War Powers Act / "War on Terror" - 3 Parts (3/21, 3/25, 4/1)

3/21/2013

War Powers Resolution Blog Post – Due FRIDAY - March 22, 2013

(1) Are the national security policies / strategies adopted by U.S. presidents in the "War on Terror" unwarranted violations of the Constitution, or are they necessary to protect U.S. citizens from external threats or both? Why or why not? Site specific examples and arguments. (5 points for answering the question; 5 points for examples/arguments) (10 points)

(2) Are some policies / strategies more problematic than others? (e.g. We looked at 3 strategies - which do you agree with and which do you not agree with) Site specific examples and arguments for why you support or oppose a strategy. (5 points for answering the question; 5 points for examples/arguments) (10 points)

(3) Does the War Power Act or the “War on Terror” threatened either balance of power (checks and balances) or democracy (citizen participation)? Why or why not? Site specific examples and / or arguments. (5 points for answering the question; 5 points for examples/ arguments) (10 points)

Respond to two (2) Peers – Due FRIDAY - March 29, 2013 (5 points each – 10 points)

Choose from one of the following sentence starters for each peer:

(1) During the deliberation, you contributed to the process by…. This helped me form my position because…

(2) I agree with ….. on your blog post because…. I disagree with….. on your blog post because…

(3) You raise an interesting point in your blog post, … (the point), because…..

(4) I would like to know more about how you came to your position on …. Because…

Respond to my questions / comments– Due TUESDAY, April 2, 2013 (5 points)

37 Comments

Wilbert Castillo

03/21/2013 6:26pm

(1) The strategies and national security policies taken by the U.S. Presidents are necessary for the protection of the United States. Tactics such as the use of Predator and Reaper drones to conduct surveillance and killings of High Value Targets are necessary to eliminate Enemies of the State "believed" to be connected to insurgent forces. Targeted killings such as those conducted by the Bush Administration are necessary to slow the growth of insurgent cells as well as take away their radical leaders who give the orders of attack and disorient the soldiers. These means are less invasive to foreign countries as well as cause less collateral damage than sending large sums of troops to do the same job. These tactics are key to protecting the safety of the nation and its citizens.

(2) Strategies such as the torturing of suspected individuals proves itself more problematic than detainment. This is because people are jailed everyday in the U.S. without sufficient proof and so terrorists are not cared for when detained "unjustly". On the other hand the idea of torture faces much opposition due to the inhumane and cruel treatment of suspected individuals in the process. The killings of suspects also face opposition because many believe that people are being executed without due process, yet I agree with the killings because in the constitution due process does not necessarily involve a trial by jury and only proof of guilt is enough.

(3) The War Powers Act threatened the equality of the role of the president and congress through checks and balances by giving power to congress. The War Powers Act threatens the power of the presidency by taking away from the President's authority the power to engage in warfare. The power to enter war is a rightful power given to the President as Commander-in-Chief. The WPA states that the president must, to declare war, bring forth before congress his plans. Congress already has the power of the purse and so has power to end war by not funding it. The WPA takes the power of Congress further by giving it the authority to counter the president in his/her decision. This creates an imbalance in government giving congress more power in warfare than the president.

Nicolette Sanborn

03/22/2013 3:49pm

Wilbert, This helped me form my position you gave really good points and looking at your post and thinking about your arguments in class helped me develop my point. I agree with your last point because it does threaten the power of the president to be able to do what he as a president should want to do. One interesting point you say was "the idea of torture faces much opposition due to the inhumane and cruel treatment of suspected individuals in the process. The killings of suspects also face opposition because many believe that people are being executed without due process, yet I agree with the killings because in the constitution due process does not necessarily involve a trial by jury and only proof of guilt is enough." I must bring myself to say.. I agree with you, Wilbert.

Ms. Sharer

03/28/2013 10:54pm

This pertains to #2 - How do you determine "proof of guilt" without a trail?

This pertains to #3 - Both Congress and the President are elected. Nevertheless, one might argue that Congress is "closer" to the will of the people because each Congressperson represents far fewer people than the President. Why not give Congress more power over warfare? Also, does the War Powers Act actually give Congress more power over warfare? It is not merely clarification on how the power of the purse might balance the power of Commander in Chief?

Nicolette Sanborn

03/22/2013 9:21am

1)I think the stratigies used by the U.S " war on terror" isn't necessary. I can appreciate the idea of it and if it was necessary (having evidence) that the person they're torturing, and if they know they're a terroist, then fine, torture them. But, we live in a country were you need to respect a humans rights and by going in another country and "think" they're a terroist, then that's wrong. Our "country" is the place of the free, the "supposed to be the greatest place" and WE go into a different country and start killing people? That's bad on us. We could of saved ourselfs from 9/11 but we were cocky and thought that no one could touch us, and when they blew up the twin towers we get mad? we could have stopped that and we didn't so it's so wrong to torture potentially innocent people. Another example, pearl harbor. We thought the Japanese wouldn't hold up to their word. We got the threats and you know what they did? they blew up OUR soliders while they were sleeping. We've had two huge things happen to us in the past few decades and now we decide it's time to torture people. so, in my opinion we're not right to go and hurt people without the evidence we need.
2) I believe that the torturing stratigie is more problematic. In the United States, people are detained for 24 hours without evidence but, we don't just torture them to get information. We may get rough but for the reason of seeing if the suspect is actually innocent and/or guilty. Torturing is inhumane and just so morally wrong. I disagree with the killing of people because you could be taking out an innocent life.
(I'll finish later)...

Nicolette Sanborn

03/22/2013 3:42pm

I think it does threaten the power because the President has the right as commander in cheif to do what he feels is best. Even though he can decide weather or not to go to war, he has to get money for it and where does he get the money from? Congress. Which threatens his power as president because he has to depend on the congress to give him money.

Wilbert Castillo

03/25/2013 1:26pm

Nicolette, your point is very much what I mean by people opposing the torture and assassination tactics used by the government in aquisition of their intel and eliminating their targets. You creae a very valid point in saying that this country very much encourages human rights, a factor I did not previously consider, and that it should be well proven that someone is an affiliate of "terrorists" before capital action is taken. I do appreciate out agreement in the necessity of the War on Terror strategies, if and when desperately needed, and the unconstitutionality of the WPA.

Wilbert Castillo

03/25/2013 2:03pm

Go, I must say that I do not agree with your view on the WPA. In my view it gives the congress too much power to go against the president. The congress is given the constitutional right to control funding of all governmebt activiries including warfare. By cutting the funds to a war, congress can control ending warfare. You have a very respectable view on the war on terror tactics amd I must say that even though I believe that the government should have the right to do what is necessary even if it is against the constitution, if it infringes.human rights without full evidence it should not be done. Your post has helped in partially altering my views in this matter.

Ms. Sharer

03/28/2013 10:59pm

Nicolette - You obviously oppose torture. What about the other strategies - drones and indefinite detention?

Ciani Upchurch

03/29/2013 8:00pm

Nicolette I agree with your blog post number two your right torturing someone is inhumane and morally wrong but somebody in the United States still believes that old saying an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth.

Go Vung

03/22/2013 12:03pm

1) The national security policies adopted by U.S. presidents in the "War on Terror" are unwarranted that violated the Constitution. Because the constitution stated
- the power of declaring war are belong to the Congress; even the President, the Commander in Chief should inform before or after (60-90 days) he sent the troops. So the President should do what he suppose to do not to violate the constitution or the War Power Act.

2) The strategist of Detention/military tribunals, extraordinary rendition or torture, and unmanned drones are very problematic.
- as in the 4th amendment, there should be a right to secure in the persons or his/her belonging without the supportive of affirmative. So there should not be military tribunals in the U.S. nor outside of the U.S.
- as in the 5th amendment, no person shall be held to answer without grand jury nor there should not be torture in order to ask an terrorist or a prison.
- Unmanned drones that killed many innocent civilian from the terrorist country is unnecessary. There is the international human service law that assure all human are created equally and there should not be inhumane manner from the U.S. military nor troops. We should also be mindful of what we are doing and what can cause us in trouble.

3) The War Power Act is balancing the U.S. policy that the President; as a commander in Chief overused his power. The War Power Act is solving the problem over the President's using his power on the war that result in the bloody conflict. It set the time frame and limit in order to fund or approve the war that the President sent.

Nicolette Sanborn

03/22/2013 3:59pm

Go, This helped me because you and I were on the same basis in class. Your point on the president overusing his power really makes alot of sense.This helped me form my position because when you were saying this in class, it helped me have a more sophisticated argument. I agree with your point "as a commander in Chief overused his power. The War Power Act is solving the problem over the President's using his power on the war that result in the bloody conflict." this is a identical view of mine.

Ms. Sharer

03/28/2013 11:10pm

Go - Do you think the War Powers Act helps clarify the balance of power between the president and Congress regarding U.S. involvement in a war? For example, while Congress has the power to declare war, we know the U.S. has been involved in many wars and/or conflicts since 1945 that were not declared. Do you think the War Powers Act restricts the president or involves Congress and forces a president to "think twice" about going to war? Maybe you have another suggestion.

You provide specific examples for why you believe the 3 strategies we studied related to the "War on Terror" are not Constitutional. Do you believe there is ever a situation where U.S. or international law should be violated?

Liangjian Gao

03/29/2013 5:31pm

Go, I agree with you the Presidents in the War on Terror is unwarranted on your blog post because the president should not be granted power to go to war indefinitely and the power of declaring war belongs to the Congress. I disagree with you opinion that these strategies are problematic on your blog post because when something is threating U.S security, the U.S should perform some of these strategies in special case.

Ciani Upchurch

03/29/2013 7:55pm

Go Vung , During the deliberation, you contributed to the process by showing me that the three strategies violates different parts of the U.S. Constitution.

Jiaming

03/30/2013 2:21pm

Go, I agree with you thatThe national security policies adopted by U.S. presidents in the "War on Terror" are unwarranted that violated the Constitution because the president should not have so much power and the power of declaring and funding war belongs to the Congress or higher authority/department/agency.
I disagree with you opinion that these strategies are problematic because when something is threating you or your family, you should have reactions and stop the problems or issues. Some cases are very tricky and we have to use special and specific strategies to solve them.

Jiaming

03/22/2013 3:20pm

The national security policies/strategies adopted by the U.S. Presidents in the war on terror are necessary for the protection of the United States. By one estimate,95 percent of targeted killings since 9/11 have been conducted by drones. Among the benefits of drones: they don't put American troops in harm's way. America's safety is the primary concern and also keep American troops away from harm.

2. Strategies such as the torturing of suspected individuals proves itself more problematic than unmanned drones. Torture is a process of physically pain and mentally suffering. I think it is all about morality and humanity. Some well-trained terrorists will not tell the secrets even though you torture them to death. If you can't get necessary informations from the "evil people", for god sake just execute them. Don't let them experience extra pain. I know unmanned drones already killed many innocent civilian from the terrorist country. I didn't mean it is moral, but it is the best way to solve the problems. People do not have to experience pain or misery. Just couple seconds to ended one's life without the pain. This is war on terror, peace requires sacrifice. This the unchangeable law. If they send the troops to fight, then American soldiers may die. Soldiers' life are more precious to the America than non- American citizen.

3. The War Power Act actually threaten balance of power and democracy. As a president or commander in Chief overused his power. The War Power Act somehow reduce President's using his power on the war. It ought to consider ways to reduce overweening presidential authority in the awesome arena of war and peace, the legislative branch also given constitutional opportunities to reclaim its greatly diminished role, in search of a better balance of war powers between the President and Congress

Ms. Sharer

03/28/2013 11:20pm

Jiaming - You wrote "If they send the troops to fight, then American soldiers may die. Soldiers' life are more precious to the America than non- American citizen." Do you believe U.S. lives are more important than "non-U.S. lives?"

You also justify the use of execution and drones because they provide a "quick death" while torture is painful. Is something painful less humane than a death even if there is not full evidence that the person is guilty of something? Are executions always the right of a government?

You have two different points of view in #3 on the War Powers Act. Do you think it is constitutional? (maintains a balance of power regarding war between the president and the Congress?)

Liangjian Gao

03/29/2013 5:45pm

You raise an interesting point in your blog post if you can't get necessary information from the "evil people", for god sake just execute them. I agree that it is inhuman and cruel and I do not support this strategy. However, I think if we find evidences to show that he or she is guilty, this strategy may be useful and interrogate who the leader is. In addition, what do you mean by Soldiers' life are more precious to the America than non- American citizen?

Liangjian Gao

03/22/2013 8:08pm

1. The national security policies or strategies adopted by U.S. presidents in the “War on Terror” are necessary to protect U.S. citizen from external threats. As one of the strongest countries in the world, the U.S. government should try every effort to keep the safety of people in the United States. One of the examples would be the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. It is just a warning that we have to eliminate terror instead of waiting for them to come and defend. Like the clause “necessary and proper,” the U.S has to use these policies and strategies to protect the people who live in the U.S.

2. The indefinite detention and military tribunals, extraordinary rendition and torture are more problematic than the unmanned drone strikes. I disagree with indefinite detention and torture because it is cruel and inhuman for people to do that. However, if the U.S proves that one is a terrorist, the government may able implement these strategies in order to find out the leader of the terrorist. I agree with drone strike because it saves the life of many soldiers.

3. The War Power Act has threatened the check of balance. First of all, even though both the House and the Senate voted by wide margins, Bush use military force in Iraq in October 2002, determining to be necessary and appropriate, on the other way, carte blanche authority. In addition, the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan and the 2003 Iraq war, received legislative- authorization but not declaration of war. Furthermore, President Obama told Congress that he was acting pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as commander in chief and chief executive.

Ms. Sharer

03/28/2013 11:26pm

LiangJian - In #2 you wrote that indefinite detention and tortore are "cruel and inhumane." You favor the use of drones because they save (U.S.) soldier's lives. We read that U.S. drone strikes have killed many civilians including children. Should there be any restrictions on the use of drones?

#3 - I'm not clear on your position on the War Powers Act. Congress approved both the war on Iraq in March 2003 and the war on Afghanistan in 2002. Remember, in class we looked at "undeclared" U.S. wars since 1945. Should the president be able to go to war indefinitely - like the U.S. did in Vietnam - or should the president have to go to Congress after 60 - 90 days for approval or even to get Congressional advice?

Go Vung

04/01/2013 5:42pm

Hi Liangjian, I don't agree with you on your point of "War on Terror" that it might be a necessary and proper clause but the U.S. also should mindful of our action that might lead us to the war. What if we mess up with the terrorist country and they try to fight against us? We should know that we are causing the problem or stopping the problem.

Abdul

03/24/2013 11:06am

1) All executive order policies adopted by U.S. presidents in the "War on Terror" are unwarranted and have clearly violated our U.S Constitution. Because the constitution stated
- the power of declaring war are belong to the Congress; even the President, the Commander in Chief should inform before or after (60-90 days) he sent the troops. So the President should do what he suppose to do not to violate the constitution or the War Power Act.

2) The strategist of Detention/military tribunals, extraordinary rendition or torture, and unmanned drones are very dangerous.
- as in the 4th amendment, there should be a right to secure in the persons or his/her belonging without the supportive of affirmative. So there should not be military tribunals in the U.S. nor outside of the U.S.
- as in the 5th amendment, no person shall be held to answer without grand jury nor there should not be torture in order to ask an terrorist or a prison.
- Unmanned drones that killed many innocent civilian from the terrorist country is unnecessary. There is the international human service law that assure all human are created equally and there should not be inhumane manner from the U.S. military troops. We should also be mindful of what we are doing and what can cause us in trouble. No where in the constitution does it say we can kill innocents because we think they might be a "terrorist".

3) The War Power Act is balancing the power that the President has a commander in Chief. The War Power Act is solving the problem about the President's using their power on the war that results in more bloody conflicts. It set the time frame and limit in order to fund or approve the war that the President sent.

Ms. Sharer

03/28/2013 11:14pm

Abdul - You appear to agree with Go since you used the exact examples she posted earlier. Is there ever a situation where you think one of the "War on Terror" strategies we studied in class might be ethical or necessary? Why do you think some other people, including most of the U.S. Congress and President Obama, justify these strategies? If you could talk to President Obama, what would you tell him?

What executive order policies have violated the Constitution in regards to war powers?

Ciani Upchurch

03/29/2013 7:49pm

1.I think the strategies adopted by the U.S. president in the " War on Terror" isn't necessary. Just because you think someone is a terroist does not give you the right to torture and imprison them. Terroist should be tried by in civilian jury court then in a military tribunals so they can get a fair trial.

2.I think that the Extraordinary Rendition and Torture, Indefunite Detention and Military Tribunals, and the Unmanned Drone Strikes are problematice. These three strategies violates different sections of the Constitution; Fouth Amendement, Fifth Amendement, Sixth Amendement, and Article one Section nine. Extraordinary Rendition and Torture states that "outside the United States, where they were subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques that involved torture and other abuse." It also says that about 100 prisoners has been secretly detained. However the Indefinite Detention and Military Tribunals states that "the use of non juried military trials, allowed evidence seized in the United States or abroad without a search warrant to be admitted in these trials, did not guarantee the right to a defense attorney." No one should be torture because someone suspected that they are terrorists and that they can be withholding information. I think that the CIA should have a warrent and a reason to search anybodies stuff, if they do not have a warrent then the things they find can not be used in court. These two together violates the fourth amendment which says the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches. And the the fifth amendment which says no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury. The Unmanned Drone Strikes killed many innocent civilian this strategy is inhumane. Everyone in and out the United States should be treated equally. With that being said it violates article one section nine the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion
the public safety may require it.

3. I think that the War on Terror does threatened the balance of power because the president is the commander in Chief and he has a say so in whether he wants us to go to war. Congress really didn't get a say so in the strategies in the war on terror.

Ms. Sharer

03/30/2013 2:29am

Ciani - You've included a lot of analysis on the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments and the "War on Terror" strategies. How might you convince others that "everyone should be treated equally?" Why is this value important?

#3 - This question is on the War Powers Act - not the "War on Terror." What role should Congress play when the US goes to war? (Congress can declare war and fund it but is this enough?) Congress has played a role on the strategies used in the "War on Terror." What would you like to tell you Congress person?

Channary Art

03/30/2013 8:32am

1)I think the national security policies adopted by the U.S. presidents in the “War on Terror” are unwarranted. The tactics used are doing more harm to the citizens than it is supposed to help them. The Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case declared that the military tribunals are illegal.

2) The strategies are problematic. Such as the extraordinary rendition or torture, indefinite detention and military tribunals, and unmanned drone strikes. The 4th amendment stated the rights of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. The 5th amendment state no trial without grand jury except war crime. The unmanned drone killed many civilians.

3) The War Power Act is balancing the power. It balance the power on war between the President of Congress. It helps the president settle the bloody conflicts and set the time limit on war making.

Jiaming

03/30/2013 2:34pm

Channary, I agree with you thatThe national security policies adopted by U.S. presidents in the "War on Terror" are unwarranted that violated the Constitution because the president should not have so much power and the power of declaring and funding war belongs to the Congress or higher authority/department/agency.
I disagree with you opinion that these strategies are problematic because when something is threating you or your family, you should have reactions and stop the problems or issues. Some cases are very tricky and we have to use special and specific strategies to solve them.

Ms. Sharer

04/02/2013 2:46am

Channary - Why do you think Hamdan v. Rumfeld found military tribunals illegal? How do the "War on Terror" strategies violate the 4th amendment? Which is an "unreasonable search and seizure? How does the War Power Act relate to the structure of the U.S. government - "checks and balances?"

War Powers Act / "War on Terror" - 3 Parts (3/21, 3/25, 4/1)

Leave a Reply.

Author

Archives

Categories