Panel calls for new war powers legislation

Panel calls for new war powers legislation

news.yahoo.com

The next time the president goes to war, Congress should be consulted and vote on whether it agrees, according to a bipartisan study group chaired by former secretaries of state James Baker III and Warren Christopher

In a report released Tuesday, the panel says the current law governing the nation's war powers has failed to promote cooperation between the executive and legislative branches. It says the 1973 resolution should be repealed...

(visit the link for the full news article)

I'm somewhat mixed on my feelings about this idea. On the one hand it isn't a bad move considering we elect an entire squadron of representatives and, through them, our voices should be heard in regards to where our military is sent off to fight. On the other hand, would Iraq have turned out any different with this law in place? The vast majority of Congress approved going into Iraq 5 years ago, so I have little doubt we'd still be there regardless of who held the ultimate power of deciding whether we were at war with them or not. The one thing it would do is add some teeth to congressional accountability... no more would the politicians be able to say "Well, I voted for the resolution... but blame Bush because he's the one who had the final say!"

Not that I expect this will go anywhere as far as becoming law, mind you.

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

One more reason for Israel to attack Iran before Bush leaves office?

reply to post by burdman30ott6


well.. from what I understand according very good documentary on cable about the goings on behind the white house doors, those that used to be in the first administration but since left for blantant obvisious reasons..

Bush/Chaney went through the judicial system, circumventing congress to get the war started. The old cronies were only in there because they had over 20 years experience in studying the system..........down to a nat's eyebrow!

Can the Pres ignore congress ..........I think that's the big question.

reply to post by Komodo


Actually, I think a bigger question is "Can Congress ignore the American people?" Like I said, I think the Iraq war has conveniently been turned into a strict partisan lines issue as the American people became less and less pleased with the war. In the beginning, I believe both parties were fairly gung-ho about going in there and getting Saddam. I don't believe for a second that every member of Congress & the Senate knew exactly what pieces of evidence and intel were real, which ones were exaggerated, and which ones were completely bogus.

Congress maintained their safety, however, thanks to being able to pin the entire war on the shoulders of one man, the president. I honestly don't know that Congress ever really wants to give up that percieved lack of personal accountabillity in the future. For that reason, I doubt that anything will be passed to change the current laws. It's just too important to these career politicians to have the safety net of being able to blame one sole figure for any war or action that may turn unpopular. One thing I do believe, is that if every member of our government suddenly was responsible for their actions & votes and how they pertain to warfare, this country would follow Ron Paul's military vision much closer. Our leaders wouldn't be very quick to butt into international dealings unless US security was directly and tangibly in jeopardy if they knew they would be called to task by the voters next election.

3 words...read the constitution.....damn right it is illegal as hell. I'm sure the dems would of declared war on Iraq anyways but make them do it don't put it all in Bush's hands. Lets face it if the congress would of declared war ALL of their asses would of been in the fire today not just Bush's. All of them are profiting off this war and that is the only reason it is going on as long as it has. Just sustain to squeeze as much money out as the profiteers can. Just like Vietnam. There is no reason we should of lost that war or at least gone on as long as it did. But there was a lot of money made on that war just like now.

Yes the constitution makes it quite clear and it shouldn't even be debated. Congress needs to declare war if war is to ensue.

reply to post by burdman30ott6


You hit it on the nose. Kind of what I was saying in the post above. They ALL need to be held accountable. They do this though so people think there is actually a difference in the parties thats why it will not get changed. If there was some accountability you might see a better foreign policy no doubt.

Well I agree with it.No 1 man should have all that power.That makes it look just like the dictatorships they are trying to stop.