0
0
0
Simply put the War Powers Resolution is a federal law intended to check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress.
The key word here is "armed conflict" and should be self explanatory.
But yet in theory it has been violated many times:
On November 9, 1993, the House used a section of the War Powers Resolution to state that U.S. forces should be withdrawn from Somalia by March 31, 1994; Congress had already taken this action in appropriations legislation.
More recently under President Clinton, war powers were at issue in former Yugoslavia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, and Haiti, and under President George W. Bush in responding to terrorist attacks against the U.S. after September 11, 2001.
In 1999, President Clinton kept the bombing campaign in Kosovo going for more than two weeks after the 60-day deadline had passed.
After the 1991 Gulf War, the use of force to obtain Iraqi compliance with United Nations resolutions, particularly through enforcement of Iraqi no-fly zones, remained a war powers issue.
May 20, 2011, marked the 60th day of US combat in Libya (as part of the UN resolution) but the deadline arrived without President Obama seeking specific authorization from the US Congress.
So this just appears to be a law that really isn't a law after all because nobody apparently really gives a damn.
A buddy of mine a retired Senior Chief and I where taking about bombing in Syria. I believed since Syria has pacs with Russia and could potentially cause problems to say the least. That the President should need Congress's approvable (War Powers Resolution). He believes the President can use the military how he wants to or sees fit and doesn't need congress support because it is not a war.
What do you think?
The key word here is "armed conflict" and should be self explanatory.
But yet in theory it has been violated many times:
On November 9, 1993, the House used a section of the War Powers Resolution to state that U.S. forces should be withdrawn from Somalia by March 31, 1994; Congress had already taken this action in appropriations legislation.
More recently under President Clinton, war powers were at issue in former Yugoslavia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, and Haiti, and under President George W. Bush in responding to terrorist attacks against the U.S. after September 11, 2001.
In 1999, President Clinton kept the bombing campaign in Kosovo going for more than two weeks after the 60-day deadline had passed.
After the 1991 Gulf War, the use of force to obtain Iraqi compliance with United Nations resolutions, particularly through enforcement of Iraqi no-fly zones, remained a war powers issue.
May 20, 2011, marked the 60th day of US combat in Libya (as part of the UN resolution) but the deadline arrived without President Obama seeking specific authorization from the US Congress.
So this just appears to be a law that really isn't a law after all because nobody apparently really gives a damn.
A buddy of mine a retired Senior Chief and I where taking about bombing in Syria. I believed since Syria has pacs with Russia and could potentially cause problems to say the least. That the President should need Congress's approvable (War Powers Resolution). He believes the President can use the military how he wants to or sees fit and doesn't need congress support because it is not a war.
What do you think?
Posted in these groups: 
Military Industry
Warfare
Military Industry Warfare
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 1
0
0
0
I think President Obama would get authorization from Congress if he sought it. The historical cases you cite pretty much show he doesn't really need to seek it, but he would get it. In fact, many in Congress want to do more than what the President proposes.
(0)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
CW5 (Join to see) Sir I would tend to agree with you. My biggest fear is thinking about the ties between Syria and Russia. There is already no love lose between Putin and Obama. I believe Assad has already voiced his outrage at the possibility of missions in his country. So this mess could really end up very bad.
(0)
(0)
CW5 (Join to see)
True, the stakes are potentially very high here, especially if Russia gets dragged into the conflict we are "waging" against the Islamic State.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google