Do Drone Attacks Violate The War Powers Act?

Can't help but wonder why Congress makes such a big deal out of Libya and the War Powers Act while ignoring the increasing unmanned drone attacks going on in different countries. Countries (Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia) the US hasn't declared war against.

Drone Strike Pakistan

Drone Strike Yemen

Drone Strike Somalia

Are these drone strikes illegal? Self-Defense?

Are CIA drone attacks in Yemen Illegal?

Seeing that most of these drone attacks are supposedly being done by the CIA, does this void the War Powers Act because the military isn't involved?

or is the legality of drone attacks based on SJ Res 23?

(a) That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

avalon.law.yale.edu...

However, SJ Res seem to say that we will go only after those involved on 9/11. What does Anwar al-Awlaki have to do with 9/11?

The Next Bin Laden

A repeal of SJ Res 23 was attempted in 2010 but failed.

9/29/2010--Introduced. Repeal of the Authorization for Use of Military Force - States that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (P.L. 107-40) has been used to justify an open-ended authorization for the use of military force and such an interpretation is inconsistent with the authority of Congress to declare war and make all laws for executing powers vested by the Constitution in the U.S. government. Repeals the Authorization for Use of Military Force (P.L. 107-40), effective 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

www.govtrack.us...

Finally, Are drone attacks just plain assassination? The US has a policy against assassination. However, Executive Order 11905 only talks about political assassinations.

(g) Prohibition of Assassination. No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination.

www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov...

Take Anwar al-Awlaki, what is he wanted for or is he even wanted?

FBI Ten Most Wanted

If somebody is accused of committing a crime against the US, then why kill them before giving them a chance to prove their innocence?

Drones attacks are not perfect. Dr one Mistake

On the other hand, drones could be compared to missiles. When a missile is fired, there is no guarantee it is going to hit its intended target or collateral damage could occur. And there has been times where we have shot a missile into a country we were not legally at war with. I would have to question whether we would see a problem with a missile strike being legal. Mainly because a missile strike is usually limited while drone attacks are more frequent.

Missile strike Somalia

What makes drone attacks legal?

Darn good question. I would imagine that a drone is just a more sophisticated weapons platform (read that as Cruise, Tomahawk et al).

And I would say that it does. I'm looking forward to the other replies.

Try flying a (foreign or private owned) drome over the Whitehouse and congress and you will have your answer soon.

If it wasn't costing lives the stupidity of almost ALL politicians is almost funny.

Map and info on Drone attacks in Pakistan from 2004-Present.

We have also constructed a map, based on the same reliable press accounts and publicly available maps, of the estimated location of each drone strike. Click each pin in the online version to see the details of a reported strike. And while we are not professional cartographers, and Google Maps is at times incomplete or imperfect, this map gives our best approximations of the locations and details of each reported drone strike since 2004.

Year of The Drones

let say any country uses drone attacks here in the us what is it an act of? WAR!

bombing other countries is not an act of self defense its a premptive action.

the military men in this thread knows the deal what are the rules of engagement?

do not fire unless fired upon isnt it? not going 1000s of miles away and killing whoever and whenever you want.

so yeah congress makes the call not the president which was the way it was meant to be.

we have our own adolf hitler right now way worse than the "warmonger bush"

Probably but it is without question an act of war.

Imagine if Canada was using drones to randomly attack the US. People will argue "but thats different, we're hunting for terrorists, Pakistan, Libya etc. are tribal regions, they're not densely populated urban centers".

Regardless, it is an act of war. If you suspect there are undesirables in a certain country, you have to approach that country's government and present your case. The fact is that the US has now established a pattern of committing war crimes and unfortunately, the victims are unable to do anything about it.

Either allow the US to kill your people or risk a war with the World's largest aggressor.

reply to post by gladtobehere

Either allow the US to kill your people or risk a war with the World's largest aggressor.

But what if those country leaders, like Yemen and Pakistan, gives us permission to use those drones? Does that give it any legality?

Pakistan lets us use their base to launch the drones.

reply to post by jam321


I have thought about this often and this is the critical question.

WHAT constitutes "WAR".

Right now Darpa is building robotic soldiers. Sounds Sci-Fi, but it is not.

Right now the US Government classifies Drone strikes as only psuedo military actions since they don't involve US Soldiers on the ground and are often orchestrated by the CIA vs. US Military.

The Military and CIA are merging.

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama plans this week to name CIA Director Leon Panetta to replace Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and Gen. David Petraeus, now running the war in Afghanistan, would take the CIA chief's job in a major shuffle of the nation's top national security leadership, administration and other sources said Wednesday.

www.cbsnews.com...

Is it "War" if we only send drones and in the near future droids on the ground?

Is it war if it is an intelligence or black operation as opposed to an openly declared Military action?

These drone strikes, while public, are still mostly considered CIA led strikes with the military carrying them out.

It is a step-around.

We need to update current laws and acts to reflect the rapidly advancing nature of technology in warfare and draw a clear line between what constitutes covert intelligence activity and actual warfare.

This is what Darpa showed 4 years ago...think about what they have now and what they will have in 5 years.

Sounds Sci-Fi, but in a decade we could be conducting military ops both in the air AND on the ground via joystick.

We need new definitions of what constitutes military action.

Originally posted by neo96
let say any country uses drone attacks here in the us what is it an act of? WAR!

bombing other countries is not an act of self defense its a premptive action.

the military men in this thread knows the deal what are the rules of engagement?

do not fire unless fired upon isnt it? not going 1000s of miles away and killing whoever and whenever you want.

so yeah congress makes the call not the president which was the way it was meant to be.

we have our own adolf hitler right now way worse than the "warmonger bush"

Rules of Engagement for the Military? Man are your confused.

The risks of the C.I.A.'s Predator drones : The New Yorker
www.newyorker.com...

CIA steps up drone attacks in Pakistan: WSJ
tribune.com.pk...

C.I.A. Steps Up Drone Attacks on Taliban in Pakistan - NYTimes.com
www.nytimes.com...

And as far as Congressional Authorization...Both the House and the Senate have select intelligence committes where they authorize funding and covert activity. What they say publicly for political rhetoric purposes is a different matter.

Again..We need to update legislation to reflect the current expansion of the CIA into military OPs and the new technology.

The house and the senate give the CIA approval and funding despite what they say come campaign season. Those meetings are always closed door and highly classified so no member of the Intelligence Committees worry about being called on their BS when they turn around the next day and complain about drones in Libya.

Originally posted by Indigo5
The house and the senate give the CIA approval and funding despite what they say come campaign season. Those meetings are always closed door and highly classified so no member of the Intelligence Committees worry about being called on their BS when they turn around the next day and complain about drones in Libya.

edit on 1-7-2011 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-7-2011 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

Case in Point...
Incoming House intelligence chairman pushed for drone strikes
Colleagues say Republican Mike Rogers was influenced by visits to the front lines in Afghanistan.
articles.latimes.com...

The whole Obama as Hitler seems BS in this context.

The CIA runs drones, and the GOP led House Intelligence Committee funds and approves those strikes.

However you feel about the strikes, it is a bipartisan action whatever the Politicians spout on the floor.

reply to post by Indigo5

We need to update current laws and acts to reflect the rapidly advancing nature of technology in warfare and draw a clear line between what constitutes covert intelligence activity and actual warfare.

I agree with you. But, you know there is little chance of doing that.

As you said, both parties are in on it by funding the operations.

Thanks for your posts.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the sole power to declare war.

Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the President the power to direct troops.

The War Powers Resolution appears to give the President authority not delegated to him by the Constitution to enter into war, but it actually adds another layer of protection from some megalomaniac that decides sovereign nations need to be bombed out of existence. It states that while the President my enter into hostilities with another country without the consent of Congress for 60 days, he must receive their consent to continue hostilities. If consent has not been given, he must withdraw troops within 30 days of the end of the 60 day deadline.

The definition of war is:

Dictionary.com

war
1  
 [wawr] Show IPA noun, verb, warred, war·ring, adjective
–noun
1.
a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.
2.
a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other.
3.
a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns: the War of 1812.

ANY armed conflict sanctioned by the U.S. government is war. Period. There is no such thing as a "kinetic action". If the United States of America is bombing targets, and those actions are fully sanctioned by the United States of America's government, then America is engaged in war.

So, the question shouldn't be "Do Drone Attacks Violate the War Powers Act", it should be "Did Congress Officially Declare War on Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia?"

If the answer is "no" then both Congress and the President are both in violation of both the WPR and the Constitution.

Go U.S.S.A.

/TOA

reply to post by The Old American


Here is a good write up about the War Powers Act and Libya but would apply to this also:

www.ohioverticals.com...

Kinda explains the difference between the War Powers Act as it was written and it's actual viability in enforcement.

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by The Old American

 

Here is a good write up about the War Powers Act and Libya but would apply to this also:

www.ohioverticals.com...

Kinda explains the difference between the War Powers Act as it was written and it's actual viability in enforcement.

Excellent, sir. Thank you.

/TOA

Well if they was to send a drone into the US and bomb and kill people we would scream "TERRORIST". So I am starting to wonder what really separates us from them. If they had the fire power that we have I bet we would not be so quit to do the things we do. We are like a high school bully on a elementary school play ground. and do not start that 9/11 and they started mess. Most of the place we are attacking now had nothing to do with 9/11 and as far as who started this I am afraid we did 50 years ago. I am an American and proud of it but why do we had to go about the world sticking our nose into other countries when they are not bothering us and minding their own business. One day it is going to come back and take a big bit out of our backsides.

And now I had better put on a flak jacket.

No, this is Obama acting under his Commander In Chief authourity and anytime the right sees him using it they are quick to attack him on it but if the strike was conducted against Iran, North Korea or Palestine they'd be all for it. This is only being employed to take out high value and profile enemy targets as actionable intelligence confirming their respective locations comes in which goes around the Act as the Act only dictates the massing of large amounts of troops and equipment but says nothing about small scale intelligence black operations.

Can you say "Double standard"?

I can't imagine America in fund of war. First, in Afghanistan and Iraq, and now, in Libya. I understand they just want to have peace and balance in the world to prevent another World War to happen but they too much.

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


Many times, over and over, it's been shown why and how the President has overstepped his authority on this matter. I've posted, in this very thread, why and how. I'd like to see your rebuttal of the facts by posting your own facts that show how he is within his authority to continue bombing Libya.

/TOA

Thanks for all the comments.

I think we could all agree that no matter which side of the issue you are on, there is a need to update legislation as to what defines a war.

IMO, there shouldn't be no difference of opinion between the President and Congress as to whether we are actually at war or not.

Originally posted by The Old American
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1

 

Many times, over and over, it's been shown why and how the President has overstepped his authority on this matter. I've posted, in this very thread, why and how. I'd like to see your rebuttal of the facts by posting your own facts that show how he is within his authority to continue bombing Libya.

/TOA

What I posted is law and that comes directly from my internal sources. Sources however are The United States Department Of Defense. Nothing about this action is illegal. Quit trying to distract us all with nonsense.

Here's a q to ask yourself :
What if it was you who had a high value target in your scope and had the orders to fire? Would you wait while the kill order is plastered all over the media or would you take the shot?

COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE UNITED STATES MILITARY IS ALL THAT IS NEEDED!

BTW,
This entire action is the end result of the following meeting which got our involvement started :
Clinton Arrives In Paris to talk with Libyan Rebels (Courtesy of The USA Today) :
content.usatoday.com...

On a news report from like 3 wks earlier courtesy of The Huffington Post :
Hillary Clinton: U.S. Stands Ready To Aid Libya Protesters
www.huffingtonpost.com...

So in your thinking that none of the previous 2 matters because, oh how could I forget?, Libya is an African nation and not an Arab nation. I get it now. We only attack and bomb Arab nations.