No one really believes that Congress must approve every use of force, but what is distinctly odd is that popular consensus covers extremes at both ends. Presidents routinely use force to protect American nationals abroad and to respond to specific, limited threats.
Everyone also agrees that presidents do not need congressional approval to defend the nation from attack or the threat of attack. We do not believe or condone this statement whatsoever. Indeed, we have given the president control over a world-destroying nuclear power with no legal barrier at all between his decision and his launching warheads. Somewhere between saving a kidnapped citizen and destroying the world, arguments over presidential authority arise.
Sure there are a lot, perhaps too many restrictions on how a president uses the assets of the United States military to ‘protect and serve.’ This of course is some very bad news for us.
We believe that the president should have some discretionary power when it comes to defending the nation from immanent attack by foreign entities. However, who decides what and from whom an inherent attack comes from and by what degree?
Surely one could argue that approximately 20 million foreign and without proper documentation settling at will in the United States could constitute an inherent attack on the U.S.A. Now if anyone reading this gives even a second thought to that notion, then shall we propose that 20 million Islam jihadists who believe in full Sharia law (mercy killings, genital mutilation, ad nauseam) moved into the nation’s borders?
I just wanted to make this as real and genuinely honest as possible. How does this statement faire with you?
“Presidents routinely use force to protect American nationals abroad and to respond to specific, limited threats.”
Now as for us we find that to be unequivocally false. Maybe if we were to ask the families of U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, or indeed the loved ones of those heroic retired Navy Seals, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, who stayed their course and darn near won. Also Sean Smith was one of four Americans killed in the Benghazi attack Please someone tell me who was looking out for their protection?
While we are in these matters we ask the White House to provide us with the outcome of Agent Brian Terry and various other dedicated men and women who have been in Harm’s way. Brian Terry.
On August 7, 2008, Mexican troops crossed the border into Arizona and held a U.S. Border Patrol Agent at gunpoint. Agents stationed at Ajo, Arizona said that the Mexican soldiers crossed the border into an isolated area southwest of Tucson and pointed rifles at the agent, who has not been identified. The Mexicans withdrew after other U.S. agents arrived on the scene.
On numerous occasions Patrol Agents have been fired upon from the Mexican side of the international border. Intelligence gathering has discovered bounties being placed on Patrol Agents to be paid by criminal smuggling organizations upon the confirmed murder or kidnapping of a U.S. Border Patrol Agent. In 2008, intelligence learned of a two-million-dollar contract for the murder of a Border Patrol Agent.
In 2009 Border Patrol Agent Rosas was murdered in an ambush while on patrol; a bounty may have been paid to the assassins.
“Presidents routinely use what…”
Agent Aguilar died in the line of duty after being struck by a vehicle driven by a suspected narcotics smuggler.
Border Patrol Agent Jefferson Barr was shot and killed in Texas while attempting to arrest four suspected drug smugglers near the Rio Grande River. It is actually quite depressing compiling this list knowing that no one in government gives a hoot.
Responding to a question from a reporter, secretary of state John Kerry says this afternoon that there would be no need for military action if Assad gave up his chemical weapons – “but he isn’t about to do it, and it can’t be done, obviously.”
Russia, not missing a beat, took the answer and proposed a diplomatic solution – all Syrian chemical weapons will be handed over to an international team.