The claim was made during oral arguments in an appeal filed by Nathan Michael Smith, a now-former Army intelligence analyst who sued last year claiming former President Barack Obama was illegally fighting Islamic State terrorists without an authorization for use of military force, or AUMF, from Congress.
You can read the rest @
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-justice-department-wars-are-off-limits-to-court-review/article/2638828
The way it OUGHT to go is this:
- Congress authorizes the war;
- President conducts the war;
- Courts rule on legal issues stemming from the war, including its very legality; and
- Waging an illegal war should be grounds for impeachment.
This suit should NOT be dismissed by ruling the plaintiff has no standing. How can a soldier forced to fight the war be said to have no standing?
This entire argument goes to the issue of whether our nation is a republic or a "national security state". Are We The People in charge of this government, or are we merely its vassals - forced to die for it with no legal recourse?
No comments:
Post a Comment