Pelosi: Bush needs approval to invade Iran
Speaker tells president he needs congressional OK as House debates Iraq
WASHINGTON - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that President Bush lacks the authority to invade Iran without specific approval from Congress, a fresh challenge to the commander in chief on the eve of a symbolic vote critical of his troop buildup in Iraq.
Pelosi, D-Calif., noted that Bush consistently said he supports a diplomatic resolution to differences with Iran “and I take him at his word.”
At the same time, she said, “I do believe that Congress should assert itself, though, and make it very clear that there is no previous authority for the president, any president, to go into Iran.”
Pelosi spoke in an interview in the Capitol as the House moved through a third marathon day of debate on a nonbinding measure that disapproves of the military buildup in Iraq while expressing support for the troops.
Passage of the measure was expected Friday. Pelosi and other Democrats have said approval would mark the first step in an effort by the new Democratic-controlled Congress to force Bush to change course in a war that has killed more than 3,100 U.S. troops.
Bush administration officials and their allies are resigned to House passage of the resolution and have worked in recent days to hold down defections by GOP lawmakers.
But Bush took a swipe at his critics during the day.
A presidential anomaly
“This may become the first time in the history of the United States Congress that it has voted to send a new commander into battle and then voted to oppose his plan that is necessary to succeed in that battle,” the president said.
The Senate unanimously confirmed Lt. Gen David Petraeus last week to take over as the top U.S. commander in Iraq.
Bush said at a news conference Wednesday there is no doubt the Iranian government is providing armor-piercing weapons to kill American troops in Iraq. But he backed away from claims the top echelon of Iran’s government was responsible.
Administration critics have accused the president of looking for a pretense to attack the Islamic republic, which is also at loggerheads with the United Nations about what Tehran says is a nuclear program aimed at developing energy for peaceful purposes.
Defending U.S. intelligence that has pinpointed Iran as a hostile arms supplier in Iraq, Bush said, “Does this mean you’re trying to have a pretext for war? No. It means I’m trying to protect our troops.”
Bush has asked Congress to approve $100 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Congressional Democrats are hoping to insert provisions that would make it harder for the administration to follow through on its plan to deploy an additional 21,500 combat troops to Iraq.
Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who is leading the effort, has said the measure may be changed to require that any troops deployed must meet formal Army readiness standards.
Incorporating Iran into war measure?
Murtha also said the measure may be changed to prohibit any military action against Iran without specific congressional approval.
Asked about Murtha’s remarks, Pelosi said, “I fully support that.” She added that she would propose it as stand-alone legislation if it is not included in the bill that provides more money for the Iraq war.
Bush has said he intends to go ahead with the troop buildup regardless of nonbinding expressions of disapproval in Congress.
But, Pelosi said, “I don’t think that the president can completely ignore it.”
She spoke down the hall from the House chamber, where Republicans and Democrats alternated turns at the microphone in a debate on the war.

Link http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17168217

Public Law 93-148, cited as the War Powers Resolution, states in section 2, part C that The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/...w/warpower.htm

Yet the 1798 Act reestablishing the United States Marine Corps under the Constitution states in section 6. And be it further enacted, That the marine corps, established by this act, shall, at any time, be liable to do duty in the forts and garrisons of the United States, on the sea-coast, or any other duty on shore, as the President, at his discretion, shall direct.

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq59-16.htm


I'll also point out that the idea is being floated that the Government of Iran is attacking US Forces in Iraq, covered under section 2, part C, number 3 of the War Powers Resolution.

Originally Posted by Gator

I'll also point out that the idea is being floated that the Government of Iran is attacking US Forces in Iraq, covered under section 2, part C, number 3 of the War Powers Resolution.

You have a valid point I think.

So anytime that a US service member is fired upon, the way that reads, it would leave the President the option to go to war right?

I will again state that the US Marine Corps is the "President's Own" so to speak. From my understanding (I may be wrong) the President can send the USMC where he wants when he wants and for whatever reason he wants.

On the other side of the coin we are a department of the Navy also. I am sure that an argument could be had for that as well.

Originally Posted by Marinerhodes

You have a valid point I think.

So anytime that a US service member is fired upon, the way that reads, it would leave the President the option to go to war right?

I will again state that the US Marine Corps is the "President's Own" so to speak. From my understanding (I may be wrong) the President can send the USMC where he wants when he wants and for whatever reason he wants.

On the other side of the coin we are a department of the Navy also. I am sure that an argument could be had for that as well.

Under the Law the President can order Marines to do duty in the forts and garrisons of the United States, on the sea-coast, or any other duty on shore, as the President, at his discretion, shall direct, at any time.

The "at his discretion" and "at any time" being key, as well as "any other duty", as it takes the Untied States Congress out of the picture.

'tis in my opinion why Marines have a Sea, Land, and Air Mission and capability, but it is also, in my opinion, why the Marines are not their own Service Department, and why the Marines are kept so small in number.
I do not believe the Marines can take Iran all by themselves, you on the other hand may disagree, or know a few of your fellow Marines who would disagree.

As for the US Navy and the Marines being a Corps of, I've noticed the highest ranking person in Uniform is a Marine, for the first time in the history of the Nation, I do not view such as a coincidental action.

As for what happens when US Service Members are fired upon and War, well War is a very strong term, and left by law only to the United States Congress to declare.

I dunno. The articles state their are only 3 reasons he can do this.

1. A declaration of war -has not yet happened
2. Specific Statutory authorized by Congress
3. A national emergency created by attack on the US (not the case).

So it really all depends on #2. Congress gave him authorization to attack Iraq in order to dismantle Saddam's WMD program. It did not give him authorization to attack Iran. He is allowed to attack hostile forced coming from Iran as long as they stay within the Iraqi border. But their is no such statute that would allow him to cross the border. Its like Cambodia all over again.

Attacking Iran's nuclear facilities have NOTHING to do with the 2003 Iraq mandate as authorized by Congress so I think Pelosi is right. I don't think the president can legally do this, without permission from Congress.

Also factor in that we are still not certain whether the attacks coming from Iran are from the Iranian government or from independent groups operating in Iran. The Jury is still out on that one.

As for the Marines, I don't think its a blank check at all. It says the president may command troops on forts and garrisons on the sea coast. The bill is taking about protection of the US, or at the very most, territory the US occupies. The intent of the bill is to say the president can conduct operations within the USA for its security. It doesn't say anything about launching attacks on other nations. I doubt it would, as it seems to directly contradict to the Constitution.

And as Gator pointed out, do we really want to send the Marines into Iran all alone? With respect to the Marine Corps, That would be very reckless.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

I dunno. The articles state their are only 3 reasons he can do this.

1. A declaration of war -has not yet happened
2. Specific Statutory authorized by Congress
3. A national emergency created by attack on the US (not the case).

So it really all depends on #2. Congress gave him authorization to attack Iraq in order to dismantle Saddam's WMD program. It did not give him authorization to attack Iran. He is allowed to attack hostile forced coming from Iran as long as they stay within the Iraqi border. But their is no such statute that would allow him to cross the border. Its like Cambodia all over again.

Attacking Iran's nuclear facilities have NOTHING to do with the Iraq mandate as authorized by Congress. I think Pelosi is right, I dont think the president can legally do this, without permission from Congress.

Also factor in that we are still not certain whether the attacks coming from Iran are from the Iranian government or from independent groups operating in Iran.

The Jury is still out on that one.

2. Specific Statutory authorized by Congress.

**********
Reestablishment of the Marine Corps

This act of 11 July 1798 reestablished the United States Marine Corps under the Constitution.




An Act for the establishing and organizing a Marine Corps.
Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in addition to the present military establishment, there shall be raised and organized a corps of marines, which shall consist of one major, four captains, sixteen first lieutenants, twelve second lieutenants, forty-eight sergeants, forty-eight corporals, thirty-two drums and fifes, and seven hundred and twenty privates, including the marines who have been enlisted, or are authorized to be raised for the naval armament; and the said corps may be formed into as many companies or detachments, as the President of the United States shall direct, with a proper distribution of the commissioned and non-commissioned officers and musicians to each company or detachment.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the pay and subsisteuce of the said officers, privates and musicians, shall be as follows, to wit: To a major, fifty dollars per month, and four rations per day; to a captain, forty dollars per mouth, aud three rations per day; to a first lieutenant, thirty dollars per mouth, and three rations per day; to a second lieutenant, twenty-five dollars per month, and two rations per day; and to the nom-commissioned officers, privates and musicians, conformably to the act, intituled "An act providing a naval armament," as shall be fixed by the President of the United States: And the President of the United States shall be, and is hereby authorized to continue the enlistment of marines, until the said corps shall be complete; and of himself, to Appoint the commissioned officers, whenever, in the recess of the Senate, an appointment shall be necessary. And the enlistments, which shall be made by virtue hereof, may be for the term of three years, subject to be discharged by the President of the United States, or by the ceasing or repeal of the laws providing for the naval armament. And if the marine corps, or any part of it, shall be ordered by the President to do duty on shore, aud it shall become necessary to appoint an adjutant, paymaster, quartermaster, sergeant-major, quartermaster-sergeant, and drum and fife-major, or any of them, the major or commandant of the corps, is hereby authorized to appoint such staff officer or officers, from the line of subalterns, sergeants and music, respectively, who shall be entitled, during the time they shall dosuch duty, to the same extra pay and emoluments, which are allowed by law, to officers acting in the same capacities in the infantry.

Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That the detachments of the corps of marines hereby authorized, shall be made in lieu of the respective quotas of marines, which have been established or authorized for the frigates, and other armed vessels and gallies, which shall be employed in the service of the United States: And the President of the United States may detach and appoint such of the officers of this marine corps, to act on board the frigates, and any of the armed vessels of the United States, respectively, as he shall, from time to time, judge necessary; any thing in the act "providing a naval armament" to the contrary hereof notwithstanding.

Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That the officers, non-commissioned officers, privates and musicians aforesaid, shall take the same oath, and shall be governed by the same rules and articles of war, as are prescribed for the military establishment of the United States, and by the rules for the regulation of the navy, heretofore, or which shall be established by law, according to the nature of the service in which they shall be employed, and shall be entitled to the same allowance, in case of wounds or disabilities, according to their respective ranks, as are granted by the act "to ascertain and fix the military establishment of the United States."

Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That the non-commissioned officers, musicians, seamen and marines, who are or shall be enlisted into the service of the United States; and the non-commissioned officers and musicians, who are or shall be enlisted into the army of the United States, shall be, and they are hereby exempted, during their term of service, from all personal
arrests for any debt or contract.

Sec. 6. And be it further enacted, That the marine corps, established by this act, shall, at any time, be liable to do duty in the forts and garrisons of the United States, on the sea-coast, or any other duty on shore, as the President, at his discretion, shall direct.


Approved, July 11, 1798.

****************


As I read the Law the United States Congress has already given the President specific statutory authorization to use the United States Marine Corps at his discretion.

I understand what you are saying. However I believe the article is referring to what goes on the United States shore.

You see, the second part 'or any other duty on shore.' is actually referring back to the first part 'in the forts and garrisons of the United States'. In other words "on duty on shore (or elsewhere) WITHIN the United States". The part that indicates its referring to the US is because it mention the Sea Coast. I think its fair to assume that it is referring to the US sea-coast.

Now does that include US military bases are foreign soil? Perhaps, But because it only mentions the inside of the US and not the outside I tempted to say no.

Plus there is this. The founding fathers wanted Congress to be able to declare war. If they gave the President command over the Marines with no input from Congress wouldn't that be a enormous contradiction?

Originally Posted by mmarsh

I understand what you are saying. However I believe the article is referring to what goes on the United States shore.

You see, the second part 'or any other duty on shore.' is actually referring back to the first part 'in the forts and garrisons of the United States'. In other words "on duty on shore (or elsewhere) WITHIN the United States". The part that indicates its referring to the US is because it mention the Sea Coast. I think its fair to assume that it is referring to the US sea-coast.

Now does that include US military bases are foreign soil? Perhaps, But because it only mentions the inside of the US and not the outside I tempted to say no.

Plus there is this. The founding fathers wanted Congress to be able to declare war. If they gave the President command over the Marines with no input from Congress wouldn't that be a enormous contradiction?

I didnt think the US Military had bases on foreign soil back in 1798, so, as for the within the United States idea, well that would be up to the USSC to rule on.