Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: NATO has been used to circumvent constitutional authority to declare war

Posted 1 year ago on Aug. 15, 2012, 11:13 p.m. EST by TrevorMnemonic (5827)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

A bill introduced to Congress... currently under committee review...

To prohibit the deployment of a unit or individual of the United States Armed Forces or element of the intelligence community in support of a North Atlantic Treaty Organization military operation absent express prior statutory authorization from Congress for such deployment.

H.R. 6290, to prevent future presidents from using the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to circumvent Congress’ constitutional authority to declare war.

“NATO has become a sock puppet to conduct military operations abroad absent congressional authorization, as required by Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. This practice undermines our Constitution and global security as it allows the president to perpetrate violence without congressional oversight. Congress must fight to regain its basic constitutional right to declare war,” said Kucinich.

H.R. 6290 would prohibit the deployment of a unit or individual of the U.S. Armed Forces or an element of the intelligence community in support of a NATO mission absent prior statutory authorization for such deployment from Congress, as enshrined in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

“The North Atlantic Treaty Organization must be reined it. Its actions have moved beyond taking measures in defense of countries to offensive military operations that have threatened to destabilize Eastern Europe, the Middle East, South Asia and other regions around the world. Congress must act to ensure that NATO doesn’t further erode the authority of the United States Congress to determine when and where the use of military force, or when and where the United States military or intelligence services are utilized,” said Kucinich.

9 Comments

9 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by Nevada1 (4024) 1 year ago

Good Post

[-] 2 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 1 year ago

Thank You for this post. Fuck'n awesome. Keep track of it, tweet it, facebook it, all that shit right here http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h6290/show

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20508) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I don't know much about how precisely the chain of command works within NATO.

But I do know this - Srebrenica burns in the minds of the Dutch peacekeepers who were assigned there.

On that basis alone, I have to say, charges that the President is going to unilaterally use NATO to declare war on a foreign country just don't ring true.

IF Congress really is considering such a bill - they are probably doing so for political, rather than practical, reasons.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

"IF Congress really is considering such a bill - they are probably doing so for political, rather than practical, reasons."

this statement is not only ignorant but it has no factual backing.

Democrat Dennis Kucinich wrote this bill and he has no election he's participating in.

Dennis Kucinich works for peace and has for years. Don't forget he was one of the few democrats that actually tried to impeach Bush for war crimes.

Maybe you forgot about Libya and the use of US surface to air missiles which had the US participating in a war unauthorized by constitutional authority.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20508) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Political, rather than practical reasons I said.

Many members of Congress wanted a much deeper involvement by U.S. forces in Libya then was seen. I have no doubt there are many lobbyists with the arms industry who feel exactly the same.

I have no doubt this measure is designed primarily to chastise the President, assuage his critics and their industrial allies, and seek ways to circumvent the President's authority next time they want a deeper involvement.

The example I gave above is I confess, a bad one, UNFOR is not NATO - but I do believe there are similarities in terms of processes and functions that in the end have similar results.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

So you really think Dennis Kucinich is just doing this for the contractors and to spread more war ?

That explanation is indeed a bad one. You shouldn't make assumptions without facts or credible theory. Because that is dead wrong. This is the guy who tried to form a peace committee.

Congress already has the ability to go to war. It's in the constitution. All this bill does is take away the presidents ability to get involved in a war involving US support of NATO without congressional approval.

NO MORE WAR

Keep in mind this bill would be law for future presidents too.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20508) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

So you really think Dennis Kucinich is just doing this for the contractors and to spread more war ?

I never said that. I never questioned the motivation of Kucinich - I lack sufficient information to make such a claim.

Six people can approve a measure, all for different and diametrically opposed reasons. The question is: What does the measure actually do?

Keep in mind this bill would be law for future presidents too.

Precisely why I suspect this bill is little more than showcase. Congress will not take away the President's current lawful authority to engage for 60-90 days. They won't do that for two reasons - one very practical, and that being military necessity - and the other entirely political.

  • Military - a necessity could arise at some point in the future, requiring action that cannot wait Congressional debate - and you can be absolutely certain military leaders will impress upon Congress this posibility

  • Political - as long as the President has the authority to engage for 60-90 days, Congress remains free to posture to no end . . .

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Oh Reginold....

I disagree!!!

lol - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R6_Chr2vro

I guess we'll just have to leave it at that. I enjoyed the respectful debate though dude!

I'm a little biased when it comes to Dennis. I tend to agree with him on everything. He's one of the people I most respect in this country.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20508) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

It seems to me that respect is a two way street.

and thanks.