Is the presidency a license to kill?
April 25, 2021 3:14 PM Subscribe
San Francisco journalist Paul W. Lovinger takes a hard look at the general failure of American presidents, since World War II, to get Congressional approval for military adventures including but not limited to Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Lebanon, Grenada, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Colombia, Haiti, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan and Syria. "While not king, [the President] has become a ruler with more war power than George III had." The power to declare war, Constitutionally vested solely in Congress, has effectively lost all meaning. "Do we elect a chief executive—or a chief executioner? No president is likely to maliciously shoot someone to death point-blank. That’s murder. But no president seems to mind ordering many people shot or bombed in a distant land. That’s war."
And yet the ruling clique of the Judiciary branch professes its devotion to divination of their original intent as its philosophy of law.
Such cognitive dissonance will be intensively studied in the centuries after the collapse.
posted by Jessica Savitch's Coke Spoon at 3:58 PM on April 25, 2021 [7 favorites]
Such cognitive dissonance will be intensively studied in the centuries after the collapse.
posted by Jessica Savitch's Coke Spoon at 3:58 PM on April 25, 2021 [7 favorites]
If we collapse, I'm afraid it won't be in the introspective mode...
posted by grokus at 4:07 PM on April 25, 2021 [6 favorites]
posted by grokus at 4:07 PM on April 25, 2021 [6 favorites]
I'm not sure if having Congress authorize war necessarily grants validation to acts of war, in themselves, even if that authorization might be a requirement on paper. In some ways, the Monroe Doctrine of the early 1800s shows the early United States moving away from using its military for defense, moving to its use in securing slavery and trade on behalf of business interests.
In that light, pretty much since the inception of the US, its presidents have served mostly to legitimize and manage war operations — or to take the blame, when soldiers die in numbers too high for the public to stomach. Whether officially approved or not, or if a conflict lies in a grey area, the underlying goals have mostly been about protecting trade lines, expanding access to raw materials, and increasing market share, even well before WWII.
Perhaps the real tyranny comes from what motivates an act of war, in the first place, not so much which figurehead carries out the task.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 4:28 PM on April 25, 2021 [12 favorites]
In that light, pretty much since the inception of the US, its presidents have served mostly to legitimize and manage war operations — or to take the blame, when soldiers die in numbers too high for the public to stomach. Whether officially approved or not, or if a conflict lies in a grey area, the underlying goals have mostly been about protecting trade lines, expanding access to raw materials, and increasing market share, even well before WWII.
Perhaps the real tyranny comes from what motivates an act of war, in the first place, not so much which figurehead carries out the task.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 4:28 PM on April 25, 2021 [12 favorites]
I strongly recall Obama wanting a Congressional vote on taking bigger military action in Syria and most of Congress running away from such a vote as fast as they could. Like, lots of pressure on him to bomb or send in troops or gosh do something, but also "we don't need to vote on it, post-9/11 stuff has him covered."
A lot of folks in Congress, especially Republicans, wanted Obama to take military action, and with the quagmire of Iraq not even yet in the rearview mirror they also very much didn't want to put their names to a vote on it.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 4:40 PM on April 25, 2021 [17 favorites]
A lot of folks in Congress, especially Republicans, wanted Obama to take military action, and with the quagmire of Iraq not even yet in the rearview mirror they also very much didn't want to put their names to a vote on it.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 4:40 PM on April 25, 2021 [17 favorites]
"Law is whatever is boldly asserted and plausibly maintained."
-Aaron Burr.
"Gerald Ford, during his short, unelected term, sacrificed 41 Marines in a needless military assault on a Cambodian island. It aimed at freeing the Mayaguez, a merchant ship seized by Cambodia, which was preparing to free her anyway."
A truth that hurts is worth feeling but this snippet on Ford has the casualty list wrong in as omitting other service personel. Also, it ommits the likely failure of diplomatic solutions. Contention to how close the ship to Cambodian waters is complicated. But by no means the only thing the KR was doing prior. "On 2 May the Khmer Navy captured seven Thai fishing boats. On 4 May the Cambodians pursued a South Korean freighter after which the South Korean Transportation Ministry put out a warning to shipping in the area. On 7 May they held a Panamanian vessel near Poulo Wai and questioned its crew before release with the ship after 36 hours. They fired on a Swedish vessel in the same area. On 12 May the Khmer Rouge sent a force to occupy Poulo Wai. Despite these actions no general warning was issued to U.S. merchant shipping."
and this. "Presidents have submitted 130 reports to Congress as a result of the War Powers Resolution, although only one (the Mayagüez incident) cited Section 4(a) and specifically stated that forces had been introduced into hostilities or imminent danger."
War Powers Resolution was aimed at curtailing presidential military action as" It provides that the president can send the U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization," or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."
posted by clavdivs at 4:56 PM on April 25, 2021 [4 favorites]
-Aaron Burr.
"Gerald Ford, during his short, unelected term, sacrificed 41 Marines in a needless military assault on a Cambodian island. It aimed at freeing the Mayaguez, a merchant ship seized by Cambodia, which was preparing to free her anyway."
A truth that hurts is worth feeling but this snippet on Ford has the casualty list wrong in as omitting other service personel. Also, it ommits the likely failure of diplomatic solutions. Contention to how close the ship to Cambodian waters is complicated. But by no means the only thing the KR was doing prior. "On 2 May the Khmer Navy captured seven Thai fishing boats. On 4 May the Cambodians pursued a South Korean freighter after which the South Korean Transportation Ministry put out a warning to shipping in the area. On 7 May they held a Panamanian vessel near Poulo Wai and questioned its crew before release with the ship after 36 hours. They fired on a Swedish vessel in the same area. On 12 May the Khmer Rouge sent a force to occupy Poulo Wai. Despite these actions no general warning was issued to U.S. merchant shipping."
and this. "Presidents have submitted 130 reports to Congress as a result of the War Powers Resolution, although only one (the Mayagüez incident) cited Section 4(a) and specifically stated that forces had been introduced into hostilities or imminent danger."
War Powers Resolution was aimed at curtailing presidential military action as" It provides that the president can send the U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization," or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."
posted by clavdivs at 4:56 PM on April 25, 2021 [4 favorites]
An explainer on why counties don’t declare war anymore
posted by interogative mood at 5:05 PM on April 25, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by interogative mood at 5:05 PM on April 25, 2021 [4 favorites]
One thing I learned getting my poli sci degree is that Congress has abdicated vast amounts of its powers over the years. Not just to the president, but to the quasi-legislative/quasi-judicial federal organs that make the actual rules. When you sit down and read the Constitution and think about what all Congress can do and then you look at what all Congress actually does, it's mind blowing how much power it has given away.
posted by Fukiyama at 5:40 PM on April 25, 2021 [19 favorites]
posted by Fukiyama at 5:40 PM on April 25, 2021 [19 favorites]
Is it really the case that no one has brought up the interests of the armaments and related industries that profit from war mongering?
posted by goinWhereTheClimateSuitsMyClothes at 6:03 PM on April 25, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by goinWhereTheClimateSuitsMyClothes at 6:03 PM on April 25, 2021 [5 favorites]
Is the presidency a license to kill? Yeah, pretty much.
Next question?
posted by 2N2222 at 6:09 PM on April 25, 2021 [1 favorite]
Next question?
posted by 2N2222 at 6:09 PM on April 25, 2021 [1 favorite]
What if congress declared war without the presidents permission.
posted by clavdivs at 6:28 PM on April 25, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by clavdivs at 6:28 PM on April 25, 2021 [3 favorites]
They could declare war and fund the war but the President would just have the troops sitting around on base so it would be a pretty uneventful war.
posted by Justinian at 6:30 PM on April 25, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 6:30 PM on April 25, 2021 [5 favorites]
Which, in my opinion, would be the very best kind of war there is.
posted by Justinian at 6:30 PM on April 25, 2021 [14 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 6:30 PM on April 25, 2021 [14 favorites]
Given that we are pretty deep into the age of cyberattacks the question becomes even murkier. I would think any action that causes harm/damage to any asset of a foreign nation should need congressional oversight and approval but that was never the case at any point in history.
posted by asra at 6:34 PM on April 25, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by asra at 6:34 PM on April 25, 2021 [2 favorites]
Given that the author starts by deliberately limiting the debate to how it existed pre-January 6th, 2021 and then proceeds to accuse the current sitting president of exceeding his constitutional authority while once again failing to mention January 6th, I'm inclined to believe this article is nothing but propaganda.
We now live in the world where the President has the authority to declare war and authorize an attack on Congress as long as there are at least 34 Senators willing to back him up. For someone who is supposedly concerned about executive overreach and highlighting examples of it, to not make a single reference to January 6th is more than a little suspicious.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 7:02 PM on April 25, 2021 [15 favorites]
We now live in the world where the President has the authority to declare war and authorize an attack on Congress as long as there are at least 34 Senators willing to back him up. For someone who is supposedly concerned about executive overreach and highlighting examples of it, to not make a single reference to January 6th is more than a little suspicious.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 7:02 PM on April 25, 2021 [15 favorites]
what if congress impeached both president and VP for treason for not fulfilling oath as C&C, The VP for refusing a congressional order to relieve the president. It's feasible and what. well the HR and Senate have to have majority, the Supremes lined up, the military on board. Let alone the states.
It's like it was originally written that war is something to considered or reacted too.
notice the author started in 1945 or FDR.
beginning of the cold war. The bomb and no time to gather congress to launch a counter attack.
are people still worrying, do people love the bomb.
posted by clavdivs at 7:11 PM on April 25, 2021 [2 favorites]
It's like it was originally written that war is something to considered or reacted too.
notice the author started in 1945 or FDR.
beginning of the cold war. The bomb and no time to gather congress to launch a counter attack.
are people still worrying, do people love the bomb.
posted by clavdivs at 7:11 PM on April 25, 2021 [2 favorites]
We now live in the world where the President has the authority to declare war and authorize an attack on Congress as long as there are at least 34 Senators willing to back him up. For someone who is supposedly concerned about executive overreach and highlighting examples of it, to not make a single reference to January 6th is more than a little suspicious.
Not really getting the argument here. Trump inciting a riot on 1/6 is orthogonal to the acknowledged executive powers of the President. He didn’t order the U.S. Military to attack Congress! And he was impeached for it! That he was not convicted is reflective of a different inherent limitation of our system of government.
posted by atoxyl at 7:44 PM on April 25, 2021 [8 favorites]
Not really getting the argument here. Trump inciting a riot on 1/6 is orthogonal to the acknowledged executive powers of the President. He didn’t order the U.S. Military to attack Congress! And he was impeached for it! That he was not convicted is reflective of a different inherent limitation of our system of government.
posted by atoxyl at 7:44 PM on April 25, 2021 [8 favorites]
A comparison to the institution of Roman Emperor as an outgrowth of the inability of Republican governing institutions (e.g. Senate, Assembly) to manage conquered territory and social unrest in Italy comes to mind. The U.S. constitution even has a proto-Cesar like office built in with the Presidency; the Romans (well Augustus) had to invent the office by combining several positions and inventing a few new ones. We also have unitary legal theories of executive authority advanced during the Bush II years that move even further in the direction of a dictatorial presidency. Of course, term limits and democratic elections draw clear demarcations limiting the comparison.
Still, considering the US modeled so much of its governing structure after the Roman example, its interesting to consider how US institutions, like those of ancient Rome, changed and are changing due to exigencies. Given parliamentary institutions like the filibuster and even the need to hold votes, it's arguable whether or not an institution like the Senate would be able to manage an empire effectively, should the US governing elite desire one. For example, there is an argument that the US Senate's refusal to join the League of Nations, despite the League being the creation of the US President at the time, led to the inability of that body to prevent WWII.
As noted, though, the presence of term limits and democratic elections limits the comparison, and makes dealing with the US somewhat difficult - just ask Iran. One wonders, however, about the development of the "military industrial academic complex" Eisenhower warned about, and whether intuitions like think tanks and media organizations that have relationships and share overlapping personal with American military and intelligence agencies fulfils an imperial role papering over potential disruptions introduced by election mandated changes in the executive.
posted by eagles123 at 8:10 PM on April 25, 2021 [3 favorites]
Still, considering the US modeled so much of its governing structure after the Roman example, its interesting to consider how US institutions, like those of ancient Rome, changed and are changing due to exigencies. Given parliamentary institutions like the filibuster and even the need to hold votes, it's arguable whether or not an institution like the Senate would be able to manage an empire effectively, should the US governing elite desire one. For example, there is an argument that the US Senate's refusal to join the League of Nations, despite the League being the creation of the US President at the time, led to the inability of that body to prevent WWII.
As noted, though, the presence of term limits and democratic elections limits the comparison, and makes dealing with the US somewhat difficult - just ask Iran. One wonders, however, about the development of the "military industrial academic complex" Eisenhower warned about, and whether intuitions like think tanks and media organizations that have relationships and share overlapping personal with American military and intelligence agencies fulfils an imperial role papering over potential disruptions introduced by election mandated changes in the executive.
posted by eagles123 at 8:10 PM on April 25, 2021 [3 favorites]
Such cognitive dissonance will be intensively studied in the centuries after the collapse.
posted by Jessica Savitch's Coke Spoon at 3:58 PM on April 25 [1 favorite +] [!]
If we collapse, I'm afraid it won't be in the introspective mode...
posted by grokus at 4:07 PM on April 25 [3 favorites +] [!]
JSCS didn't say that it would be studied by humans.
posted by Halloween Jack at 9:51 PM on April 25, 2021 [8 favorites]
posted by Jessica Savitch's Coke Spoon at 3:58 PM on April 25 [1 favorite +] [!]
If we collapse, I'm afraid it won't be in the introspective mode...
posted by grokus at 4:07 PM on April 25 [3 favorites +] [!]
JSCS didn't say that it would be studied by humans.
posted by Halloween Jack at 9:51 PM on April 25, 2021 [8 favorites]
"War! What is it good for?
It's good for business."
— Billy Bragg, "North Sea Bubble"
posted by kirkaracha at 10:36 PM on April 25, 2021 [2 favorites]
It's good for business."
— Billy Bragg, "North Sea Bubble"
posted by kirkaracha at 10:36 PM on April 25, 2021 [2 favorites]
The article seems to lack the kind of scholarly underpinnings necessary for a reasonable discussion of the topic. The relationship between Congress and the President on war making powers has been murky since the beginnings of the republic and isn’t a modern phenomenon. The questions about the lines between the Commander in Chief power of Presidents and the War Making power of Congress go back to Washington’s first term.
Also the author seems to suggest that congress did not authorize both wars in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan and Vietnam; even though those “wars” all had resolutions of congressional authorization. Although for reasons in my earlier comment above they were not technically “wars” and no one declares actual war anymore.
I also wonder about the background, credentials and motivations of this journalist. Their bibliography seems to be pretty sparse with the top Google hit being an anti-Hillary piece from the 2016 election.
posted by interogative mood at 10:56 PM on April 25, 2021 [2 favorites]
Also the author seems to suggest that congress did not authorize both wars in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan and Vietnam; even though those “wars” all had resolutions of congressional authorization. Although for reasons in my earlier comment above they were not technically “wars” and no one declares actual war anymore.
I also wonder about the background, credentials and motivations of this journalist. Their bibliography seems to be pretty sparse with the top Google hit being an anti-Hillary piece from the 2016 election.
posted by interogative mood at 10:56 PM on April 25, 2021 [2 favorites]
Their bibliography seems to be pretty sparse with the top Google hit being an anti-Hillary piece from the 2016 election.
He’s a very Web 1.0 online opinion-having guy, actually.
posted by atoxyl at 11:45 PM on April 25, 2021 [1 favorite]
He’s a very Web 1.0 online opinion-having guy, actually.
posted by atoxyl at 11:45 PM on April 25, 2021 [1 favorite]
They Sucked His Brains Out!, that reading of the Monroe Doctrine is...new to me.
Can you point me at a source or some media that got you there, so I can catch up?
posted by bartleby at 2:00 AM on April 26, 2021
Can you point me at a source or some media that got you there, so I can catch up?
posted by bartleby at 2:00 AM on April 26, 2021
Presidency? Hell almost every elected office in the United States is license to at at least let people die if not kill actively kill them. This pandemic should have made that pretty damn clear to anyone paying attention.
posted by srboisvert at 2:13 AM on April 26, 2021
posted by srboisvert at 2:13 AM on April 26, 2021
They have money for war but can't feed the poor. - Tupac
War is big business. The military budget is 800 billion a year. It's a government -
jobs program
healthcare program
education program
manufacturing program
research and development program
All government programs developed during the cold war to defend us from - get this - socialism.
posted by adept256 at 2:28 AM on April 26, 2021 [3 favorites]
War is big business. The military budget is 800 billion a year. It's a government -
jobs program
healthcare program
education program
manufacturing program
research and development program
All government programs developed during the cold war to defend us from - get this - socialism.
posted by adept256 at 2:28 AM on April 26, 2021 [3 favorites]
Trump inciting a riot on 1/6 is orthogonal to the acknowledged executive powers of the President.
The author's entire argument amounts to: a) The Constitution reserves certain powers exclusively for Congress b) For the better part of a century, Presidents have been openly defying the Constitution, bypassing Congress and exercising those powers themselves c) This has become normalized because Congress has largely been ok with it and only occasionally taken steps to check this defiance and limit Presidential power.
He didn’t order the U.S. Military to attack Congress!
No, but he did actively impede the military response to the attackers, whom he did order to attack Congress.
And he was impeached for it! That he was not convicted is reflective of a different inherent limitation of our system of government.
In practical terms, how is this different? The President decided he had the the power deny the very existence of Congress, and the official Congressional response was "nah bro. We're cool that".
This whole article reeks of butter emails. The author is deliberately narrowing the debate over executive powers to maximize criticism of the current administration's actions while completely ignoring the overwhelming transgressions of the previous one. The Ron Paul pox-on-everyone's-house quote should be a huge red flag that this author is not engaging in this conversation in good faith.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 3:39 AM on April 26, 2021 [8 favorites]
The author's entire argument amounts to: a) The Constitution reserves certain powers exclusively for Congress b) For the better part of a century, Presidents have been openly defying the Constitution, bypassing Congress and exercising those powers themselves c) This has become normalized because Congress has largely been ok with it and only occasionally taken steps to check this defiance and limit Presidential power.
He didn’t order the U.S. Military to attack Congress!
No, but he did actively impede the military response to the attackers, whom he did order to attack Congress.
And he was impeached for it! That he was not convicted is reflective of a different inherent limitation of our system of government.
In practical terms, how is this different? The President decided he had the the power deny the very existence of Congress, and the official Congressional response was "nah bro. We're cool that".
This whole article reeks of butter emails. The author is deliberately narrowing the debate over executive powers to maximize criticism of the current administration's actions while completely ignoring the overwhelming transgressions of the previous one. The Ron Paul pox-on-everyone's-house quote should be a huge red flag that this author is not engaging in this conversation in good faith.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 3:39 AM on April 26, 2021 [8 favorites]
The Presidency is explicitly a license to kill after Obama successfully twisted the Constitution to grant himself the power to unilaterally and extrajudicialy execute American citizens who he randomly decided might be committing certain categories of crimes.
And almost everyone here on Metafilter thought it was totally, 100%, fine with no need to ever be concerned that it might possibly lead to bad results. Critics of this staggering expansion of presidential power were told they were foolhardy, childish, and whiny.
Its nice to see that people are taking abuse of presidential powers more seriously these days.
posted by sotonohito at 5:57 AM on April 26, 2021 [10 favorites]
And almost everyone here on Metafilter thought it was totally, 100%, fine with no need to ever be concerned that it might possibly lead to bad results. Critics of this staggering expansion of presidential power were told they were foolhardy, childish, and whiny.
Its nice to see that people are taking abuse of presidential powers more seriously these days.
posted by sotonohito at 5:57 AM on April 26, 2021 [10 favorites]
Vladimir Putin oversaw a war of hideous cruelty in Chechnya. But he's a cold-eyed son of a bitch, and makes no pretense of everyday suburban humanity. Presidents Clinton, GW Bush, and Obama have hands that are dripping with civilian blood, and yet they smile and schmooze with talk show hosts as if they were your neighbor down the street. (And of course Trump. Before he was president, he was a clown. Now, he's a killer clown.)
How do they live with themselves? There are soldiers who've killed one man in wartime and are haunted for the rest of their lives. Some state governors who have had to approve the execution of heinous criminals never enjoy another peaceful night's sleep. Of all our former presidents, only Jimmy Carter appears to have the moral imagination to appreciate the enormity of the death-dealing that comes with the office.
posted by Modest House at 6:38 AM on April 26, 2021 [4 favorites]
How do they live with themselves? There are soldiers who've killed one man in wartime and are haunted for the rest of their lives. Some state governors who have had to approve the execution of heinous criminals never enjoy another peaceful night's sleep. Of all our former presidents, only Jimmy Carter appears to have the moral imagination to appreciate the enormity of the death-dealing that comes with the office.
posted by Modest House at 6:38 AM on April 26, 2021 [4 favorites]
Bah, wimps, those are all just extra-regional police actions against dirty stink'n nogoodnik terrorist baddies.
posted by sammyo at 6:42 AM on April 26, 2021
posted by sammyo at 6:42 AM on April 26, 2021
Clinton, GW Bush, and Obama have hands that are dripping with civilian blood, and yet they smile and schmooze
And my cynic post subtext is that the presidents are in a cozy cocoon, very protected conceptually, hurting the baddies is saving the world. Or it requires a subtle kind of sociopath to maneuver to the point getting to the position of being a potential president.
posted by sammyo at 6:49 AM on April 26, 2021 [3 favorites]
And my cynic post subtext is that the presidents are in a cozy cocoon, very protected conceptually, hurting the baddies is saving the world. Or it requires a subtle kind of sociopath to maneuver to the point getting to the position of being a potential president.
posted by sammyo at 6:49 AM on April 26, 2021 [3 favorites]
almost everyone
If your goals are to be incorrect, overgeneralize and offend consider yourself "almost always" successful.
posted by srboisvert at 7:05 AM on April 26, 2021 [5 favorites]
If your goals are to be incorrect, overgeneralize and offend consider yourself "almost always" successful.
posted by srboisvert at 7:05 AM on April 26, 2021 [5 favorites]
Ever since I was old enough to care about politics and foreign policy, I have been struck by how quick Congress was to abdicate their responsibility for declaring war following WW II. That war was also the last war that saw the United States actually attacked by another nation. It is worth noting that FDR was able to get an almost unanimous declaration of war passed the day after Pearl Harbor; congress could act decisively back then. Every armed conflict since then has been aimed at containing communism or other foreign policy goals. US interests abroad may have been threatened in some of these conflicts, but the US itself has not been at risk since August, 1945.
posted by TedW at 7:11 AM on April 26, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by TedW at 7:11 AM on April 26, 2021 [2 favorites]
But you can reach the top of your profession
If you become the leader of the land
For murder is the sport of the elected
And you needn't lift a finger of your hand
Because it's murder by numbers, one, two, three...
posted by tspae at 7:28 AM on April 26, 2021
If you become the leader of the land
For murder is the sport of the elected
And you needn't lift a finger of your hand
Because it's murder by numbers, one, two, three...
posted by tspae at 7:28 AM on April 26, 2021
That the word "academic" was ever included in a draft of the speech is basically convenient claims coming mainly from Giroux who unsurprisingly has some things to say about academia. Seems to be less supported than the claims that it was originally supposed to be "military industrial congressional complex". It's definitely weird to quote it how you did. I would quote what the president actually said.
Yeah as a quote I dunno, but as a description, academic seems pretty apt, especially if you include the think tank morass in DC. At the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown, "how do we maintain US hegemony now that there's no Soviet Union to justify it" was the subtext of every international relations class. And that was in 2009-2013!
posted by TheProfessor at 7:34 AM on April 26, 2021 [2 favorites]
Yeah as a quote I dunno, but as a description, academic seems pretty apt, especially if you include the think tank morass in DC. At the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown, "how do we maintain US hegemony now that there's no Soviet Union to justify it" was the subtext of every international relations class. And that was in 2009-2013!
posted by TheProfessor at 7:34 AM on April 26, 2021 [2 favorites]
While it's hardly anything we can lay exclusive blame for at any President's feet, I do think it's worth remembering that our Democratic Presidents have never once tried to undo this massive, anti-Constitutional, expansion of Executive power.
Clinton, Obama, and now Biden have all gone to war without Congress declaring war, and none of them were faced with an existential crisis which necessitated instant action. They could have chosen to ask Congress to declare war as required by the Constitution, they could have made it a big public thing, held a massive press conference where they asked Congress to declare war, and then waited.
None of them did.
It's one of the very few bits of genuine bipartisanship in the USA: the belief that the US President has the power to go to war on a whim.
It is so completely accepted by America, both government and voter, that the President can unilaterally go to war, that the only people in Congress who ever even mention it are cranks like Ron Paul.
Still, every President faces the simple test: will they end the madness and return to seeking Congressional declarations of war? And every one of them has failed.
I expect nothing but evil and awfulness from Repubicans, so I am not surprised or shocked that they fail that test. But that three Democrats in a row have failed, and have instead gleefully seized on the power to wage war on personal whim to be really discouraging.
TheProfessor Heck, back during Bush the Elder's Presidency Molly Ivins was noting that the entire US government seemed to be unable to cope with not having the USSR around as the boogieman justifying bloated military budgets. Fortunately the War on Terror showed up just in time!
posted by sotonohito at 8:02 AM on April 26, 2021 [1 favorite]
Clinton, Obama, and now Biden have all gone to war without Congress declaring war, and none of them were faced with an existential crisis which necessitated instant action. They could have chosen to ask Congress to declare war as required by the Constitution, they could have made it a big public thing, held a massive press conference where they asked Congress to declare war, and then waited.
None of them did.
It's one of the very few bits of genuine bipartisanship in the USA: the belief that the US President has the power to go to war on a whim.
It is so completely accepted by America, both government and voter, that the President can unilaterally go to war, that the only people in Congress who ever even mention it are cranks like Ron Paul.
Still, every President faces the simple test: will they end the madness and return to seeking Congressional declarations of war? And every one of them has failed.
I expect nothing but evil and awfulness from Repubicans, so I am not surprised or shocked that they fail that test. But that three Democrats in a row have failed, and have instead gleefully seized on the power to wage war on personal whim to be really discouraging.
TheProfessor Heck, back during Bush the Elder's Presidency Molly Ivins was noting that the entire US government seemed to be unable to cope with not having the USSR around as the boogieman justifying bloated military budgets. Fortunately the War on Terror showed up just in time!
posted by sotonohito at 8:02 AM on April 26, 2021 [1 favorite]
My rational mind favours a comprehensive review of the Constitution, including stuff like this; but my imagination baulks at what the result might probably be in practice.
posted by Phanx at 8:11 AM on April 26, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by Phanx at 8:11 AM on April 26, 2021 [2 favorites]
What I don't understand about current foreign policy is why the Bushes did not establish a massive airbase like Ramstein in the middle of Iraq. I have no idea if that would be good or bad for the people of Iraq or the USA or the world, but it just seems obvious. Now good or bad Germany has not initiated major attacks since WWII. Some folks in the mideast did
pretty much immediately after the US pulled out. Not advocating for Paxamericana, but really wonder why that path was not taken.
posted by sammyo at 8:15 AM on April 26, 2021 [1 favorite]
pretty much immediately after the US pulled out. Not advocating for Paxamericana, but really wonder why that path was not taken.
posted by sammyo at 8:15 AM on April 26, 2021 [1 favorite]
For my first post-doc I had a demented mentor who just had to have someone to pick on. By pick on, I mean, ridiculing, tearing apart, and accuse of inventing data. When one victim was about to head off on a two-week vacation, I said he was going to pick another. It was me.
I say this because there is a poisonous group of people who have to latch on to something to hate. For years it was communism. About the time communism failed, there was a free-floating period in which I connect to the X-files: something's out there. Then terrorism, Islam. In recent years, it has been Democrats, illegal aliens, and out-of-control voting.
Fox News has proven that the themes can be complete nonsense: the war on Christmas, the Guatemalan caravan.
This worries me about humans. Whenever we move somewhat beyond a prejudice, we insert a new one. Or we rotate them: the evil Chinese are back.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 8:35 AM on April 26, 2021 [6 favorites]
I say this because there is a poisonous group of people who have to latch on to something to hate. For years it was communism. About the time communism failed, there was a free-floating period in which I connect to the X-files: something's out there. Then terrorism, Islam. In recent years, it has been Democrats, illegal aliens, and out-of-control voting.
Fox News has proven that the themes can be complete nonsense: the war on Christmas, the Guatemalan caravan.
This worries me about humans. Whenever we move somewhat beyond a prejudice, we insert a new one. Or we rotate them: the evil Chinese are back.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 8:35 AM on April 26, 2021 [6 favorites]
Yeah, I wasn’t trying to directly quote Eisenhower; rather, I was trying to refer to common reference point as an example - basically, what TheProfessor wrote. Sorry for the confusion.
posted by eagles123 at 8:40 AM on April 26, 2021
posted by eagles123 at 8:40 AM on April 26, 2021
What I don't understand about current foreign policy is why the Bushes did not establish a massive airbase like Ramstein in the middle of Iraq. I have no idea if that would be good or bad for the people of Iraq or the USA or the world, but it just seems obvious.
Sovereign countries don't generally host another country's military on their soil unless it's for a good reason. Ramstein is still there because Russia remains a snap threat and the US can instantly respond and engage to slow the Russians down until the cavalry arrives.
What would Iraq have to gain by a permanent US airbase? Civil unrest and a symbol of imperialism? We already have "allies" that provide jumping off points for middle eastern sorties and a naval force that can project enough power to flatten the entire middle east combined.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 9:15 AM on April 26, 2021 [2 favorites]
Sovereign countries don't generally host another country's military on their soil unless it's for a good reason. Ramstein is still there because Russia remains a snap threat and the US can instantly respond and engage to slow the Russians down until the cavalry arrives.
What would Iraq have to gain by a permanent US airbase? Civil unrest and a symbol of imperialism? We already have "allies" that provide jumping off points for middle eastern sorties and a naval force that can project enough power to flatten the entire middle east combined.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 9:15 AM on April 26, 2021 [2 favorites]
Also, the biggest foreign policy mistake of the Iraq War is probably the lack of an independent Kurdistan because we didn't want to piss off Turkey. The same Turkey who then decided to funnel money and weapons to ISIS because they hate the Kurds so much.
Another generation of sectarian bullshit because we didn't remake a map properly fixing a decades old mistake in order to not piss off an authoritarian dictator who directly funded terrorists who fought against the United States.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 9:22 AM on April 26, 2021 [4 favorites]
Another generation of sectarian bullshit because we didn't remake a map properly fixing a decades old mistake in order to not piss off an authoritarian dictator who directly funded terrorists who fought against the United States.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 9:22 AM on April 26, 2021 [4 favorites]
I agree that the US needs to seriously rein in its use of force and that our history is littered with terrible military interventions. However the "Presidential Hit Parade" at the end is not very accurate and reads like something the author made off the top of his head to prove a point, rather than something with any research or data behind it. Maybe he's just a "guy with a blog" and I'm being picky. But for example, this:
"FDR’s policies, provoking Japan economically and militarily while concentrating warships in Hawaii, apparently invited the “date which will live in infamy.” Promising 1940 voters peace, FDR executively armed Britain, engaged U-boats, and sent troops abroad. In 1939 he protested aggressors’ bombing of civilians as “inhuman barbarism.” After war was official, he ordered massive bombings of cities, killing innumerable civilians."
is just a ridiculous paragraph that willfully ignores history. I guess Japan didn't invade Manchuria or China or any of that stuff, and that they had to bomb Pearl Harbor because we moved our fleet there. And how dare we arm Britain during World War II against the Nazis!
He should make his points without resulting to lazy "noble rest of world vs. the United States who is the worst nation ever" tropes.
posted by freecellwizard at 11:31 AM on April 26, 2021 [3 favorites]
"FDR’s policies, provoking Japan economically and militarily while concentrating warships in Hawaii, apparently invited the “date which will live in infamy.” Promising 1940 voters peace, FDR executively armed Britain, engaged U-boats, and sent troops abroad. In 1939 he protested aggressors’ bombing of civilians as “inhuman barbarism.” After war was official, he ordered massive bombings of cities, killing innumerable civilians."
is just a ridiculous paragraph that willfully ignores history. I guess Japan didn't invade Manchuria or China or any of that stuff, and that they had to bomb Pearl Harbor because we moved our fleet there. And how dare we arm Britain during World War II against the Nazis!
He should make his points without resulting to lazy "noble rest of world vs. the United States who is the worst nation ever" tropes.
posted by freecellwizard at 11:31 AM on April 26, 2021 [3 favorites]
They could have chosen to ask Congress to declare war as required by the Constitution, they could have made it a big public thing, held a massive press conference where they asked Congress to declare war, and then waited.
OTOH, there's a good argument that once you've decided a war is absolutely necessary, you ought to get on with it directly, as opposed to doing some political theater with congress.
If you want to change the practical rules for declaring war, by which I mean the way the US actually does it, then those changes should probably be made during peacetime, not the night before we declare a war.
posted by ryanrs at 11:51 AM on April 26, 2021
OTOH, there's a good argument that once you've decided a war is absolutely necessary, you ought to get on with it directly, as opposed to doing some political theater with congress.
If you want to change the practical rules for declaring war, by which I mean the way the US actually does it, then those changes should probably be made during peacetime, not the night before we declare a war.
posted by ryanrs at 11:51 AM on April 26, 2021
The Presidency is explicitly a license to kill after Obama successfully twisted the Constitution to grant himself the power to unilaterally and extrajudicialy execute American citizens who he randomly decided might be committing certain categories of crimes.
You seem to be suggesting that the Obama administration set a new precedent here. That is not true. Many Presidents have used the US military kill those engaged in insurrection / war / violence against the United States. This killing has included US Citizens and non-US Citizens.
The only thing different under Obama was there was an actual court case. There is an 83 page ruling. The summary is: When you are accused of a serious violent crime like murder or terrorism it is important to surrender to the Court if you want to avail yourself of the judicial process. If that is impossible because you are hiding for fear of being executed or illegally detained without access to the court on surrender; then if you are able to make any kind of public statement be sure to ask the court for help. Al-Awaki didn't do anything of that.
posted by interogative mood at 12:38 PM on April 26, 2021
You seem to be suggesting that the Obama administration set a new precedent here. That is not true. Many Presidents have used the US military kill those engaged in insurrection / war / violence against the United States. This killing has included US Citizens and non-US Citizens.
The only thing different under Obama was there was an actual court case. There is an 83 page ruling. The summary is: When you are accused of a serious violent crime like murder or terrorism it is important to surrender to the Court if you want to avail yourself of the judicial process. If that is impossible because you are hiding for fear of being executed or illegally detained without access to the court on surrender; then if you are able to make any kind of public statement be sure to ask the court for help. Al-Awaki didn't do anything of that.
posted by interogative mood at 12:38 PM on April 26, 2021
The Presidency is explicitly a license to kill after Obama successfully twisted the Constitution to grant himself the power to unilaterally and extrajudicialy execute American citizens who he randomly decided might be committing certain categories of crimes.
Here are snippets of a transcript of a 2010 interview with Michael Leiter, then-director of the National Counterterrorism Center under Bush and Obama administrations, which touches upon the motivation to pursue Al-Awlaki on the basis of his involvement in a plot to destroy an airplane in flight:
I don't think Obama was the first to do so, nor will he be the last, but arguably I don't think he made this specific decision lightly or without guidance from those in his administration who are tasked explicitly with protecting the country from attacks that would have lead to the deaths of a number of other citizens. I don't fully agree with his decision, but it does seem that he examined this matter with the gravity it deserved.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 1:27 PM on April 26, 2021 [2 favorites]
Here are snippets of a transcript of a 2010 interview with Michael Leiter, then-director of the National Counterterrorism Center under Bush and Obama administrations, which touches upon the motivation to pursue Al-Awlaki on the basis of his involvement in a plot to destroy an airplane in flight:
MR. ISIKOFF: The Christmas Day incident brought a lot of attention on a Yemeni cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki, who was said to have encouraged and inspired Abdulmutallab in his attempted attack. He had also had communications with Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter.It was not a decision that Obama made on his own, but through an internal process that evaluated many factors, including legal ones:
First of all, how much of an operational role did Awlaki play in that attempted attack, and how much of an operational role does he play today in al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula?
MR. LEITER: You referred to two. Which one was —
MR. ISIKOFF: I'm sorry, al-Awlaki.
MR. LEITER: Hasan or Abdulmutallab?
MR. ISIKOFF: Abdulmutallab.
MR. LEITER: Abdulmutallab.
MR. ISIKOFF: Yeah.
MR. LEITER: We assess that Awlaki had a direct operational role.
MR. ISIKOFF: Directed him to blow up the airplane?
MR. LEITER: I'm not going to go into greater detail. He had a direct operational role.
MR. ISIKOFF: Right. When the Bush administration declared Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen, an enemy combatant, stripped him of all his legal rights and threw him in a military brig, there was an enormous outcry from the civil liberties community — from civil liberty groups and others — about that action and, essentially, the executive branch of the government declaring an American citizen an un-person.Sitting in the office explicitly grants the license to kill many people, citizen and non-citizen alike, by virtue of military power that the President may exercise (and has exercised) at their discretion, and this has happened throughout the history of the country, for many reasons that may not have much to do with national security.
Here, the Obama administration is going one better than that. They're saying, we can kill this guy. We can take him out, which is, arguably, a more extreme action than what was done to Jose Padilla. And there has been very little public debate about how that decision was made. Doesn't the government at least owe a more fulsome explanation of how it's reaching these decisions?
MR. LEITER: You misused "fulsome" but I'll answer that question anyway.
MR. ISIKOFF: Okay — fuller. (Laughter.)
MR. LEITER: I've got to get a few counterpunches back here.
MR. ISIKOFF: Go ahead.
MR. LEITER: Listen, I absolutely agree with you. These are tough issues that require a full and open debate. Now, that may not mean that there's a full and open debate about an individual and what goes on with that individual because there are sensitive sources and methods involved. But certainly the policy decisions about the ways in which we should or we should not use force demand a full and open discussion.
And, again, I think it's part of my appearance here. I'm trying to answer the questions —
MR. ISIKOFF: Right.
MR. LEITER: — to the extent I can. I think it's part of the reason that Harold Koh when out and gave his talk to begin a discussion on the legal side of this about why this is not contrary to international law. These are big decisions and they're weighty.
But, we have to — I'm not asking people to accept as a given, but I will tell you, from my perspective as the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, if someone like Anwar al-Awlaki is responsible for part of an operation to try to kill more than 300 people over the city of Detroit, I think it would be wholly irresponsible for individuals like me, for Leon Panetta, for Secretary Gates and ultimately the president not to at least think about and potentially direct all the elements of national power to try to defend the American people.
I think that's what the American people expect. I think you have to have a process and a level of trustworthiness in that process that people are going to do that thoughtfully and within the bounds of the laws and constitutional principles. But ultimately for us not to have that discussion and not ultimately, if we have to make that decision, for me would be reprehensible.
I don't think Obama was the first to do so, nor will he be the last, but arguably I don't think he made this specific decision lightly or without guidance from those in his administration who are tasked explicitly with protecting the country from attacks that would have lead to the deaths of a number of other citizens. I don't fully agree with his decision, but it does seem that he examined this matter with the gravity it deserved.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 1:27 PM on April 26, 2021 [2 favorites]
Is there any actual evidence he did those things or is it the usual super-secret extruded intelligence product from the usual vindictive fantasy factory?
posted by thatwhichfalls at 3:25 PM on April 26, 2021
posted by thatwhichfalls at 3:25 PM on April 26, 2021
Newly released documents, obtained by The New York Times after a two-year legal battle under the Freedom of Information Act, fill in the details of a central episode in the American conflict with Al Qaeda: Mr. Abdulmutallab’s recruitment by Mr. Awlaki and his failed attempt to blow up an airliner approaching Detroit on Christmas in 2009 using sophisticated explosives hidden in his underwear.
The documents’ detailed account of Mr. Awlaki, who stars in Mr. Abdulmutallab’s story as both a religious hero and a practical adviser on carrying out mayhem, is particularly important. The government allegation that Mr. Awlaki was behind the underwear bomb plot — never tested in a court of law — became the central justification that President Barack Obama cited for ordering the cleric’s killing in a drone strike in Yemen in 2011...
The F.B.I.’s decision in 2010 to keep the interview summaries secret led some critics to question the quality of the evidence against Mr. Awlaki. The 200 pages of redacted documents released to The Times this week, on the order of a federal judge, suggest that the Obama administration had ample firsthand testimony from Mr. Abdulmutallab that the cleric oversaw his training and conceived the plot.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 3:28 PM on April 26, 2021
The documents’ detailed account of Mr. Awlaki, who stars in Mr. Abdulmutallab’s story as both a religious hero and a practical adviser on carrying out mayhem, is particularly important. The government allegation that Mr. Awlaki was behind the underwear bomb plot — never tested in a court of law — became the central justification that President Barack Obama cited for ordering the cleric’s killing in a drone strike in Yemen in 2011...
The F.B.I.’s decision in 2010 to keep the interview summaries secret led some critics to question the quality of the evidence against Mr. Awlaki. The 200 pages of redacted documents released to The Times this week, on the order of a federal judge, suggest that the Obama administration had ample firsthand testimony from Mr. Abdulmutallab that the cleric oversaw his training and conceived the plot.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 3:28 PM on April 26, 2021
The author's entire argument amounts to: a) The Constitution reserves certain powers exclusively for Congress b) For the better part of a century, Presidents have been openly defying the Constitution, bypassing Congress and exercising those powers themselves c) This has become normalized because Congress has largely been ok with it and only occasionally taken steps to check this defiance and limit Presidential power.
I suppose my own interpretation of the basic issue is that it’s about the boundary between Congress’ constitutional war powers and the president’s constitutional role as commander-in-chief of the armed forces. There’s a tension built in to this division of responsibility. I don’t think the possibility that the POTUS might leverage his public platform with ill intent is explicitly addressed in the Constitution except for the provisions for removing one who proves unfit for the office.
In practical terms, how is this different? The President decided he had the the power deny the very existence of Congress, and the official Congressional response was "nah bro. We're cool that".
Congress is “cool” with the president having expansive military powers on the level of a near bipartisan consensus in recent times. If you feel that “near consensus” or “recent times” are doing too much work in this sentence, I think those are the points on which it makes sense to interrogate the basic thesis. The response to 1/6 broke down - in multiple senses of the phrase broke down - in an almost entirely partisan way. The opposition party succeeded in initiating proceedings to remove the president , but was unable to complete the process because of the unity and recalcitrance of the president’s party. This illustrates a limitation of the existing checks and balances, that a president can get away with most anything unless a supermajority of the Senate lines up against him. It does not show Congress as an institution passively accepting executive encroachment on its powers.
No, but he did actively impede the military response to the attackers, whom he did order to attack Congress.
This is really the one point on which I do see a connection... but I’m unclear on how much it’s been substantiated that he did intervene against against a response versus there being an organic fuckup arising from chain of command and jurisdiction confusion. Who has done the best investigation into this?
This whole article reeks of butter emails. The author is deliberately narrowing the debate over executive powers to maximize criticism of the current administration's actions while completely ignoring the overwhelming transgressions of the previous one. The Ron Paul pox-on-everyone's-house quote should be a huge red flag that this author is not engaging in this conversation in good faith.
I dug up the author’s web presence upthread, going back to G.W. Bush or maybe even the Clinton administration. As far as I can tell he is basically “some guy” but he could hardly be accused of selectively paying attention to the issue.
posted by atoxyl at 3:52 PM on April 26, 2021
I suppose my own interpretation of the basic issue is that it’s about the boundary between Congress’ constitutional war powers and the president’s constitutional role as commander-in-chief of the armed forces. There’s a tension built in to this division of responsibility. I don’t think the possibility that the POTUS might leverage his public platform with ill intent is explicitly addressed in the Constitution except for the provisions for removing one who proves unfit for the office.
In practical terms, how is this different? The President decided he had the the power deny the very existence of Congress, and the official Congressional response was "nah bro. We're cool that".
Congress is “cool” with the president having expansive military powers on the level of a near bipartisan consensus in recent times. If you feel that “near consensus” or “recent times” are doing too much work in this sentence, I think those are the points on which it makes sense to interrogate the basic thesis. The response to 1/6 broke down - in multiple senses of the phrase broke down - in an almost entirely partisan way. The opposition party succeeded in initiating proceedings to remove the president , but was unable to complete the process because of the unity and recalcitrance of the president’s party. This illustrates a limitation of the existing checks and balances, that a president can get away with most anything unless a supermajority of the Senate lines up against him. It does not show Congress as an institution passively accepting executive encroachment on its powers.
No, but he did actively impede the military response to the attackers, whom he did order to attack Congress.
This is really the one point on which I do see a connection... but I’m unclear on how much it’s been substantiated that he did intervene against against a response versus there being an organic fuckup arising from chain of command and jurisdiction confusion. Who has done the best investigation into this?
This whole article reeks of butter emails. The author is deliberately narrowing the debate over executive powers to maximize criticism of the current administration's actions while completely ignoring the overwhelming transgressions of the previous one. The Ron Paul pox-on-everyone's-house quote should be a huge red flag that this author is not engaging in this conversation in good faith.
I dug up the author’s web presence upthread, going back to G.W. Bush or maybe even the Clinton administration. As far as I can tell he is basically “some guy” but he could hardly be accused of selectively paying attention to the issue.
posted by atoxyl at 3:52 PM on April 26, 2021
When you are accused of a serious violent crime like murder or terrorism it is important to surrender to the Court if you want to avail yourself of the judicial process. If that is impossible because you are hiding for fear of being executed or illegally detained without access to the court on surrender; then if you are able to make any kind of public statement be sure to ask the court for help. Al-Awaki didn't do anything of that.
This sounds suspiciously close to justifications for extra-judicial police killings of Black people within the US. I'm willing to believe that Al-Awaki may have done the stuff he was secretly accused of, but, as the Twitter quip goes, police aren't supposed to kill guilty people either.
posted by eviemath at 5:33 AM on April 27, 2021 [2 favorites]
This sounds suspiciously close to justifications for extra-judicial police killings of Black people within the US. I'm willing to believe that Al-Awaki may have done the stuff he was secretly accused of, but, as the Twitter quip goes, police aren't supposed to kill guilty people either.
posted by eviemath at 5:33 AM on April 27, 2021 [2 favorites]
It could not be further from that. He wasn't killed by the police, he was killed by the US military. The military doesn't make determinations about innocence or guilt. The military makes determinations about targets and then they destroy or kill the things or people they target. That is their whole job.
posted by interogative mood at 2:55 PM on April 27, 2021
posted by interogative mood at 2:55 PM on April 27, 2021
I mean... the military shouldn't be killing guilty people either.
posted by CrystalDave at 3:33 PM on April 27, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by CrystalDave at 3:33 PM on April 27, 2021 [2 favorites]
Couldn't agree more yet conflicts continue. If the sole purpose of the military was to simply kill, well that sounds like what a military does in a time of declared war.
So let's look at history for different example concerning presidential authority. The 1967 Detroit riots.
"Michigan Governor George Romney and President Lyndon B. Johnson initially disagreed about the legality of sending in federal troops. Johnson said he could not send federal troops in without Romney's declaring a "state of insurrection", to meet compliance with the Insurrection Act.
As the historian Sidney Fine details in Violence in the Model City, partisan political issues complicated decisions, as is common in crisis. George Romney was expected to run for the Republican presidential nomination in 1968, and President Johnson, a Democrat, did not want to commit troops solely on Romney's direction.[54] Added to this was Mayor Jerome Cavanagh's own political and personal clash with Romney. Cavanagh, a young Irish Catholic Democrat who had cultivated harmonious relations with black leaders, both inside and outside the city,[55] was initially reluctant to ask Romney, a Republican, for assistance.[56]"
Johnson's speech:
"I am sure the American people will realize that I take this action with the greatest regret—and only because of the clear, unmistakable, and undisputed evidence that Governor Romney of Michigan and the local officials in Detroit have been unable to bring the situation under control.
Law enforcement is a local matter. It is the responsibility of local officials and the Governors of the respective States. The Federal Government should not intervene—except in the most extraordinary circumstances."
posted by clavdivs at 6:33 PM on April 27, 2021
So let's look at history for different example concerning presidential authority. The 1967 Detroit riots.
"Michigan Governor George Romney and President Lyndon B. Johnson initially disagreed about the legality of sending in federal troops. Johnson said he could not send federal troops in without Romney's declaring a "state of insurrection", to meet compliance with the Insurrection Act.
As the historian Sidney Fine details in Violence in the Model City, partisan political issues complicated decisions, as is common in crisis. George Romney was expected to run for the Republican presidential nomination in 1968, and President Johnson, a Democrat, did not want to commit troops solely on Romney's direction.[54] Added to this was Mayor Jerome Cavanagh's own political and personal clash with Romney. Cavanagh, a young Irish Catholic Democrat who had cultivated harmonious relations with black leaders, both inside and outside the city,[55] was initially reluctant to ask Romney, a Republican, for assistance.[56]"
Johnson's speech:
"I am sure the American people will realize that I take this action with the greatest regret—and only because of the clear, unmistakable, and undisputed evidence that Governor Romney of Michigan and the local officials in Detroit have been unable to bring the situation under control.
Law enforcement is a local matter. It is the responsibility of local officials and the Governors of the respective States. The Federal Government should not intervene—except in the most extraordinary circumstances."
posted by clavdivs at 6:33 PM on April 27, 2021
And there we have the example of why Presidents have acquired the power to go to war purely on their own volition without involving Congress:
Because an overwhelming majority of Americans both Democratic and Republican think they should have that power.
There's an informal, unofficial, democracy at work operating below the official voting type democracy. If enough people believe something about government it will tend to become true regardless of legalisms.
And that informal, sub-democracy, has decided the American President is basically an elected monarch.
posted by sotonohito at 5:29 AM on April 28, 2021 [3 favorites]
Because an overwhelming majority of Americans both Democratic and Republican think they should have that power.
There's an informal, unofficial, democracy at work operating below the official voting type democracy. If enough people believe something about government it will tend to become true regardless of legalisms.
And that informal, sub-democracy, has decided the American President is basically an elected monarch.
posted by sotonohito at 5:29 AM on April 28, 2021 [3 favorites]
« Older This isn't going to work out, Ryan | In England it'd be a Gramgram Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by thelonius at 3:35 PM on April 25, 2021 [15 favorites]