This is the US of A, for chrissake - imperial prerogatives ueber alles, Constitution - schmonstitution. The so called "elected representatives" may quibble over whose cronies will receive domestic spending largesse, but they always toe the line when the "use of military force" is concerned, which I believe is the "proper" term nowadays.
Case in point http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2013/09/201393154941494433.html
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 6:16 PM, <knowknot at mindspring.com> wrote:
> On 8/30/2013, Wojtek S wrote:
>
> > Technically speaking, aerial attack alone is not a "war"
> > - or at least it has not been in the past practice - so
> > the POTUS is free to launch one without a Congressional
> > approval.
>
> Technically speaking, a unilaterally undertaken aerial attack by the U.S.
> military against a country with which the U.S. is not at war is an act of
> war.
>
> Technically speaking, deaths of persons not acting as belligerents against
> the U.S. that result from such an attack are the result of a war crime.
>
> Technically speaking, a unilaterally undertaken attack against a country
> with which the U.S. is not at war and which is not imminently threatening
> the U.S. violates the U.N. Charter.
>
> Technically speaking, anyone/everyone ("whoever") from within the U.S.
> (e.g., a POTUS) who provides or prepares a means for or takes part in any
> military action to be carried on from the U.S. against any foreign state
> with U.S. is not engaged in war is guilty of a felony.
>
> Technically speaking, a generalized claim of desuetude, of which the WS
> ukase quoted above is a near paradigmatic example, does not excuse
> violations of the U.S. constitution or penal laws.
>
> Practically speaking, obviously, there is no way any one or a small and
> politically unorganized group of persons would be able to obtain redress
> for violations of the above principles of law -- a kind noiseless tree
> falling in the forest sort of thing.
>
> And also practically speaking, while Rep. Barbara Lee and her
> congressional colleagues know the above, the letter cited by Robert Naiman
> is not surprisingly (Duh!) a mealy mouthed avoidance of addressing the
> POTUS' already accomplished and evidently very soon to be exacerbated
> violations of the above principles of law. Technically speaking, too.
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________**_____
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/**mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk<http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk>
>
-- Wojtek
"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."