Originally Posted by e1618978
You are totally wrong here. He displayed a massive ignorance about the middle east, which is the problem. It isn't his ideas that are questioned, it is the quality of his thinking and his ability to think. This is nothing to do with agree/disagree.
John McCain...is "massively ignorant" WRT the middle east? I don't think either one of you believes that, especially in comparison to Barack Obama. Remember, elections are really choices....choices between two people. Have you seen the ignorance of Barack Obama on display? I have:http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/2...rack_Obama.htm
Under what circumstances, if any, is the president, when operating overseas as commander-in-chief, free to disregard international human rights treaties that the US Senate has ratified?
A: It is illegal and unwise for the President to disregard international human rights treaties that have been ratified by the United States Senate, including and especially the Geneva Conventions. The Commander-in-Chief power does not allow the President to defy those treaties.
Does the president have inherent powers under the Constitution to conduct surveillance for national security purposes without judicial warrants, regardless of federal statutes?
A: The Supreme Court has never held that the president has such powers. As president, I will follow existing law, and when it comes to U.S. citizens and residents, I will only authorize surveillance for national security purposes consistent with FISA and other federal statutes.
And they haven't ruled he doesn't have the power, either.
If Congress prohibits a specific interrogation technique, can the president instruct his subordinates to employ that technique despite the statute?
A: No. The President is not above the law, and not entitled to use techniques that Congress has specifically banned as torture. We must send a message to the world that America is a nation of laws, and a nation that stands against torture. As President I will abide by statutory prohibitions for all US Government personnel and contractors.
So he favors mandating what the military can and can't specifically do, despite the President being the Commander-in-Chief. Gotcha.
Can the president disregard a congressional statute limiting the deployment of troops--either by capping the number of troops, or by setting minimum home-stays between deployments?
A: No, the President does not have that power. To date, several Congresses have imposed limitations on the number of US troops deployed in a given situation. As President, I will not assert a constitutional authority to deploy troops in a manner contrary to an express limit imposed by Congress and adopted into law.
Of course, Bush hasn't done that. It would also take a joint resolution for Congress to mandate withdrawal:
From the War Powers Resolution:
Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.
Let's move on.....
In what circumstances would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress?
A: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent---1
History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action--2
As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J.Res.23, which states in part that "any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress."---3
1--the President can order an attack under his Constitutional authority, consistent with the subsequent War Powers Resolution. Obama is flatly wrong.
2--That's highly dubious. Even if demonstrable, I'd like to see evidence of cause/effect. Examples, Mr. Obama?
3--As he describes it, his bill is blatantly Unconstitutional:
Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;
Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.