The unofficial online home for fans of the Western Michigan University Broncos. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(01-13-2024 08:08 AM)Brownandgoldlaker Wrote:  From Paragraph Two of the War Powers Act:

"States that the Act is not intended to encroach upon the recognized powers of the President, as Commander in Chief, to conduct hostilities authorized by the Congress, to respond to attacks or the imminent threat of attacks upon the United States, including its territories and possessions, to respond to attacks or the imminent threat of attacks against the Armed Forces of the United States, and under proper circumstances, to rescue endangered citizens of the United States located in foreign countries."

As compared to (below)

Section 1541© of the War Powers Resolution states clearly:

"The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

Of the three cited authorities, not one indicates a presidential power to take unilateral (without Congress's approval) offensive military action.

The first two authorities allow the president to take offensive military action but only with Congress's express approval (Article I of the Constitution grants Congress the exclusive power to declare war). The third authority allows the president to take defensive military action without Congress's approval in the event of a specific type of national emergency, a sudden unforeseen attack on the United States (happening too quickly for Congress to meet) necessitating immediate action to protect Americans.

It's for this last situation (or for situations in which the president introduces forces into hostilities unlawfully) that the War Powers Resolution provides for the oft-mentioned 48-hour report to Congress (§ 1543) and 60-day (up to 90-day) timeline (§ 1544). If there's an attack in progress on the United States (i.e., currently happening), we expect the president to respond swiftly to neutralize the attack and protect Americans—and then we will hold the president to account.

The Framers of the Constitution agreed at the debates in the federal convention of 1787 that the president should have the "power to repel sudden attacks" but not the power to otherwise introduce forces into hostilities without congressional approval.

The War Powers Resolution does not confer any new authority on the president to take offensive military action without congressional approval—nor could it under our Constitution. It instead checks the president when, as the Framers contemplated, the president introduces our Armed Forces into hostilities to repel a sudden attack.

________

From your perspective, given what you shared above, can you explain why you think current U.S. military actions in Yemen are constitutionally appropriate?

(01-13-2024 09:21 AM)ess Wrote:  

(01-13-2024 08:08 AM)Brownandgoldlaker Wrote:  From Paragraph Two of the War Powers Act:

"States that the Act is not intended to encroach upon the recognized powers of the President, as Commander in Chief, to conduct hostilities authorized by the Congress, to respond to attacks or the imminent threat of attacks upon the United States, including its territories and possessions, to respond to attacks or the imminent threat of attacks against the Armed Forces of the United States, and under proper circumstances, to rescue endangered citizens of the United States located in foreign countries."

As compared to (below)

Section 1541© of the War Powers Resolution states clearly:

"The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

Of the three cited authorities, not one indicates a presidential power to take unilateral (without Congress's approval) offensive military action.

The first two authorities allow the president to take offensive military action but only with Congress's express approval (Article I of the Constitution grants Congress the exclusive power to declare war). The third authority allows the president to take defensive military action without Congress's approval in the event of a specific type of national emergency, a sudden unforeseen attack on the United States (happening too quickly for Congress to meet) necessitating immediate action to protect Americans.

It's for this last situation (or for situations in which the president introduces forces into hostilities unlawfully) that the War Powers Resolution provides for the oft-mentioned 48-hour report to Congress (§ 1543) and 60-day (up to 90-day) timeline (§ 1544). If there's an attack in progress on the United States (i.e., currently happening), we expect the president to respond swiftly to neutralize the attack and protect Americans—and then we will hold the president to account.

The Framers of the Constitution agreed at the debates in the federal convention of 1787 that the president should have the "power to repel sudden attacks" but not the power to otherwise introduce forces into hostilities without congressional approval.

The War Powers Resolution does not confer any new authority on the president to take offensive military action without congressional approval—nor could it under our Constitution. It instead checks the president when, as the Framers contemplated, the president introduces our Armed Forces into hostilities to repel a sudden attack.

________

From your perspective, given what you shared above, can you explain why you think current U.S. military actions in Yemen are constitutionally appropriate?

The Yemen's Houthis have attacked our military in the Middle East, correct? So according to Section 1541© of the War Powers Resolution states clearly:

"The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

(01-13-2024 10:52 AM)Brownandgoldlaker Wrote:  The Yemen's Houthis have attacked our military in the Middle East, correct? So according to Section 1541© of the War Powers Resolution states clearly:

"The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

United States Department of Defense

U.S. and partners' forces conducted defensive strikes against military targets in Houthi-controlled parts of Yemen yesterday following a series of attacks launched by the armed rebel group against commercial ships operating in the Red Sea.

"This action is intended to disrupt and degrade the Houthis' capabilities to endanger mariners and threaten global trade in one of world's most critical waterways," Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III said in a statement following the strikes. "Today's coalition action sends a clear message to the Houthis that they will bear further costs if they do not end their illegal attacks."

In the statement, the nations warned that the Houthis "will bear the responsibility of the consequences should they continue to threaten lives, the global economy and [the] free flow of commerce in the region's critical waterways."

Reuters

WASHINGTON/ADEN, Yemen, Jan 12 (Reuters) - U.S. and British warplanes, ships and submarines launched dozens of air strikes across Yemen against Houthi forces in retaliation for months of attacks on Red Sea shipping that the Iran-backed fighters cast as a response to the war in Gaza.

ABC news

The Houthi attacks on ships in the Red Sea following Hamas' Oct. 7 attack on Israel have riled commercial shipping and threatened to dangerously escalate heightened tensions in the Middle East.

BBC

The US and UK have carried out air strikes on Houthi targets in Yemen with the aim of deterring attacks on ships passing through the Red Sea.

ABC again

Not even Joe Biden ^^^ is making the claim that you're making.

"Others, including progressive Democrats and hard-line Republicans, are slamming Biden for acting alone without approval from Congress."

"This is an unacceptable violation of the Constitution," Rep. Pramila Jayapal, the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, wrote in a social media post. "Article 1 requires that military action be authorized by Congress."

_______

You may be right.

But

I looked up 8-10 articles on the reason for US attacking the Houthi's

"a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces....."

This ^^^ was not mentioned as a justification (or reason) in a single article.

(01-13-2024 02:36 PM)ess Wrote:  

(01-13-2024 10:52 AM)Brownandgoldlaker Wrote:  The Yemen's Houthis have attacked our military in the Middle East, correct? So according to Section 1541© of the War Powers Resolution states clearly:

"The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

United States Department of Defense

U.S. and partners' forces conducted defensive strikes against military targets in Houthi-controlled parts of Yemen yesterday following a series of attacks launched by the armed rebel group against commercial ships operating in the Red Sea.

"This action is intended to disrupt and degrade the Houthis' capabilities to endanger mariners and threaten global trade in one of world's most critical waterways," Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III said in a statement following the strikes. "Today's coalition action sends a clear message to the Houthis that they will bear further costs if they do not end their illegal attacks."

In the statement, the nations warned that the Houthis "will bear the responsibility of the consequences should they continue to threaten lives, the global economy and [the] free flow of commerce in the region's critical waterways."

Reuters

WASHINGTON/ADEN, Yemen, Jan 12 (Reuters) - U.S. and British warplanes, ships and submarines launched dozens of air strikes across Yemen against Houthi forces in retaliation for months of attacks on Red Sea shipping that the Iran-backed fighters cast as a response to the war in Gaza.

ABC news

The Houthi attacks on ships in the Red Sea following Hamas' Oct. 7 attack on Israel have riled commercial shipping and threatened to dangerously escalate heightened tensions in the Middle East.

BBC

The US and UK have carried out air strikes on Houthi targets in Yemen with the aim of deterring attacks on ships passing through the Red Sea.

ABC again

Not even Joe Biden ^^^ is making the claim that you're making.

"Others, including progressive Democrats and hard-line Republicans, are slamming Biden for acting alone without approval from Congress."

"This is an unacceptable violation of the Constitution," Rep. Pramila Jayapal, the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, wrote in a social media post. "Article 1 requires that military action be authorized by Congress."

_______

You may be right.

But

I looked up 8-10 articles on the reason for US attacking the Houthi's

"a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces....."

This ^^^ was not mentioned as a justification (or reason) in a single article.

This WPR was submitted to congress by Biden on Dec. 27, 2023 regarding the Dec 25, 2023 strikes in Iraq:

COMMUNICATION from THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
NOTIFICATION OF TARGETED MILITARY STRIKES AGAINST FACILITIES IN IRAQ AND SYRIA USED BY IRGC AND IRGC-AFFILIATED GROUPS

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC...hdoc93.htm

"I directed the strikes in order to protect and
defend our personnel who are in Iraq conducting military
operations pursuant to the 2001 Authorization for Use of
Military Force. The strikes were intended to degrade and
disrupt the ongoing series of attacks against the United States
and our partners, and to deter Iran and Iran-backed militia
groups from conducting or supporting further attacks on United
States personnel and facilities."

The heart of the WPR was intended to be its termination provisions, which require the President to cease the use of armed forces within 60 days (extendable to 90 in some circumstances) of a “hostilities” report unless Congress has authorized their continued engagement. So the most recent strike in Yemen is probably a continuation of the Dec. 27, 2023 WPR as it's with that 60 day window. Then again, we still are with in that 48 hr. rule, so maybe Biden will be submitting a new WPR? IDK

Worth noting, Presidents have submitted 132 reports to Congress as a result of the War Powers Resolution. Of these, President Ford submitted 4, President Carter 1, President Reagan 14, President George H.W. Bush 7, President Clinton 60, President George W. Bush 39, and President Barack Obama 11. I have not found anything yet regarding Trump, but will keep looking.

And regarding Bidens 2020 speech regarding Trumps WPA, it's kind of funny to see Biden was one of the co-authors who sponsored the 1993 War Powers Act. If you sit down in read it, you can see how Trump justified using the WPA to kill Soleimani. Don't you think Biden should have been able to figure this out or is he just just spinning his interpretation to fit his political narrative?

(01-13-2024 07:28 PM)Brownandgoldlaker Wrote:  

(01-13-2024 02:36 PM)ess Wrote:  

(01-13-2024 10:52 AM)Brownandgoldlaker Wrote:  The Yemen's Houthis have attacked our military in the Middle East, correct? So according to Section 1541© of the War Powers Resolution states clearly:

"The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

United States Department of Defense

U.S. and partners' forces conducted defensive strikes against military targets in Houthi-controlled parts of Yemen yesterday following a series of attacks launched by the armed rebel group against commercial ships operating in the Red Sea.

"This action is intended to disrupt and degrade the Houthis' capabilities to endanger mariners and threaten global trade in one of world's most critical waterways," Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III said in a statement following the strikes. "Today's coalition action sends a clear message to the Houthis that they will bear further costs if they do not end their illegal attacks."

In the statement, the nations warned that the Houthis "will bear the responsibility of the consequences should they continue to threaten lives, the global economy and [the] free flow of commerce in the region's critical waterways."

Reuters

WASHINGTON/ADEN, Yemen, Jan 12 (Reuters) - U.S. and British warplanes, ships and submarines launched dozens of air strikes across Yemen against Houthi forces in retaliation for months of attacks on Red Sea shipping that the Iran-backed fighters cast as a response to the war in Gaza.

ABC news

The Houthi attacks on ships in the Red Sea following Hamas' Oct. 7 attack on Israel have riled commercial shipping and threatened to dangerously escalate heightened tensions in the Middle East.

BBC

The US and UK have carried out air strikes on Houthi targets in Yemen with the aim of deterring attacks on ships passing through the Red Sea.

ABC again

Not even Joe Biden ^^^ is making the claim that you're making.

"Others, including progressive Democrats and hard-line Republicans, are slamming Biden for acting alone without approval from Congress."

"This is an unacceptable violation of the Constitution," Rep. Pramila Jayapal, the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, wrote in a social media post. "Article 1 requires that military action be authorized by Congress."

_______

You may be right.

But

I looked up 8-10 articles on the reason for US attacking the Houthi's

"a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces....."

This ^^^ was not mentioned as a justification (or reason) in a single article.

This WPR was submitted to congress by Biden on Dec. 27, 2023 regarding the Dec 25, 2023 strikes in Iraq:

COMMUNICATION from THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
NOTIFICATION OF TARGETED MILITARY STRIKES AGAINST FACILITIES IN IRAQ AND SYRIA USED BY IRGC AND IRGC-AFFILIATED GROUPS

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC...hdoc93.htm

"I directed the strikes in order to protect and
defend our personnel who are in Iraq conducting military
operations pursuant to the 2001 Authorization for Use of
Military Force. The strikes were intended to degrade and
disrupt the ongoing series of attacks against the United States
and our partners, and to deter Iran and Iran-backed militia
groups from conducting or supporting further attacks on United
States personnel and facilities."

The heart of the WPR was intended to be its termination provisions, which require the President to cease the use of armed forces within 60 days (extendable to 90 in some circumstances) of a “hostilities” report unless Congress has authorized their continued engagement. So the most recent strike in Yemen is probably a continuation of the Dec. 27, 2023 WPR as it's with that 60 day window. Then again, we still are with in that 48 hr. rule, so maybe Biden will be submitting a new WPR? IDK

Worth noting, Presidents have submitted 132 reports to Congress as a result of the War Powers Resolution. Of these, President Ford submitted 4, President Carter 1, President Reagan 14, President George H.W. Bush 7, President Clinton 60, President George W. Bush 39, and President Barack Obama 11. I have not found anything yet regarding Trump, but will keep looking.

And regarding Bidens 2020 speech regarding Trumps WPA, it's kind of funny to see Biden was one of the co-authors who sponsored the 1993 War Powers Act. If you sit down in read it, you can see how Trump justified using the WPA to kill Soleimani. Don't you think Biden should have been able to figure this out or is he just just spinning his interpretation to fit his political narrative?

Thanks for posting.

IMHO

1. Attacks on military personnel in Iraq (the wisdom of having our military in Iraq at this time is open for discussion) does not justify bombings in Yemen.

2. I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but I've yet to see claims of US military personnel coming under attack in Yemen.

3. It isn't clear to me (and obviously many others - on both sides of the political spectrum) that your interpretation of The WPA is correct. You've highlighted "or it's armed forces" as the cornerstone of your position. While seemingly ignoring the verbiage earlier in that same sentence "a national emergency".

From my perspective, that would mean 1 of 2 things.

A. You believe it is constitutionally sound for any sitting US president to unilaterally initiate US military aggression/attacks whenever the "armed forces" (a term undefined in the statement) come under attack.

or

B. Assuming the US military was attacked (in some capacity) in Yemen, you would classify that as "a national emergency".

Is that a fair interpretation of your position?

(01-14-2024 09:15 AM)ess Wrote:  

(01-13-2024 07:28 PM)Brownandgoldlaker Wrote:  

(01-13-2024 02:36 PM)ess Wrote:  

(01-13-2024 10:52 AM)Brownandgoldlaker Wrote:  The Yemen's Houthis have attacked our military in the Middle East, correct? So according to Section 1541© of the War Powers Resolution states clearly:

"The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

United States Department of Defense

U.S. and partners' forces conducted defensive strikes against military targets in Houthi-controlled parts of Yemen yesterday following a series of attacks launched by the armed rebel group against commercial ships operating in the Red Sea.

"This action is intended to disrupt and degrade the Houthis' capabilities to endanger mariners and threaten global trade in one of world's most critical waterways," Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III said in a statement following the strikes. "Today's coalition action sends a clear message to the Houthis that they will bear further costs if they do not end their illegal attacks."

In the statement, the nations warned that the Houthis "will bear the responsibility of the consequences should they continue to threaten lives, the global economy and [the] free flow of commerce in the region's critical waterways."

Reuters

WASHINGTON/ADEN, Yemen, Jan 12 (Reuters) - U.S. and British warplanes, ships and submarines launched dozens of air strikes across Yemen against Houthi forces in retaliation for months of attacks on Red Sea shipping that the Iran-backed fighters cast as a response to the war in Gaza.

ABC news

The Houthi attacks on ships in the Red Sea following Hamas' Oct. 7 attack on Israel have riled commercial shipping and threatened to dangerously escalate heightened tensions in the Middle East.

BBC

The US and UK have carried out air strikes on Houthi targets in Yemen with the aim of deterring attacks on ships passing through the Red Sea.

ABC again

Not even Joe Biden ^^^ is making the claim that you're making.

"Others, including progressive Democrats and hard-line Republicans, are slamming Biden for acting alone without approval from Congress."

"This is an unacceptable violation of the Constitution," Rep. Pramila Jayapal, the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, wrote in a social media post. "Article 1 requires that military action be authorized by Congress."

_______

You may be right.

But

I looked up 8-10 articles on the reason for US attacking the Houthi's

"a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces....."

This ^^^ was not mentioned as a justification (or reason) in a single article.

This WPR was submitted to congress by Biden on Dec. 27, 2023 regarding the Dec 25, 2023 strikes in Iraq:

COMMUNICATION from THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
NOTIFICATION OF TARGETED MILITARY STRIKES AGAINST FACILITIES IN IRAQ AND SYRIA USED BY IRGC AND IRGC-AFFILIATED GROUPS

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC...hdoc93.htm

"I directed the strikes in order to protect and
defend our personnel who are in Iraq conducting military
operations pursuant to the 2001 Authorization for Use of
Military Force. The strikes were intended to degrade and
disrupt the ongoing series of attacks against the United States
and our partners, and to deter Iran and Iran-backed militia
groups from conducting or supporting further attacks on United
States personnel and facilities."

The heart of the WPR was intended to be its termination provisions, which require the President to cease the use of armed forces within 60 days (extendable to 90 in some circumstances) of a “hostilities” report unless Congress has authorized their continued engagement. So the most recent strike in Yemen is probably a continuation of the Dec. 27, 2023 WPR as it's with that 60 day window. Then again, we still are with in that 48 hr. rule, so maybe Biden will be submitting a new WPR? IDK

Worth noting, Presidents have submitted 132 reports to Congress as a result of the War Powers Resolution. Of these, President Ford submitted 4, President Carter 1, President Reagan 14, President George H.W. Bush 7, President Clinton 60, President George W. Bush 39, and President Barack Obama 11. I have not found anything yet regarding Trump, but will keep looking.

And regarding Bidens 2020 speech regarding Trumps WPA, it's kind of funny to see Biden was one of the co-authors who sponsored the 1993 War Powers Act. If you sit down in read it, you can see how Trump justified using the WPA to kill Soleimani. Don't you think Biden should have been able to figure this out or is he just just spinning his interpretation to fit his political narrative?

Thanks for posting.

IMHO

1. Attacks on military personnel in Iraq (the wisdom of having our military in Iraq at this time is open for discussion) does not justify bombings in Yemen.

2. I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but I've yet to see claims of US military personnel coming under attack in Yemen.

3. It isn't clear to me (and obviously many others - on both sides of the political spectrum) that your interpretation of The WPA is correct. You've highlighted "or it's armed forces" as the cornerstone of your position. While seemingly ignoring the verbiage earlier in that same sentence "a national emergency".

From my perspective, that would mean 1 of 2 things.

A. You believe it is constitutionally sound for any sitting US president to unilaterally initiate US military aggression/attacks whenever the "armed forces" (a term undefined in the statement) come under attack.

or

B. Assuming the US military was attacked (in some capacity) in Yemen, you would classify that as "a national emergency".

Is that a fair interpretation of your position?

To clarify, not my position, just my interpretation of current situation/issue.

1) Fair point about logic of having military personnel in Iraq, which is a separate discussion as it relates to our foreign policy and national security.

2) I think (IDK) the WPR submitted by Biden is pretty broad, and the way they are justifying the strikes in Yemen vs is under this reference "and Iran-backed militia groups".

Navy ships have shot down Houthi drones from Yemen heading toward them because they were deemed “a threat.” But no one really knows for sure until congress reviews the intelligence assessments who was the target. But these US Navy Ships have only minutes to decide if the drones are intended for them or some other ship passing through.

3) Would you consider an attack on our military personal a "National Emergency"? I'm pretty sure the US Military personal under attack, along with their families would say it is and expect our Military to protect them.

I can see why/how the current administration is using the WPA to conduct these strikes. But this is now for congress to decide. They need to debate the WPR and possible pass a resolution. President can veto it, but congress can over ride a President Veto. Congress also has the power of the purse, can freeze all military spending. They can also impeach and remove the President if he does not adopt congress resolution. Bottom line, Congress has the final say.

Regarding the Presidents use of the WPA, if was create to put restrictions on what a President can do without congress approval, at the same time, congress still wanted the President and our military to react quickly under certain threats.

Quote: I'm pretty sure the US Military personal under attack, along with their families would say it is and expect our Military to protect them.

Yes

Of course families of military personal would want/expect protection, and maybe (also) revenge. I would too.

Other families (military and perhaps otherwise), who are attacked and/or lose loved ones because of "blowback" (terrorist attacks that would not have otherwise occurred, new military engagements that would not have otherwise occurred, etc) will have expectations , "wants", and feelings too.

These considerations ^^^ are important for those families, and for military strategic operations, but IMHO, aren't relevant with respect to "constitutionally".

For those who believe (multiple) presidents have unilaterally authorized military engagements unconstitutionally.

This is the important consideration.

What threshold(s) must be met?

Most/many who think like I do would argue that threshold is "national emergency" (verbiage from the WPA that both you and I have posted).

I'm still not sure of your position, but I think you disagree with this (???).

Quote:Navy ships have shot down Houthi drones from Yemen heading toward them because they were deemed “a threat.” But no one really knows for sure until congress reviews the intelligence assessments who was the target.

FWIW

I've not seen this ^^^ justification used by anyone in the press, or by people representing the current administration, for the presidents recent unilateral decision in Yemen. Have you?

(01-14-2024 04:05 PM)ess Wrote:  

Quote: I'm pretty sure the US Military personal under attack, along with their families would say it is and expect our Military to protect them.

Yes

Of course families of military personal would want/expect protection, and maybe (also) revenge. I would too.

Other families (military and perhaps otherwise), who are attacked and/or lose loved ones because of "blowback" (terrorist attacks that would not have otherwise occurred, new military engagements that would not have otherwise occurred, etc) will have expectations , "wants", and feelings too.

These considerations ^^^ are important for those families, and for military strategic operations, but IMHO, aren't relevant with respect to "constitutionally".

For those who believe (multiple) presidents have unilaterally authorized military engagements unconstitutionally.

This is the important consideration.

What threshold(s) must be met?

Most/many who think like I do would argue that threshold is "national emergency" (verbiage from the WPA that both you and I have posted).

I'm still not sure of your position, but I think you disagree with this (???).

Quote:Navy ships have shot down Houthi drones from Yemen heading toward them because they were deemed “a threat.” But no one really knows for sure until congress reviews the intelligence assessments who was the target.

FWIW

I've not seen this ^^^ justification used by anyone in the press, or by people representing the current administration, for the presidents recent unilateral decision in Yemen. Have you?

November 27, 2023-Two ballistic missiles were fired from Houthi rebel-controlled Yemen toward a US warship in the Gulf of Aden, after the US Navy responded to a distress call from a commercial tanker that had been seized by armed individuals, the US military said.

December 3, 2023-The USS Carney shot down at least three Houthi drones headed in the ship’s direction in the southern Red Sea on Sunday and responded to a distress call from a civilian commercial vessel that was fired upon by a ballistic missile, a US defense official said.

But what does US Intelligence Reports say about these "alleged" attacks on our military? IDK, but Congress also has over site on this to.

I do agree with you regarding "blowback", but this goes back to a much broader discussion regarding our Foreign Policy and National Security.

I think we all know fighting-warring has been going on in the Middle East over religious, racial, and geographical disputes since even before The Crusades (which didn't help).

Not likely to end any time soon regardless of our Foreign Policy-what we do in the region.

In the meantime we are committed to helping Israel survive, and probably always will be.

(01-16-2024 04:09 PM)MajorHoople Wrote:  I think we all know fighting-warring has been going on in the Middle East over religious, racial, and geographical disputes since even before The Crusades (which didn't help).

Not likely to end any time soon regardless of our Foreign Policy-what we do in the region.

In the meantime we are committed to helping Israel survive, and probably always will be.

We should have been helping Palestine survive as well.

(01-16-2024 04:32 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-16-2024 04:09 PM)MajorHoople Wrote:  I think we all know fighting-warring has been going on in the Middle East over religious, racial, and geographical disputes since even before The Crusades (which didn't help).

Not likely to end any time soon regardless of our Foreign Policy-what we do in the region.

In the meantime we are committed to helping Israel survive, and probably always will be.

We should have been helping Palestine survive as well.

Agreed.

US does provide about 500 million annually to Palestine. Even though a lot of them would like to lop off our heads.

(01-16-2024 05:00 PM)GRBRONCO Wrote:  US does provide about 500 million annually to Palestine. Even though a lot of them would like to lop off our heads.

We give them money and we give Israel money. But only one of them has a country.

(01-17-2024 02:38 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-16-2024 05:00 PM)GRBRONCO Wrote:  US does provide about 500 million annually to Palestine. Even though a lot of them would like to lop off our heads.

We give them money and we give Israel money. But only one of them has a country.

You might want to research your history on a "two state solution".

Since 1937 there have been numerous proposals/opportunities for a two state solution, but in almost every case, it was either the Palestinian leadership or Arab leaders who thwarted it.

(01-18-2024 04:01 PM)Brownandgoldlaker Wrote:  

(01-17-2024 02:38 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-16-2024 05:00 PM)GRBRONCO Wrote:  US does provide about 500 million annually to Palestine. Even though a lot of them would like to lop off our heads.

We give them money and we give Israel money. But only one of them has a country.

You might want to research your history on a "two state solution".

Since 1937 there have been numerous proposals/opportunities for a two state solution, but in almost every case, it was either the Palestinian leadership or Arab leaders who thwarted it.

They thwarted it because the deal was such that even the Israeli negotiators wouldn't have taken the deal if they were the Palestinians.

After all, why would Israel negotiate fairly with them? Time is on their side. They can do whatever they want including building settlements wherever they want and the US will back them even when the rest of the world doesn't. The US acted like a "mediator" but at the same time would say "we support Israel" but nothing about supporting Palestinians. The US simply is not an honest broker with regard to Israel/Palestinians.

Not saying that Hamas isn't terrorists but the entire world outside the middle east would be supporting Israel right now if there were 2 states.

The Arab leaders love the current set up. They get to use the billions in international aid as their personal piggy bank while keeping their people poor and subservient while brainwashing them that US and Jews are evil.

(01-18-2024 04:01 PM)Brownandgoldlaker Wrote:  Since 1937 there have been numerous proposals/opportunities for a two state solution, but in almost every case, it was either the Palestinian leadership or Arab leaders who thwarted it.

Another perspective on "the peace process"

(01-18-2024 05:27 PM)ess Wrote:  

(01-18-2024 04:01 PM)Brownandgoldlaker Wrote:  Since 1937 there have been numerous proposals/opportunities for a two state solution, but in almost every case, it was either the Palestinian leadership or Arab leaders who thwarted it.

Another perspective on "the peace process"

Not much of a debate with Finkelstein talking for 24 mins straight and Dershowitz getting 2 "quick" minutes to respond.

(01-18-2024 06:36 PM)Brownandgoldlaker Wrote:  Not much of a debate with Finkelstein talking for 24 mins straight and Dershowitz getting 2 "quick" minutes to respond.

If you want to hear the entire discussion, you can start from the beginning.

Dershowitz does most of the talking early.

My only intention was to give a different perspective on how people view the "two state solution".

So I "bookmarked it" at that time slot.

FWIW

US strikes Houthi fighters again amid continued attacks on ships off Yemen: Officials

ByLuis Martinez
January 17, 2024, 10:54 PM
https://abcnews.go.com/International/us-...=106464091

"These missiles on launch rails presented an imminent threat to merchant vessels and U.S. Navy ships in the region and could have been fired at any time, prompting U.S. forces to exercise their inherent right and obligation to defend themselves,"