Reply #80: Yes, but this was after the Pasha of Tripoli declared war [View All]

[PurityOfEssence]

This, viewed through the prism of the 1973 War Powers Act, is akin to being attacked and retaliating, rather than initiating an action of one's own volition.

Jefferson consulted with his cabinet to determine whether he needed to consult Congress, and when Gallatin said he did, he did so and got their approval. Yes, this was after they had sailed, but this was in the early days of the Republic, when things were much less clear in such situations.

Our interests had been attacked, a tribute demanded, and then war was declared upon us. He sent 4 ships to defend our interests, then consulted assessed the need to consult and did so when informed he should.

The instance at hand is much more voluntary and is an act of violating national sovereignty in a situation where we had not been attacked or threatened in any way.

Thanks for the correction on this; I had not been aware of the dynamic, and Jefferson definitely got a bit ahead of things there, but that shouldn't serve as justification for the current bit of adventurism.

It's an ironic bit of numerology that we're discussing Resolution 1973 and the War Powers Resolution of 1973, eh? Still, it's quite clear in the language there that Congress is to be consulted at all times, and this does not seem to have happened. The law is VERY well understood, and he's a constitutional scholar, so this is quite a bit of an overstepping.

More than anything, it's the misrepresentation and the substitution of "armed combatants" for "doe-eyed innocents" that offends and worries me, and being played like this isn't cricket. It's cynical manipulation, selective outrage and flat-out deception to achieve a grander goal that maybe couldn't be gotten with candor. That can help propel us down the scofflaw's pike to ruin and fritter away what's left of any moral authority we may be able to still claim. I don't like that. I don't like out and out deception; it's corrosive to civilization.