martes, 16 de enero de 2018

View this email in your browser
Tuesday, January 16, 2018
FACEBOOK | TWITTER | LINKEDIN 
 

What Is Congress Good For? Not Declaring War

Win McNamee/Getty Images

A history refresher: The framers of the U.S. Constitution decided 230 years ago to divide the nation’s war powers between the president and the Congress, making the president the commander in chief of the armed forces and giving the lawmakers the exclusive power to declare war.

Yet, as 2018 gets underway, the executive branch continues a multiyear military campaign against ISIS, even though the Congress has not exercised its power to declare war against that target.

We asked Bob Eatingerformer CIA Senior Deputy General Counsel, to break down how the U.S. declares war — from James Madison’s notes of the debates during the 1787 Constitutional Convention, to how the Authorization for Use of Military Force passed to hunt al Qaeda after 9/11 is used to hunt ISIS now:
  • "Today, the Congress exercises its power to declare war through a process established by the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Under that congressional resolution, the executive must submit a report to the Congress for any case in which U.S. armed forces “are introduced into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances,” and to “terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress … has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces.”
     
  • "The last declared war was World War II. Since then, the Congress has “declared war” through legislation called an authorization to use military force, or AUMF. Yet currently, the executive makes war against ISIS even though the Congress has not declared war against ISIS."
Read Eatinger's analysis of AUMFs and congressional war powers.

Commentary: North Korea 'Bloody Nose' Could Turn Into Torrent
In this week's Fine Print column, Walter Pincus comments on the state of diplomacy with North Korea, offering a realist view of the United States' options:
“We have to deal with North Korea as it is, not as we wish it to be.”
  • "Does President Trump understand those words? They were spoken less than two months ago by former Defense Secretary William Perry, who twice conducted negotiations with the North Koreans nearly 20 years ago."
     
  • "In the 1990s, Perry believed the key to dealing with North Koreawould be diplomatic negotiations backed by open preparation for military action against the North’s then-startup nuclear production facilities. Now that Pyongyang has shown that it has nuclear weapons, his view has changed."
     
  • "Perry worries that some people are proposing what recently has been described in leaks from the Trump White House as the “bloody nose” approach — a conventional attack on some North Korea facility associated with its nuclear or missile programs."
Read Pincus' column, and discussion of the "bloody nose" approach to North Korea.

Listen to this...

The latest episode of Intelligence Matters with Michael Morell features retired U.S. Navy Admiral James “Sandy” Winnefeld, speaking about a national security threat and public health crisis that has affected him personally: Winnefeld recently lost his own son Jonathan to opioid addiction.

Hear Adm. Winnefeld, former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, discuss the opioid crisis with Morell. Website / iTunes
THE CIPHER BRIEF | ABOUT US | ADVERTISE | EVENTS |  WORK FOR US |

Have any feedback? Please Email us at info@thecipherbrief.com
Copyright © 2018 The Cipher, All rights reserved.
You signed up on thecipherbrief.com

Our mailing address is: