Can Bush bomb Iran w/out another authorization for use of force?

[pnwmom]

I mean, legally speaking.

[TheBaldyMan]

1. it would be an act of war without UN sanction or unless Congress declares

war first, Congress decides who the US is at war with not the president.

[Behind the Aegis]

2. Sadly, that is in the "air" in the US now.

Recent events (well, not all the recent anymore), allows the fool in the WH to make decisions without congressional approval.

[Pachamama]

4. My guess is that they will try to use the argument that they don't have to

get a separate declaration from Congress....I think they will just claim that the conflict in Iraq has spilled over into Iran and therefore they need to move troops in under the same Authorization of Force authorized by Congress already.... :eyes:

[pnwmom]

16. That's the kind of thing I'm afraid of.

[wookie294]

3. The Constitution requires a declaration of war by Congress

Although the Congress is required by the Constitution to declare war before the president sends troops into combat, the Congress (illegally) abrogated that requirement in the 1970s when it enacted the "War Powers Resolution."

The War Powers Resolution says....

"In the absence of a declaration of war ... the president shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth--
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement."

So, the War Powers Resolution, passed by Congress, says that the president can start a war without congressional approval as long as he notifies Congress about the reason "why" he started the war.

http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/archive/war_powers_resolution.shtml

[patricia92243]

13. Can the war powers resolution be undone? It should be removed. n/t

[pnwmom]

17. Someone should challenge the War Powers Act then and see what these

"strict Constitutionalists" have to say.

[bowens43]

5. Yes. War Powers Act of 1973

The president can basically start a war any time he choses.

[FloridaPat]

6. The plan running around in 2004 was that Israel will do the actual

bombing because no one will get mad at Israel. The US will have aircraft along for the ride - or extra help if Israel gets in trouble with the bombings. However, should Iran defend itself, then we have legal justification to invade because Iran invaded Israel first or went after our troops thereby starting the war with us.

[wookie294]

7. Not true

An Iranian invasion of Israel would not give the USA legal justification for invading Iran.

Israel is not the 51st state of the USA, though some people seem to think it is.

[leftchick]

8. yes. who the hell would stop him

he has unitary authority to bomb the fuck out of anywhere.He has said so himself.

[Divernan]

9. AG Gonzales will declare legal anything Bush tells him to declare "legal"

Unlike Clinton's AG, Janet Reno, who had integrity and took her oath of office seriously.

[salin]

10. Has this administration ever found an action that their lawyers

didn't justify as "legal"? Don't they have a habit of not listening to those lawyers within the DOJ who raise objections?

Most certainly the bushco would believe that they have the legal authority, regardless of actual legality. IMO, its a moot question.

[JesterCS]

11. well you know of course

he'll just roll out the same rhetoric.

"iran is harboring al-qaeda operatives, the same operatves that planned and partook in 9/11"
"al-qaeda wants a nuke from Iran, we have to stop Iran before they can get it"
and the ever famous
" we have to fight them over there, so we dont have to fight them over here. "

[ClintonTyree]

12. When Congress authorized the use of force in Iraq.....

(if necessary :eyes: ) they gave him carte blanch to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants. According to Gonzo and the rest of the Cabal anyway. So you see, he already HAS authorization, at least in their myopic mind's eye.

[Vinca]

14. King George does what King George wants.

I can hear that eel of an Attorney General explaining why it's legal. The case will be made that it's an extension of the Iraq war.

[sinkingfeeling]

15. Well, I think we could press a case that it would be illegal. The IWR

of Oct.2002 says this:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.


So, they'd have to prove that Iran helped plan, authorized, or aided bin Laden.