Reagan sank the entire Iranian navy for mining the Persian Gulf.
Where were the outcries? These are Russian shills.
The Huthies shot missles at US war ships. Biden clearly has an Article 2 responsibility to defend US troops and US shipping from these assholes.
Maybe burger empire should start respecting territorial waters of other countries and stop sailing its war ships in Yemeni territory.
The Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden are both international waters.
Yes this is a useful Wikipedia article. Especially the point just a little past the first line which specifically rebuts the point you are making:
"The territorial sea is sovereign territory, although foreign ships (military and civilian) are allowed innocent passage through it, or transit passage for straits"
And just to jump ahead to preempt your next argument, innocent passage is defined in the UN convention on the law of the sea here:
https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part2.htm
Furthermore the Houthis are not making claims that the vessels attacked are violating innocent passage. Only you are for some reason.
Oh hey, could you spell out for us the reason Ansar Allah are disallowing passage for vessels of certain countries through their sovereign waters?
I agree, Reagan's actions were unconstitutional. Pretty much every President since and many before also did unconstitutional things with the military.
US ships can respond defensively, but an act of aggression (i.e. bombing a foreign country) needs Congressional approval. The fact that Presidents have ignored that and Congress let's them get away with it is irrelevant to its Constitutionality.
Congress gave the president this power. It's constitutional, for now. I don't agree with it. But as long as the war powers act is in place this is constitutional. They should take it back. The sooner the better. But this is the best we'll get.
The War Powers Resolution doesn't grant the President powers, it restricts them. The opening text says this (emphasis mine):
(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
The closest is the third, since this was a response to an attack on ships, some of which are from the US. But it specifically says "national emergency," and since the attacks weren't directed at US ships in particular, it doesn't seem like a national emergency to me.
I'm not sure if this part is legally binding, but it does help clarify the rest of the bill. The most cited part is the reporting requirement, but just spelling out the reporting requirement doesn't mean any action by the sitting president is fine.
So my understanding of the bill is that Presidents may not initiate armed conflict without a declaration of war, specific authorization, or national emergency. Since none of those appear to apply, the strike is unconstitutional.
That said, there are so many cases of Presidents violating this resolution (at least in the way I understand it) that there's a argument that precedent makes it functionally legal. I disagree, but that seems to be the strongest defense here.
I'm guessing Biden will get away with it like every other president has, but that doesn't mean it's okay.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The U.S. and U.K. led a series of airstrikes in Yemen on Thursday evening, setting off alarms globally about how the attacks play into the smoldering regional risk of conflict — including a stream of questions from Congress about whether Joe Biden was legally authorized to conduct the strikes at all.
In a statement, Biden said, “Today, at my direction, U.S. military forces—together with the United Kingdom and with support from Australia, Bahrain, Canada, and the Netherlands—successfully conducted strikes against a number of targets in Yemen used by Houthi rebels to endanger freedom of navigation in one of the world’s most vital waterways.”
With Israel being brought before the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Netherlands, for allegedly committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, the Houthi blockade of Israeli trade in the Red Sea could gain a newfound global legitimacy.
“It’s appalling that instead of acting to stop Israeli war crimes, the Biden administration chose to further damage both our global reputation and our Constitutional system by launching a new unauthorized conflict against Yemen.”
“Iran sowed hatred across the Middle East, and the world is now reaping endless attacks from Hezbollah, Hamas and Houthis,” said Rep. Brian Mast of Florida, who showed up to Congress in an Israel Defense Forces uniform on October 13, 2023.
While Biden justified his Yemen strikes without congressional authorization, in 2020, when President Donald Trump was escalating hostilities with Iran, he was a staunch defender of the notion that Congress should be consulted before taking military action that could spark U.S. involvement in a regional war.
The original article contains 1,261 words, the summary contains 262 words. Saved 79%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
While Biden justified his Yemen strikes without congressional authorization, in 2020, when President Donald Trump was escalating hostilities with Iran, he was a staunch defender of the notion that Congress should be consulted before taking military action that could spark U.S. involvement in a regional war.
“Let’s be clear: Donald Trump does not have the authority to take us into war with Iran without Congressional approval,” Biden said on Twitter at the time. “A president should never take this nation to war without the informed consent of the American people.”
Hoist with his own petard, oof.
