Given the current system, i wonder what would happen if the opposite case arose: the congress declared war, but the president refuses to execute a war, (probably impeachment, but it would be amusing i'm sure).

----

the thing that needs to happen is that for a war to continue, the congress needs to positively assent to it, or by default the military comes home. for example by saying, that 1) if the troops have insufficient funding to be prepared to fight, they *must* leave, and 2) funding for overseas military action must be specified as such (after say the first 60 days or something).

the first condition prevents a holding-the-troops-hostage scenario of starting a war, and then saying, well if you don't pay then these kids are gonna die. (which Bush occasionally seems to hint at).

the second condition ensures that congress must take positive action for the fighting to continue. by default, if no action is taken, funds run out, and the military comes home.

the question then naturally would be: would the american people go for it?

my feeling is that they will have to be pulled kicking and screaming. given the public's perception of congress and its desire for a strong-man to watch over and protect them, moving to a system where war is a corporate decision (ie of the body politic) would be a substantial change even if it didn't actually impact the defense of the nation.

Posted at July 9, 2008 1:19 AM in response to AP: Bigger war role for Congress proposed

The thing that got me about the piece was that it read like it was supposed to be in the style section:

"Going back to war this fall in those same tired slacks? Not if these two secretaries of state have anything to say about it. The President can keep his eye on those kooky congressmen and women with these smart new frames from zeiss. and he better watch out for congressional authority, if he wants to stay abreast of all the latest fashions."

Posted at July 8, 2008 11:27 PM in response to AP: Bigger war role for Congress proposed

Hmmm, got some formatting issues there. i wish there was a preview button.

Posted at July 8, 2008 2:14 PM in response to AP: Bigger war role for Congress proposed

I've got some remington electric shavers that are supposed to shave as close as a blade. This automation will surely speed up the completion of our glorious task.

I recommend we additionally demand a ransom of "all the money in the world". With that much money, not even the United Nations will be able to stand in our way.

PS. should i convert to some religion or is this a non-denominational sort of cult, like the Unitarians?

PPS. can someone send me black socks? my white socks don't match the rest of my ninja outfit :

Posted at April 16, 2008 9:55 PM in response to Again, Govt's Kooky Cult Terrorism Case Goes Bust

They should make Yoo *teach* the class on Ethics. Then they could cross-list the course in the Lit dept. as a class on usage-controversies in irony.

Also it'd be cool to see how long everyone can keep a straight face.

Posted at April 11, 2008 5:20 PM in response to Berkeley Law Dean: Yoo Was Not The Decider

Lawyers don't get to decide what is legal. The administration should have invited a ruling by the courts (and subsequent action by the congress) on this issue. Instead they had a pattern of avoiding judicial scrutiny, first by secrecy, and then by changing its policy at the last moment to moot the cases in which its policy could have been ruled unconstitutional.

These are not the actions of people who believe what they are doing is legal.

Posted at April 3, 2008 4:36 PM in response to Yoo: I Thought Torture Was A Bad Idea, Really I Did

i love the irony: Yoo says on page 3 of the tpm-posted memo, that disallowing certain defenses of necessity (by a government official accused of torture) would be a violation of due process and then: the laws should be strictly construed in favor of the defendant (quoting cited-text concerning the government official again), but um apparently due process only applies to those acting illegally under the aegis of the government.

maybe that isn't irony isn't the right term.

Posted at April 2, 2008 11:46 AM in response to Today's Must Read

"Let me look into that possibility."

Posted at March 12, 2008 1:49 PM in response to Life in The HUD

So...since this isn't torture, it should be ok for other countries to do to US soldiers (and citizens).

Speak, up congress person, i don't think the mic caught that.

Also, i mean if lives really depended on it (kidnapping victim in a shallow grave), we could do it to US citizens too, right?

How about forcing them to play russian roulette? That doesn't cause any pain at all if we don't actually put the round in.

How big of a threat does it have to be to qualify for 'special methods': over 2 people killed if it succeeds? 100? 1000? what about those crazy IRA attacks where they call ahead?

well fantastic.

Posted at February 15, 2008 4:21 PM in response to We Do Not Torture Like The Spanish Inquisition... It's More Like the Khmer Rouge