EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Transcript: Today's Live Q&A With NSA Leaker, Edward Snowden
- 'Tip of the Iceberg': Senators Warn Far More Data May Not Be Safe
- Playing the Obama Bumper Sticker Game
- Intentional and Evil: Court Marshall Sexually Assaults Woman, Then Arrests Her When She Protests
- David Brooks, Tom Friedman, Bill Keller Wish Snowden Had Just Followed Orders
- Transcript: Today's Live Q&A With NSA Leaker, Edward Snowden
- Remembering Satyajit Ray’s Hirok Rajar Deshe: On Edward Snowden, Resistance and Inverted Totalitarianism
- The Terror Con
- Pentagon Bracing for Public Dissent Over Climate and Energy Shocks
- Bank of America Lied to Homeowners and Rewarded Foreclosures, Former Employees Say
Popular content
Today's Top News
What Happened to the War Powers Act?
On Sunday night's 60 Minutes program, Scott Pelley opened an interview with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta with the question, "How many countries are we currently engaged in a shooting war?" Surprised by the question, Panetta, who laughed heartily as if Pelley had just told him a really humorous knock-knock joke that tickled his funny bone, responded 'that's a good question. I have to stop and think about that." Panetta proceeded to answer "we're going after al Qaeda wherever they're at.... Clearly, we're confronting al Qaeda in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, North Africa...." In case you're wondering, yes, Panetta confirmed that US troops are in Pakistan.
Pelley's question could not have been more clear just as Panetta's answer was unequivocal. What neither Pelley nor Panetta, who received a law degree from Santa Clara University Law School, mentioned was that for the US to be 'engaged in a shooting war,' not to mention more shooting wars than he could recount, without congressional approval is not only unconstitutional but is a clear violation of the War Powers Act of 1973.
After the debacle in Vietnam, with the American people dispirited and exhausted from a bloody, divisive war, the 93rd Session of Congress recognized the need to restore its Constitutional authority to declare war and oversight on national security and foreign policy issues with adoption of the War Powers Act of 1973. The Act, which was also intent on improving accountability requirements for the Executive Branch, necessitated a congressional override of President's Nixon's veto.
In lieu of a declaration of war, the Act requires three things of the president: "in every possible instance" to consult with Congress before introducing US troops "into hostilities," to report to Congress within 48 hours of committing troops and to withdraw US troops by 60 days. In addition, while presidents have cited congressional funding votes as tacit endorsement of their actions, the Act (Sec 8 (a)(1)) specifically prohibits any appropriation from being "intended to constitute specific statutory authorization." Since its adoption in1973, the spirit and, we now know, the legal mandate of the Act has been consciously challenged, undermined, dismissed, dodged or violated in an on-going erosion of Congress' constitutional authority.
Military action against Libya began on March 19 with the US in command with several submarines and frigates firing Tomahawk cruise missiles. into Libya with the presidents of Zimbabwe, Uganda and Namibia in opposition.
That day, President Obama announced the deployment of US forces stating his action did not include any 'troops on the ground' and notified Congress that its authorization was not necessary.
As congressional criticism of the action grew, the president announced the 'transfer' of command to NATO. On the 60th day of US participation, the president had still not sought Congressional approval and was no doubt aware that the Act does not distinguish between troops on the ground or air or naval attacks.
On Friday, June 3rd, the US House of Representatives rebuked the president in a bipartisan resolution offered by Speaker John Boehner for committing US forces to Libya without congressional approval. Boehner's resolution was approved on a 268-145 vote, with 45 brave Democrats voting to reprimand the president.
Even prior to Panetta's admission Sunday evening, the constitutional questions for Obama's new global occupation by U.S. combat troops in potential hot-spots on every continent, participting in specious counterterrorism chases across the planet, remained problematic. Confirmation Sunday evening that US armed forces are engaged militarily without prior congressional approval requires some Member of Congress, any Member of Congress, to demand an immediate full-scale congressional inquiry.
If the President of the United States, known as a constitutional scholar and after having been rebuked once already, persists in repeating past indiscretions, what are the implications for the Act to retain any trace of its legal authority or for the country to maintain any semblance of a constitutional democracy?
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
35 Comments so far
Show AllThe US is indeed a lawless, rogue state - not only can it not be bothered to follow international laws, but it cannot even follow its own laws. Truly a horrible nation, unrestrained by anything or anyone.
It makes me wonder what those "Proud to be an American" people are thinking. I can come up with no good reason to be proud of the road this nation has taken.
I know, right? If I had to list all the "great things" about Amereicha, I honestly couldn't come up with any.
Let's see...right to free speech? No, that's gone now. If I speak out in public against the government - say, at a Occupy protest - I can be maced and arrested now.
Freedom of the press? Not really - journalists get arrested in record numbers now, and if they try to write the truth about anything, they get muzzled by their corporate bosses, who own the paper. Example: keith olbermann, Phil donahue, etc.
Um...the great employment opportunities? Yeah right. 25% unemployment and the only decent jobs are working for McDonalds or Walmart, paying minimum wage. Benefits? lol yeah, right.
The opportunity to go to college? Not. The cost of tuition at even public universities is so high now that most people cannot afford it, unless they want to go into debt for the next 30 years.
Um...freedom of religion? Yeah, as long as it is one of the Christian flavors. Try being a Muslim in Amereicha today. :shiver:
Um...the right to vote? Riiight. A choice between one corporate party that rapes the people brutally, and another corporate party that rapes the people gently, and both serve the interests of their corporate masters, not those they are raping. Give me a fucking break.
Um...the great equality, fairness, and tolerance here? LOL. Right. Try being black, or any other minority, or even just plain poor, and see how "equal" things are in Amereicha. And of course now Amereichans can be arrested without charge, thrown in jail, and even tortured or even fucking KILLED on the President's say-so alone now. How's that for freedom??
Um...access to great healthcare? Not. 45% of Amereichans have no health insurance, 45,000/year die because of that, and in 1 year we will all be forced to purchase corporate for-profit insurance products, or be fined and labelled a criminal, whether we can afford it or not.
I'm out. I got nothin'. Anyone think of something maybe I'm just not seeing about this great, wonderful, awesome country? And don't say "it could be worse" - that isn't a plus, it's a cop-out.
Don't you know that the authorization of the use of force after 9-11 gave the President unlimited powers to wage war when ever and where ever he/she chooses?
"We have always been at war with East Asia."
Hell, even if he asked for it, Kongress would give it to him. They make a lot of money of slaughtering innocent civilians.
It is part of the NWO. We are invading country after country just like described in PNAC. We own the world, didn't you know?
joecool9
Well said. As Noam Chomsky has pointed out in the title of one of his books, What We Say Goes.
"What are the implications for the Act to retain any trace of its legal authority or for the country to maintain any semblance of a constitutional democracy?"
Well here are some things that have gone on:
1974 – Evacuation from Cyprus. United States naval forces evacuated US civilians during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus.
1975 – Evacuation from Vietnam. "Operation Frequent Wind."
1975 – Evacuation from Cambodia. "Operation Eagle Pull."
1975 – Cambodia. Mayagüez Incident. On May 15, 1975,
1976 – Lebanon. On July 22 and 23, 1976,
1976 – Korea. Additional forces were sent to Korea after two American soldiers were killed by North Korean soldiers in the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea while cutting down a tree.
1978 – Zaire (Congo). From May 19 through June 1978, the United States utilized military transport aircraft to provide logistical support to Belgian and French rescue operations in Zaire.
1979 - Nicaragua.
1980 – Iran. "Operation Eagle Claw." On April 26, 1980, President Carter reported the use of six U.S. planes and helicopters in an unsuccessful attempt to rescue the American hostages in Iran.
1980 - El Salvador — The Archbishop of San Salvador,
1980 - U.S. Army and Air Force units arrive in the Sinai in September as part of "Operation Bright Star". .
1981 – El Salvador.
1981 – Libya. First Gulf of Sidra Incident On August 19, 1981,
1982 – Sinai. On March 19, 1982,
1982 – Lebanon. Multinational Force in Lebanon. On August 21, 1982.
1982–83 – Lebanon. On September 29, 1982.
1983 – Egypt. After a Libyan plane bombed a city in Sudan on March 18, 1983, and Sudan and Egypt appealed for assistance, the United States dispatched an AWACS electronic surveillance plane to Egypt.
1983 – Grenada. "Operation Urgent Fury."
1983–89 – Honduras.
1983 – Chad. On August 8, 1983, President Reagan reported the deployment of two AWACS electronic surveillance planes and eight F-15 fighter planes and ground logistical support forces to assist Chad against Libyan and rebel forces.<.p>
1984 – Persian Gulf.
1985 – Italy. On October 10, 1985, US Navy pilots intercepted an Egyptian airliner and forced it to land in Sicily. The airliner was carrying the hijackers of the Italian cruise ship Achille Laurockin.
1986 – Libya. Action in the Gulf of Sidra (1986) On March 26, 1986.
1986 – Libya. "Operation El Dorado Canyon."
1986 - Haiti.
1986 – Bolivia. U.S. Army personnel and aircraft assisted Bolivia in anti-drug operations.
1987 – Persian Gulf. USS Stark was struck on May 17 by two Exocet antiship missiles fired from an Iraqi F-1 Mirage during the Iran-Iraq War killing 37 US Navy sailors.
1987 – Persian Gulf." Operation Nimble Archer."
1987–88 – Persian Gulf. "Operation Prime Chance" was a United States Special Operations Command operation intended to protect U.S. -flagged oil tankers from Iranian attack during the Iran-Iraq War. The operation took place roughly at the same time as "Operation Earnest Will."
1988 – Persian Gulf. "Operation Praying Mantis."
1988 – Honduras. "Operation Golden Pheasant."
1988 – USS Vincennes shoot down of Iran Air Flight 655
1988 – Panama.
1989 – Libya.
1989 –On May 11, 1989 Panama.
1989 – Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru. "Andean Initiative in War on Drugs."
1989 – Philippines. "Operation Classic Resolve."
1989–90 – Panama. "Operation Just Cause."
1990 – Liberia
1991 – Iraq and Kuwait. "Operation Desert Storm":
1991–1996 – Iraq. "Operation Provide Comfort"
1991 – Iraq: On May 17, 1991, President Bush stated that the Iraqi repression of the Kurdish people had necessitated a limited introduction of U.S. forces into northern Iraq for emergency relief purposes.
1991 – Zaire
1992 – Sierra Leone. "Operation Silver Anvil"
1992–1996 – Bosnia and Herzegovina: "Operation Provide Promise" was a humanitarian relief operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the Yugoslav Wars, from July 2, 1992, to January 9, 1996, which made it the longest running humanitarian airlift in history.
1992 – Kuwait
1992–2003 – Iraq. Iraqi no-fly zones:
1992–1995 – Somalia. "Operation Restore Hope."
1993-1995 - Bosnia. "Operation Deny Flight"
1993 – Macedonia
1994: Bosnia. Banja Luka incident:
1994–1995 – Haiti. "Operation Uphold Democracy":
1994 – Macedonia
1995 – "Bosnia. Operation Deliberate Force":
1996 – Liberia. "Operation Assured Response":
1996 – Central African Republic. "Operation Quick Response"
1996 - Bosnia. 'Operation Joint Guard"
1997 – Albania. "Operation Silver Wake":
1997 – Congo and Gabon
1997 – Sierra Leone:
1997 – Cambodia.
1998 – Iraq. "Operation Desert Fox":
1998 – Guinea-Bissau. "Operation Shepherd Venture."
1998 – Afghanistan and Sudan. "Operation Infinite Reach"
1998 – Liberia
1999–2001 - East Timor: Limited number of U.S. military forces deployed with the United Nations-mandated International Force for East Timor restore peace to East Timor.
1999 – Serbia. "Operation Allied Force".
2000 – Sierra Leone.
2000 – Yemen.
2000 – East Timor.
2001 – War in Afghanistan. The War on Terrorism begins with "Operation Enduring Freedom."
2002 – Philippines.
2002 – Côte d'Ivoire.
2003–2011 – War in Iraq. "Operation Iraqi Freedom."
2003 – Liberia. Second Liberian Civil War
2003 – Georgia and Djibouti.
2004 – Haiti. 2004
2004 – War on Terrorism: US anti-terror related activities were underway in Georgia, Djibouti, Kenya, Ethiopia, Yemen, and Eritrea.
2004–present: Drone attacks in Pakistan
2005–06 – Pakistan.
2006 – Lebanon.
2007 – Somalia. Battle of Ras Kamboni.
2008 – South Ossetia, Georgia.
2010-11 War in Iraq. "Operation New Dawn."
2011 - Libya. "Operation Odyssey Dawn.
2011 - War on Terrorism. Osama Bin Laden is killed by U.S. military forces in Pakistan as part of "Operation Neptune Spear."
2011 - Drone strikes on al-Shabab militants begin in Somalia. This marks the 6th nation in which such strikes have been carried out, including Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen and Libya.
2011 - Nigeria. US Combat troops sent in as advisers to Nigeria.
2011 - Uganda. US Combat troops sent in as advisers to Uganda
to be cont'd...
thanks for the short-list.
And these are just the ones we KNOW about.
Imagine if, say, China were to send its military to all these dozens of countries all over the world, year after year, invading and dropping bombs and drone-striking "terrorists" wherever they wanted to, and building 800+ Chinese military bases all over the world.
Imagine it.
Then imagine how fast the U.S. began frothing at the mouth and screaming "war criminals! War-mongers! Threats to international peace! Rogue state!" through its foam-flecked hypocritical lips.
The United States of Amereicha: the ultimate hypocrite, ultimate global bully, and ultimate global terrorist. When the Karmic Blowback hits the U.S. - which believe me, it most certainly will - in full force, I for one shall be downing the champagne and toasting the end of Evil.
Just because the University of Santa Clara is a land grant school
they need not produce war criminals. The Jesuits should be ashamed.
Laws only apply to the 99%
"Laws only apply to the 99%"
And those of the 1% who break the membership rules of one percent club.
Thomas Gilbert-
Allow me to dust off an excerpt of a comment written last May, when NATO-initiated military operations against Libya provoked a brief flurry of articles referencing the War Powers Act; the articles typically explored the question of whether the US Congress could and should invoke the Act:
________________
The Founders were not unfamiliar with the concept of "Empire", and indeed saw Empire as a worthy pursuit. But they carefully designed Constitutional checks and balances intended to restrain government from too readily going to war; they believed that only "just" wars should be declared and fought after thorough deliberation, and with general public support.
That proved to be an impossible standard, especially after Amerika's heads of state acquired a powerful standing army and navy, and innumerable opportunities to use them to further Amerikan power, security, and economic interests (as the heads of state, their cronies, and allies saw it).
The prospects of acquiring territory and resources there for the taking from weakened and diminished rival empires was too strong a temptation-- and after the easy real estate was grabbed, the abundant prospect of strong-arming Amerikan interests by acquiring a controlling interest in other sovereignties burgeoned.
The creaky old Constitutional checks and balances simply prohibited the quick and decisive military action demanded by going concerns like the emergent Amerikan Imperium. And, in general, the Elected Misrepresentatives in Congress had more and more incentive to favor the military juggernaut and encourage the Executive's use of the military.
So the branches of government gradually and cumulatively colluded to circumvent the letter and spirit of the Constitution by designing alternative means to the necessary end-- like renovators installing and using modern conveniences right next to the reverently preserved old fixtures in historic homes.
These conveniences took the form of semantic end-runs, e.g. substituting euphemisms like "police action" or "no-fly zone" for "warfare", "advisors" for "combat troops", etc. and giving military action the color of law by papering over the Constitution with legal subterfuges like the "War Powers Act".
________________
And so it goes. The War Powers Act is at best a band-aid, or perhaps I should say a showy fan designed as cover in an elaborate political public-relations fan dance.
Or, to mix in still another metaphor, the constitutional system of a tripartite government with rigorous checks and balances designed and implemented by the Founders has long since degenerated into an endless game of political "Hot Potato".
Apart from some principled, righteous harrumphing from the Usual Suspects, Congress has no real will to hold the Unitary Executive's cloven hooves to the fire, especially when the Executive is acting in the capacity of Imperial Warlord-in-Chief.
And even if Congress is forced to reluctantly drag its own cloven hooves down this road, it will disappear into the surrealistic dust clouds kicked up over the question of whether qualified, limited support for an ostensibly multi-national "kinetic military action" is even subject to the Act.
Take your Shakespearian pick: it will either wind up as "much ado about nothing", or "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
Obedient Servant -
Another good post, particularly the cloven hooves and the final Shakespeare flourish.
My take on the War Powers Act is slightly different. When originally enacted, two thirds of the House and two thirds of the Senate consisted of elected officials who grasped the real lessons of the catastrophic bloodbath in Vietnam. Nixon vetoed it, but it became the law of the land anyway by means of an override of his presidential veto.
With the passage of time, what then changed was the mindset and the make up of the Congress and Senate where militarism was concerned. Most notably, when hawkish presidents sensed that substantial public support could be rallied, what was once a condom became a prick.
George H W Bush delighted in forcing a floor vote to authorize the Persian Gulf Desert Storm operation to liberate Kuwait from Iraq. George W. Bush did the same thing with the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force resolution which enabled the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan in the name of a global war upon terror. Little George then doubled his pleasure and doubled his fun by stampeding the Congress into authorizing the invasion of Iraq and overthrow of Saddam Hussein in the fall of 2002 based upon hysterical, bogus claims of WMD and Saddam-Osama connections.
In each of those three instances, the War Powers Act was cynically used as a domestic partisan bludgeon by hawks to hammer doves. Barack Obama's tap dance around the Act's clear requirements in the late, great NATO unpleasantness towards Ghadaffi in Libya is best understood against that historical background. The Persian Gulf War, Afghanistan, and the shock and awe campaign against Hussein's Iraq were much ado about matters that were very important. In Libya, we were treated to techno fury from the skies coupled with only the sound of one hand clapping. Barack appears to have juggled the hot potato adroitly, but more time is needed to truly tell.
What really has taken place is that what was once envisioned as a Congressional safeguard tool for restraining CIA/Pentagon military adventurism abroad became a tool for the executive branch to media hype the masses and coerce opponents of war into rubber stamping the imperial game plan. What changed was the mindset and the whip count in the House and Senate, enabling a tool designed for peace to be converted into a weapon for waging further, more far flung, and even more disasterous wars.
Bill from Saginaw
Bill & Obedient Servant,
Excellent comments.....
Thank You
Thomas Gilbert-
Another good article by this gal! You "gotta to stop this". I'm already going to vote for you in the next election. Isn't that enough?
Really can't follow your logic here. The intent of the original law was, as you say, benign. I don't see that it's been "converted into a weapon for waging further... wars". I don't see the WPA as a weapon. Rather, the Congresses of the time willingly gave the President powers to invade. They did this in spite of the law, not because of it.
I think one has to remember that these representatives are all lawyers. As such, they can't be expected to do honorable things. If our reps truly reflected the people, there would be plumbers, and mechanics, bakers and farmers, and they could look at proposals without the jaundiced eyes of professional thieves. This is what the founders envisioned with "citizen representatives". Of course, that will never happen, but it's a nice dream.
johnnyred -
Some lawyers do possess the jaundiced eyes of professional thieves, but I've met some rogue plumbers, auto mechanics, cooks, and farmers in my day too. Before attending law school, I had worked as a ramp rat for a commercial airline, pulled shifts on a factory shop floor, and done some junior high and high school teaching. Getting the degree doesn't make you a lawyer. Even actually working as a lawyer (say, Abe Lincoln for example) doesn't disable one for a lifetime from being an honest, conscientious public office holder.
Kill all the lawyers, and the law can never restrain the beast.
Bill from Saginaw
Okay, so I may have been a little hyperbolic. My point was that lawyers very often enrich themselves through trickery and sleight of hand, whereas that road leads to disaster for the common man. I'm sure there are many upstanding lawyers. I just never met any of them.
knock knock.
who's there?
U.S.
U.S. who?
U.S. fucked.
I have been disconcerted by the echoing silence from the legal profession.
I'm a nurse and I consider what Obama does to be the equivalent of a surgeon who doesn't think the "wash your hands" rule applies to him. Washing your hands is a basic and proven intervention to prevent infection. We've known this since the time of Pasteur or Lister perhaps. A long time. So it's basic. And every surgical procedure and every nursing procedure starts with, "Wash your hands." Likewise, I would assume that upholding habeus corpus and the rule of law would be basic. Fundamental. Agreed upon. And yet we have lawyers trampling that and lawyers being silent and complicit with it.
Now I'm not saying that it's not hard. But surely a critical mass of lawyers has to be getting uncomfortable with this. Aren't they? Perhaps any lawyer readers can answer me on that.
You know the great professions were respected for their learnedness--pastors, lawyers, doctors and some would add teachers. But we are failed by so many among us. Someone does have to stand up here. And when they do not, they should cause us to question the automatic respect we give the professions.
One assumes that lawyers can weigh complex issues. Have clear ethical guiding principles. Be counted on to try to make fair decisions. But perhaps we are simply wrong and silly and perhaps the idea that someone with a law degree might be something more than just a useful idiot needs to be confronted.
I know if there are lawyers reading this, they may feel I'm being too hard on them. And I apologize. We all need to solve this. But it would be nice to see some leadership from this profession.
LibWingofLibWing has it correctly.
Once again, Public Law 107-40 is ignored. Why?
Hello?? Is this microphone on??
P.L. 107-40 (aka AUMF) declared war against enemies to be named later.
Bush named al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
Obama named al-Qaeda 'affiliates', whatever the hell that means (it means whomever he wants).
This war was meant to start a forever war. Isn't that frickin obvious by now?
This war was meant to legitimize American aggression anywhere in the world, because it SHOULD BE OBVIOUS that potential future terrorists are everywhere and everyone.
Panetta mentioned fighting al-Qaeda. Obama said in Dec. '09 that P.L. 107-40 was still in effect.
What, do people think that laws evaporate? Do people think that the government WON'T use any and all laws to their advantage?
Do people think?
Stop ignoring this law and we just might do something to stop the insanity.
Continue to Ignore the law, and the insanity continues.
Duh
Some Republican politicians were against the NDAA, and why?
Because, they said, the President already had all the power he needed to jail suspected future terrorists. He had that power because of P.L. 107-40.
Go to Wikipedia and read about the NDAA. You immediately see the AUMF mentioned.
Hello? Is this microphone on??
Thy holy mountain be restored
Have mercy on Thy people, Lord
--Quicksilver Messenger Service, "Pride of Man"
We're at war, and we've been at war for all of my life. We just forgot.
"If the President of the United States..."
What part of HE IS A PUPPET, a tool of deception, can you not see? If the so-called liberals and progressives aren't interested in addressing reality, then who is left?
The Congress is a pack of yes men. That is all they are and all they will ever be... and if anyone enters therein with another idea... they surely will last not at all... and won't be asked to many parties either.
When I first hitchhiked to Washington to protest the Vietnam war, I realized the US Congress was not a power center. What's taking everyone else so long?
There's no limit to what you can make war on -except stupidity of course.
Here's an example:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4095372/Twitter-news-US-bars-friends-over-Twitter-joke.html
Creepy Big Brother stuff. Every day the USA becomes more like the former Soviet Republic. I suspect there was a measure of too much testosterone between the ears and a wish to humiliate to justify the thousands of useless Stasi at the Department of HomeReich Sekurity.
There's little or no security value there, just the execution of authoritarian humiliation and compliance.
So, what prominent politician is suggesting that the United States does follow international law and stop waging illegal wars? Ron Paul. And yet, because this website deems itself progressive, and sees Ron Paul as anti-progressive, it is not allowed to mention him here. It is so weird that media on both sides of the political spectrum pretend he doesn't exist.
What you neglected to mention is that CD also for some unknown reason has not published any articles [at least any that I can recall] about Rocky Anderson who is just as anti-war as Paul though Anderson's domestic platform is not disastrous as compared to Paul's. Perhaps if CD and other progressive web sites did publish articles on Rocky Anderson then Anderson could become as prominent as Ron Paul.
Get off the lawyers. The big companies always have an army of them.
"If the President of the United States, known as a constitutional scholar and after having been rebuked once already, persists in repeating past indiscretions, what are the implications for the Act to retain any trace of its legal authority or for the country to maintain any semblance of a constitutional democracy?"
Truly a rhetorical question.
The WPA requires "clear" (read 'truthful') "situations" and "circumstances" prior to the introduction of US troops into harm's way. There is still question about Iraq's casus belli not to mention the continuing doubts over 9/11 itself (the plane on the Pentagon's lawn is very suspicious--why wasn't the lawn destroyed ? just asking), in addition Glenn Greenwald http://www.salon.com/2008/01/02/obstruction/
documents the commission obstructions while Harper's 'Whitewash As Public Service' lays out the crime of the commission's cover-ups.
Oh, forgot to mention Norman Mineta's testimony re Cheney's secret orders http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGI5BmNd7AE