4 ms·

Please point me to the Congress vote on the authorization of military force towards N. Korea. Also, the AUMF is an extreme case of executive overreach, and in a

Please point me to the Congress vote on the authorization of military force towards N. Korea. Also, the AUMF is an extreme case of executive overreach, and in a perfect world would be struck down, so using it as justification for your argument is suspect at best. I fail to see where those examples you give involved pre-emptive force. A declared war was going on in each of them, isn't that exactly the situation where pre-emptive force is justified? And the shooting down of Flight 175 would have happened within our border so I fail to see how that applies. The U.S. Government has the appropriate branches of government (Law Enforcement, and by extension, some parts of the Military) to deal with such situations perfectly legally without any AUMF or drones. You can call a slippery slope a fallacy all the way down to the bottom. If I called it a slippery slope in 2001, and posted hypotheticals about us shooting missiles at U.S. citizens extra-judicially would it still be a fallacy?

tptacek 14y ago
The AUMF is an extreme case of executive overreach? It passed the House and Senate 1 vote shy of unanimously.
mpyne 14y ago
> Please point me to the Congress vote on the authorization of military force towards N. Korea. That's why I said "quibble" :) Congress eventually appropriated funds for North Korea and increased the size of the Army to match, but certainly got blindsided by the Truman Administration (who even tried to claim at first the Congress didn't need to approve at all). It is at least certain that Congress has decided to treat it as a declared war (e.g. http://usmilitary.about.com/od/benefits/a/vetbenefits.htm http://usmilitary.about.com/od/benefits/a/vetbenefits.htm where they talk about Veteran's Preference programs, they specifically list out the time during the Korean War). > And the shooting down of Flight 175 would have happened within our border so I fail to see how that applies. The U.S. Government has the appropriate branches of government (Law Enforcement, and by extension, some parts of the Military) to deal with such situations perfectly legally without any AUMF or drones. The military is very much not an extension of law enforcement, as that is illegal per the Posse Comitatus Act. (Edited to include the right law; I said ex Parte Milligan before because I've been up too long) In fact the Navy's surface ships will take a US Coast Guard task force with them to handle law enforcement duties when they are involved in interdiction operations (since the DoD requires Navy to obey the provisions of Posse Comitatus even though it strictly speaking only applied to the Army). There's no need to worry about shooting missiles at U.S. citizens after 2001 though. We've attacked American citizens on military grounds since the Whiskey Rebellion.
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  http://www.constitutionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/425.pdf http://www.constitutionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/0... is an excellent summary of the (lack of) legal basis for the Korean war.
  - ordinary 14y ago
    A plain-text version: http://www.korean-war.com/Archives/2002/06/msg00262.html http://www.korean-war.com/Archives/2002/06/msg00262.html

tptacek 14y ago

The AUMF is an extreme case of executive overreach? It passed the House and Senate 1 vote shy of unanimously.

mpyne 14y ago

> Please point me to the Congress vote on the authorization of military force towards N. Korea. That's why I said "quibble" :) Congress eventually appropriated funds for North Korea and increased the size of the Army to match, but certainly got blindsided by the Truman Administration (who even tried to claim at first the Congress didn't need to approve at all). It is at least certain that Congress has decided to treat it as a declared war (e.g. http://usmilitary.about.com/od/benefits/a/vetbenefits.htm http://usmilitary.about.com/od/benefits/a/vetbenefits.htm where they talk about Veteran's Preference programs, they specifically list out the time during the Korean War). > And the shooting down of Flight 175 would have happened within our border so I fail to see how that applies. The U.S. Government has the appropriate branches of government (Law Enforcement, and by extension, some parts of the Military) to deal with such situations perfectly legally without any AUMF or drones. The military is very much not an extension of law enforcement, as that is illegal per the Posse Comitatus Act. (Edited to include the right law; I said ex Parte Milligan before because I've been up too long) In fact the Navy's surface ships will take a US Coast Guard task force with them to handle law enforcement duties when they are involved in interdiction operations (since the DoD requires Navy to obey the provisions of Posse Comitatus even though it strictly speaking only applied to the Army). There's no need to worry about shooting missiles at U.S. citizens after 2001 though. We've attacked American citizens on military grounds since the Whiskey Rebellion.

anigbrowl 14y ago
http://www.constitutionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/425.pdf http://www.constitutionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/0... is an excellent summary of the (lack of) legal basis for the Korean war.
- ordinary 14y ago
  A plain-text version: http://www.korean-war.com/Archives/2002/06/msg00262.html http://www.korean-war.com/Archives/2002/06/msg00262.html