expands the president’s authorities as commander in chief in wartime.
- As vice president, Dick Cheney is second-in-command of the military and has authority to direct the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the conduct of the War on Terror.
Other ePluribus Media Contributors and Fact Checkers: Sue in KY, Stoy, Cho, Standingup, Vivian, JeninRI, DEFuning
Read Jeff’s column to see how he debunks all ten myths. And read his earlier piece on the war powers in The Ides of December
If you like what ePMedia’s been doing with research, reviews and interviews, please consider donating to help with our efforts.
I know that we got hit on September 11 and I know they have this War on Terror thing and that is the War they are talking about……but then I take a big look at the rest of the world and all of these places on the globe that have been dealt terrorist attacks and who have hunted down terrorists and broken up terrorists cells and we are the only ones calling it a War. I guess calling it a War even though we don’t have any defined military forces we are fighting against or any defined organized regime or government we are fighting against opens “legal doors” for debate, but does this really constitute what could be defined as a WAR? Who else on the globe has been hit by terrorist and declared War on shadows and creaky stairs?
Well, there’s a significant body of thought that supports your argument.
Another view is that we’re fighting a fourth world war, one that reminds me a lot of the Peloponnesian War (sorry, I know I spelled that wrong) that turned hot and cold and back again many times over several decades, and ended shortly before 400B.C.
In the end, that war sapped Athens of its power, and I fear this one will do the same thing to America.
apparently, tracy, the UN agrees with you:
In this just-released report on Gitmo.
🙂
I wonder if the notoriously Constitution respectin’ Harry Whittington tried to express similar views to his huntin’ buddy at any time.
I’ll take one of #7 please. It’s efficient and covers most of the rest of them.
This line you reference in the news story is part of the “spin” emanating from the Pentagon. The 5 people doing the investigation for the UN were invited to guantanamo, but were told they’d have no access to any of the prisoners there at all. Meaning of course that there’d be no reason for them to go to Guantanamo if they couldn’t interview people on the receiving end of US military hospitality there.
This line; “We invited them but they wouldn’t come” will undoubtedly be the main meme around which the Pentagon propaganda machine trys to bash the UN for bias and irresponsible behavior.
Yeah, yeah. They always come up with some bullshit line that the American people swallow hook line and sinker, but the international community isn’t buying it!
I was just posting the first lines of the story, not trying to make any point with that second blockquote.
No! I know you weren’t quoting that line by way of supporting it’s intent in casting aspersions on the UN. I only highlighted it specifically to reveal the embedded propaganda line in the news story.
I wasn’t at all surprised when BushCo framed this as a war, though I was terribly disappointed. I wasn’t surprised because it was very useful to them politically. I was disappointed because it was also very useful to Osama bin Laden. (Few people remember that it was bin Laden who first framed it at a war.)
If BushCo had taken the high road (yeah, as if) and treated this as they should have, as the appalling crime it was, and actually pursued the criminals, I have no doubt that things would have turned out much better in many ways for everybody. Well, except for bin Laden and BushCo …
Thanks to everyone for dropping by and commenting. I guess that, at the end of the day, whether or not you call this a “war” or doesn’t alter the reality that whatever you want to call what we’re doing isn’t going well and is costing us more than it’s gaining us.
How about the one where we can stick people in jail forever without letting them have due process?