CONYERS Joins Bipartisan 16 Veteran Member Statement On Dangers Of Ground Invasion In North Korea

Conyers’ Bipartisan, Bicameral Legislation Reaffirms Congress’s Constitutional Power Over A First Strike On North Korea

Washington, D.C. – Korean War veteran Congressman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), issued a bipartisan joint statement with fellow veterans Rep. Ted W. Lieu (D-Los Angeles County), Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Rep. Carbajal (D-CA), Rep. DeFazio (D-OR), Rep. Brown (D-MD), Rep. Rush (D-IL), Rep. Jones (R-NC), Rep. Panetta (D-CA), Rep. Pascrell (D-NJ), Rep. Thompson (D-CA), Del. Sablan (D-Mariana Islands), Rep. Gabbard (D-HI), Rep. Scott (D-VA), Rep. Moulton (D-MA) on a potential ground invasion in North Korea. The statement follows a CRS report and a letterfrom the Joint Chiefs of Staff addressing questions raised by Reps. Lieu and Gallego about the Pentagon’s plan for military action against North Korea.

In the statement, the Members wrote:

“The Joint Chiefs of Staff has now confirmed that the only way to destroy North Korea’s nuclear arsenal is through a ground invasion. That is deeply disturbing and could result in hundreds of thousands, or even millions of deaths in just the first few days of fighting.

As Veterans, we have defended this nation in war and we remain committed to this country’s security. We also understand that entering into a protracted and massive ground war with North Korea would be disastrous for U.S. troops and our allies. The Joint Chiefs of Staff, it appears, agree. Their assessment underscores what we’ve known all along: There are no good military options for North Korea. Invading North Korea could result in a catastrophic loss of lives for U.S. troops and U.S. civilians in South Korea. It could kill millions of South Koreans and put troops and civilians in Guam and Japan at risk. The Joint Chiefs said they have no reason to believe North Korea would resist using their stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons. It is our intent to have a full public accounting of the potential cost of war, so the American people understand the commitment we would be making as a nation if we were to pursue military action.

A nonpartisan report by the Congressional Research Service indicates conflict on the peninsula could impact as many as 25 million people on either side of the border, including more than 100,000 U.S. citizens. We must pursue every other option before even considering a massive ground invasion. The Administration has also failed to articulate any plans to prevent the military conflict from expanding beyond the Korean Peninsula and to manage what happens after the conflict is over. We’re still engaged in the longest war in U.S. history in Afghanistan with no end in sight.

With that in mind, the thought of sending troops into harm’s way and expending resources on another potentially unwinnable war is chilling. The President needs to stop making provocative statements that hinder diplomatic options and put American troops further at risk.

The Joint Chiefs’ assessment and the CRS report clearly demonstrate that every diplomatic and economic option must be exhausted before military options are considered. If President Trump does intend to pursue a military option against North Korea, he must come to Congress as required by our Constitution. The stakes are too high and the potential outcome too grave for President Trump to violate his constitutional duty to come to Congress to authorize and oversee use of force.”

In a video statement, Conyers also said, “We want to send a clear message to President Trump as he embarks for his Asia trip:  to the extent that you can, sir, please refrain from any further escalation.  We appreciate Secretary Tillerson pursuing a diplomatic approach, and Secretary Mattis saying that war in Korea would be catastrophic. Please listen to them and spend your time in Asia seeking a peaceful resolution to this dispute.”

Ahead of President Donald Trump’s travel to Asia, Conyers hosted a press conference with Senators Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) to reaffirm Congress’s Constitutional power over approving a first strike against North Korea. 

In October 2017, Congressman Conyers and Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) led more than 60 members of Congress in introducing new bipartisan, bicameral legislation to ensure that President Donald Trump cannot attack North Korea without the approval of Congress by prohibiting any expenditure of funds for such a strike. The No Unconstitutional Strike Against North Korea Act of 2017 restricts funds available to the Department of Defense or to any other federal department or agency from being used to launch a military strike against North Korea without the prior approval of Congress or the imperative to respond to an attack against the United States or its allies. The bipartisan House version of the legislation, H.R. 4140, is co-led by Congressman Thomas Massie (R-KY) and has 61 co-sponsors. 

In August 2017, Conyers led more than 60 Members of Congress in sending  an urgent letter to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to express “profound concern” over “irresponsible and dangerous” statements made by President Trump regarding North Korea and to urge Tillerson to do everything in his power “to ensure that President Trump and other Administration officials understand the importance of speaking and acting with the utmost caution and restraint on this delicate issue.”

In May 2017, Conyers led a letter signed by 64 Democratic Members of the U.S. House of Representatives, to rebuke President Trump’s inconsistent and dangerous statements regarding U.S. policy towards North Korea, notify him that military strikes without Congressional approval would violate the Constitution, and urge him to instead adhere to the diplomatic approach recently articulated by his Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. The 64 signers represented the 64 years since the Armistice Agreement was signed to end hostilities in the Korean War.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS, MARKEY & 60 Members of Congress Introduce Bipartisan, Bicameral Legislation to Reaffirm Congress's Constitution Power Over a First Strike on North Korea

Legislation would ensure no funds are used to launch an unconstitutional strike that experts say would lead to catastrophic war on the Korean Peninsula

Washington (October 26, 2017) – Today, Congressman John Conyers, Jr. (MI-13) and Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) led more than 60 members of Congress in introducing new bipartisan, bicameral legislation to ensure that President Donald Trump cannot attack North Korea without the approval of Congress by prohibiting any expenditure of funds for such a strike. The No Unconstitutional Strike Against North Korea Act of 2017 restricts funds available to the Department of Defense or to any other federal department or agency from being used to launch a military strike against North Korea without the prior approval of Congress or the imperative to respond to an attack against the United States or its allies. Recent polling demonstrates that more than two-thirds of the American people believe that the United States should attack North Korea only if North Korea attacks first.

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

“As a veteran of the Korean War, I am ashamed that our Commander-in-Chief is conducting himself in a reckless manner that endangers our troops stationed in South Korea and our regional allies,” said Rep. Conyers, Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee and the only Democrat in Congress to have served in the Korean War. “That is why Congress is standing up today to ensure that this Administration understands that the Constitution does not permit military attacks without Congressional approval. During the campaign, people feared a President Trump with the power to initiate a nuclear conflict—less than a year later, those fears are far too close to being realized. Trump must immediately cease talk of pre-emptive war and commit to the diplomatic path advocated by both American experts and the South Korean government.”

“President Trump’s provocative and escalatory rhetoric, with threats to unleash ‘fire and fury’ and ‘totally destroy’ North Korea, cannot be allowed to turn into reality,” said Senator Markey, Ranking Member of the Senate East Asia, the Pacific, and International Cybersecurity Subcommittee. “As long as President Trump has a Twitter account, we must ensure that he cannot start a war or launch a nuclear first strike without the explicit authorization of Congress. It is time for the legislative body to act and reassert its constitutional role as the branch of government with the sole power to decide when the United States goes on the offensive. I thank Congressman Conyers for his partnership on this legislation and will continue to press for a diplomatic solution to the threat of a nuclear North Korea.”

A copy of the legislation can be found, below. The bipartisan House version of the legislation, H.R. 4140, is co-led by Congressman Thomas Massie (R-KY) and has 61 co-sponsors. 

The Conyers-Markey legislation adds an additional safeguard to the current prohibitions on waging war or unprovoked military action without Congressional approval by restricting any funds for such a strike unless there is an authorization from Congress that comports with well-established legal and constitutional standards. There are exceptions to account for current legal and constitutional standards for repelling a sudden attack, defending our allies, and rescuing U.S. personnel. The legislation also calls for a diplomatic resolution to the conflict. Both the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973 already require an affirmative authorization from Congress before the Executive Branch can initiate military action abroad against a state that has not attacked the U.S. or our assets abroad.  As Section 2 of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 states, absent a declaration of war or a specific statutory authorization approved by Congress, only “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces” can justify military action undertaken without Congressional authorization.

The legislation cites words of the framers of the Constitution, such as George Washington, who wrote that ‘‘The constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure’’ (Letter from George Washington to William Moultrie, August 28, 1793). The legislation also cites James Madison, who wrote that ‘‘The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature… the executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war’’ (Madison Papers, ‘‘Helvidius’’, Number 4, September 14, 1793).

The legislation is endorsed by the American Civil Liberties Union, Ploughshares Fund, Council for a Livable World, Arms Control Association, Win Without War, Indivisible, Friends Committee on National Legislation, Peace Action, Union of Concerned Scientists, Beyond the Bomb, Women Cross DMZ, United Methodist General Board of Church and Society, Global Zero, Korea Peace Campaign, Veterans For Peace, Women's Action for New Directions, Women for Genuine Security, United Methodist Women, Action One Korea, GoodFriends USA, Presbyterian Church USA, Campaign for Peace, Disarmament and Common Security, and the National Association of Korean Americans.

In August 2017, Conyers led more than 60 Members of Congress, in sending  an urgent letter to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to express “profound concern” over “irresponsible and dangerous” statements made by President Trump regarding North Korea and to urge Tillerson to do everything in his power “to ensure that President Trump and other Administration officials understand the importance of speaking and acting with the utmost caution and restraint on this delicate issue.”

In May 2017, Conyers led a letter signed by 64 Democratic Members of the U.S. House of Representatives, to rebuke President Trump’s inconsistent and dangerous statements regarding U.S. policy towards North Korea, notify him that military strikes without Congressional approval would violate the Constitution, and urge him to instead adhere to the diplomatic approach recently articulated by his Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. The 64 signers represented the 64 years since the Armistice Agreement was signed to end hostilities in the Korean War.

‘‘No Unconstitutional 5 Strike against North Korea Act’’Introduced by U.S. Representative Conyers & Senator... by Beverly Tran on Scribd
Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS Commemorates Martin Luther King's Sermon "Beyond Vietnam"

This week, longtime civil rights activist and Congressman John Lewis and more than 50 Members of Congress joined me to introduce my new resolution, H.Res. 246, commemorating the 50th anniversary of the April 4, 1967 “Beyond Vietnam” sermon given by Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. at the Riverside Church in Harlem, New York.

In the sermon, Dr. King declared his opposition to the U.S. war in Vietnam.

He also gave an important warning to our nation, one that still rings true today. Dr. King said: “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.”

Since I recorded this message, President Trump unilaterally decided, without approval from Congress or the United Nations, to bomb a sovereign nation.

Those 59 Tomahawk missiles alone cost taxpayers more than $50 million.

I will continue do to everything in my power to stop Trump from wasting our tax money bombing people abroad, when we have so much important nation-building to do right here at home.

There is no question that the United States must do more to relieve the suffering of the civilians trapped in Syria’s civil war.

If President Trump wants to help the Syrian people, he should start by welcoming those seeking refuge from this terrible civil war. You can listen to Dr. King’s prophetic 1967 speech here:

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Dispatches: How to Stop US Production of Banned Cluster Munitions

At the end of May, the Obama administration quietly suspended transfers of cluster munitions to Saudi Arabia following concern raised by evidence showing that the Saudi-led coalition had used US cluster munitions in or near civilian areas in Yemen. A congressional initiative led by Representative John Conyers Jr. that sought to legislate that suspension was narrowly defeated today.

Human Rights Watch and others have systemically documented evidence showing continued use of cluster munitions, even after Saudi officials publicly claimed it was not using them.

Conyers Amendment in Cluster Munitions to Saudi Arabia

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

IRAQ WAR PROTEST: Interview w/Rep. John Conyers 2007

IRAQ WAR PROTEST: Interview w/Rep. John Conyers by CarlosGarey Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Dems push for report on consequences of military strike on Iran

Democrats on Thursday are hoping the House accepts an amendment that would require the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) to report to Congress on the consequences of a military attack against Iran.

House Judiciary Committee ranking member John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and two other Democrats won the right to have their language considered as an amendment to the 2013 intelligence authorization bill, H.R. 5743. Under their amendment, the DNI would have 60 days after passage to send a report to the congressional intelligence committees that includes an "assessment of the consequences of a military strike against Iran."

Democrats in particular have grown more concerned about what they see as a risk that the United States will soon be at war with Iran. In recent weeks, Congress has taken several steps that worry these members.

For example, both the House and Senate have approved Iran sanctions legislation — the Senate bill, S. 2101, says the United States will pursue all options to keep nuclear weapons out of Iran.

Earlier this month, the House approved a resolution saying a nuclear-capable Iran is unacceptable. Also, the National Defense Authorization Act for 2013 includes language that would require the movement of military assets into the Middle East to counter Tehran, and says the United States will take "all necessary measures, including military action if required," to keep nuclear weapons out of Iran.

On Wednesday, the House Rules Committee decided against making another Iran-related amendment in order. This one, from Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), would have required a report on the nuclear activities of Iran, including whether it is trying to build a nuclear weapon.Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) said this language is moving the country closer to war. "We're getting ready for war against Iran," he said.

The unclassified text of the Intelligence Authorization Act makes no mention of Iran, although most of the bill is classified, making it hard to determine what steps it might authorize as it relates to intelligence gathering against Iran.

Aside from the Conyers amendment, eight others will be considered today before the bill is passed — these deal with information sharing with Canada and Mexico, improving security clearances for subcontractors and ensuring the rights of racial and ethnic minorities within the intelligence agencies.

More broadly, the bill would authorize U.S. intelligence activities for the next fiscal year, as well as the Department of Defense's new Clandestine Service, which is meant to gather intelligence beyond the countries in which U.S. forces are already engaged.

Conyers: After 10 years in Afghanistan, It’s Time to Bring our Troops, and Our War Dollars Home

For Immediate Release

Date: Friday, October 7, 2011

Contact: Matthew Morgan – 202-226-5543

Conyers: After 10 years in Afghanistan, It’s Time to Bring our Troops, and Our War Dollars Home (WASHINGTON) – Representative John Conyers (D-Mich.) issued the following statement today marking the 10-year anniversary of the invasion of Afghanistan by the United States and its NATO allies.   Representative Conyers is the chair of the Congressional Out of Afghanistan Caucus.  “Today, we mark the 10 year anniversary of the War in Afghanistan.  After 10 years, it is clear money is being wasted on military spending and wars that aren’t making us safer, and are doing nothing for ordinary people in Afghanistan and Pakistan and beyond. It’s working people in Michigan, and throughout the rest of the country, who understand that – but unfortunately not enough of my colleagues in Congress. “Sometimes it’s only outside of Washington, D.C. that the fundamental common sense of Americans shows up. This year the National Conference of Mayors passed a powerful resolution calling on the U.S. government to end the war in Afghanistan and to ‘bring the war money home.’ It was the first time since the height of the Vietnam War, in 1971, that the Mayors took a clear anti-war position. The mayors understand that the money is there, but it’s being diverted – away from jobs, away from the crucial investments in people that keep our workers employed, our children healthy, and our elders safe. “Americans get it – 64 percent of Americans already say that the war in Afghanistan is just not worth fighting. But it sure seems like no one is listening. Because just this year, taxpayers in my congressional district are paying about $172 million just for our share of the war in Afghanistan. That war isn’t doing anything to make us safer – the CIA and all the rest of the intelligence agencies admit there are only 50 or 100 al-Qaeda members even left in Afghanistan. But the numbers of civilian casualties are higher than they’ve been since this war began ten years ago.  “And that 172 million in tax dollars? If we weren’t wasting it on a failing war in Afghanistan, we could use that money for something that really might help keep us safe – like hiring 3,275 firefighters for a year. We could retrofit 53,807 houses in my district to provide renewable electricity.  Those war dollars could cover health care for 22,447 of our brave veterans, so many of whom are coming home from the wars with devastating physical and emotional injuries. Any of those things would keep us safer than wars that create more terrorists with every civilian casualty. “We can’t afford to keep fighting counterproductive wars. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and Pakistan are not keeping us safe. It’s time to end them; it’s time to spend the money we need to bring our troops safely and quickly home. We have too much to rebuild in our cities and across our country, to waste our hard-earned tax dollars. Americans get it.  After 10 years, it’s time to bring our troops, and our war dollars home.”

Conyers and Nine Members of Congress File Suit Over Illegal Libya Military Engagement

Conyers and Nine Members of Congress File Suit Over Illegal Libya Military Engagement

Washington, D.C. — Today Representative John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) and nine other members of Congress filed a suit in federal court against President Barack Obama, challenging U.S. military commitment in Libya without the required constitutional legal authority.  

“It’s the law,” said Conyers.  “The President cannot unilaterally take the country to war.   The American people have grown weary of open-ended military conflicts that place our troops in harm’s way and add billions to our national debt.  This is one of the reasons why the President initially limited the scope of our military presence in Libya to exclude the use of American ground troops.”

The lawsuit calls for injunctive and declaratory relief to protect the plaintiffs and the country from the following:

(1) policy that a president may unilaterally go to war in Libya and other countries without a declaration of war from Congress, as required by Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution 

(2) the policy that a president may commit the United States to a war under the authority of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in violation of the express conditions of the North Atlantic Treaty ratified by Congress

(3) the policy that a president may commit the United States to a war under the authority of the United Nations without authorization from Congress

(4) from the use of previously appropriated funds by Congress for an unconstitutional and unauthorized war in Libya or other countries

(5) from the violation of the War Powers Resolution as a result of the Obama Administration’s established policy that the President does not require congressional authorization for the use of military force in wars like the one in Libya.

The questions raised in the lawsuit will be critical to challenge the executive branch’s circumvention of Congress and its use of international organizations such as the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to authorize the use of military force abroad, in violation of the Constitution.

The lawsuit was signed by Representatives Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Walter Jones (R-NC), Howard Coble (R-NC), John Duncan (R-TN), Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), John Conyers (D-MI) Ron Paul (R-TX), Michael Capuano (D-MA), Tim Johnson (R-IL) and Dan Burton (R-IN).

#06-15-2011#

Conyers: President Lacks Power under Constitution to Launch U.S. Into War in Libya

Contact: Nicole Triplett, 202-226-5543                                                                                         

Monday, March 21, 2011  

                                                                

Conyers: President Lacks Power under Constitution to Launch U.S. Into War in Libya

Seeks Emergency Session of Congress

Washington, D.C.— Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.), Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, today  issued a following statement today calling for an immediate emergency session to debate the authorization of military force in Libya.

            “Article I, Section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution grants Congress – not the President – the power ‘to declare war,’ stated Conyers.  While the legislative and executive branches have long grappled over the exact division of powers in times of war, the Constitution grants sole authority to the Congress to commit the nation to battle in the first instance.  That decision is one of the most serious that we are called upon to make and we should never abdicate this responsibility to the President.  I therefore join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in calling for an immediate session of Congress to review United States military engagement in Libya.”  Conyers also pointed to a line of legal precedent and history supporting this proposition.

            The courts have issued numerous opinions to the effect that under the Constitution. the President’s role is to conduct war that Congress has authorized.  As far back as Little v. Barreme, 6 U.S.  (2 Cranch) 170 (1804), a case interpreting congressional authorization for the U.S. Navy to intercept ships bound for French ports, the Supreme Court ruled that interception of ship from a French port was illegal as it went beyond the use of military force that Congress had authorized.

           The seminal case of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) rejected the President’s claim that he had authority as Commander-in-Chief to unilaterally seize steel production plants.  Justice Douglas’ concurring opinion contained an important and timely recognition of the importance of separation of powers during times of war: “All executive powers – from the reign of ancient kings to the rule of modern dictators – has the outward appearance of efficiency.  Legislative power, by contrast, is slower to exercise ...  We therefore cannot decide this case by determining which branch of government can deal most expeditiously with the present crisis.  The answer must depend on the allocation of powers under the Constitution.”  Id. at 629-630 (Douglas, J., concurring). 

            There have also been a number of important lower court decisions expressing skepticism of unrestrained executive power concerning both the military action in Vietnam and the invasion of Cambodia.  In Mottola v. Nixon, District Court Judge Sweigert observed that a “strong case can be made for the proposition that compliance with the Constitution of the United States and its plain provision that the power to declare war lies, not in the President, but in the Congress. 318 F. Supp. 538, 553 (N.D. Cal. 1970). 

            Similarly, in enjoining the Secretary of Defense from engaging in military actions in Cambodia, Judge Judd of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals stated in Holtzman v. Schlesinger that “there is no existing Congressional authority to order military forces into combat into Cambodia or to release bombs over Cambodia, and that military activities in Cambodia by American armed forces are unauthorized and unlawful.”  484 F.2d 1307, 1308 (2d Cir. 1973).

In the same vein, the Founding Fathers were clear that the power to engage our troops in war should rest solely with the legislature:

·         James Madison, one of the key architects of the Constitution on separation of powers, said that "this requirement for Congress to be able to declare war is one of the most important provisions of the Constitution."

·         John Jay further explained that requiring legislative deliberation provided a critical check on the tendency of “absolute monarchs” to engage in wars “not sanctified by justice or the voice and interests of [their] people.”

·         George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention, explained ‘‘The Constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject, and authorized such a measure.’’

·         Constitutional Convention delegate James Wilson echoed this view:  ‘‘This system will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress; for the important power in declaring war is vested in the legislature at large.’’

Rep. Conyers is also an original cosponsor of H. Con. Res. 31, which states that it is the sense of Congress that the President is required to obtain in advance specific statutory authorization for the use of United States Armed Forces in response to civil unrest in Libya.

###

Resolution Proposed to End Illegal Afghan War

Resolution Proposed to End Illegal Afghan War

by grtv

On Thursday, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) introduced H. Com Res. 248, a privileged resolution with 16 original cosponsors that will require the House of Representatives to debate whether to continue the war in Afghanistan. Debate on the resolution is expected early next week.

Original cosponsors of the Kucinich resolution include John Conyers, Jr. (D-Michigan); Ron Paul (R-Texas); José Serrano (D-New York); Bob Filner (D-California); Lynn Woolsey (D-California); Walter Jones, Jr. (R-North Carolina); Danny Davis (D-Illinois); Barbara Lee (D-California); Michael Capuano (D-Massachusetts); Raúl Grijalva (D-Arizona); Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin); Timothy Johnson (R-Illinois); Yvette Clarke (D-New York); Eric Massa (D-New York), Alan Grayson (D-Florida) and Chellie Pingree (D-Maine).

The Pentagon doesn’t want Congress to debate Afghanistan. The Pentagon wants Congress to fork over $33 billion more to pay for the current military escalation, no questions asked, no restrictions imposed for a withdrawal timetable or an exit strategy.

War Is Illegal - Even in Libya

War Is Illegal - Even in Libya


Submitted by davidswanson on Mon, 2011-03-14 17:00 Criminal Prosecution and Accountability
It's a simple point, but an important one, and one that gets overlooked. Whether or not you think a particular war is moral and good, the fact remains that war is illegal. Actual defense by a country when attacked is legal, but that only occurs once another country has actually attacked, and it must not be used as a loophole to excuse wider war that is not employed in actual defense.

Needless to say, a strong moral argument can be made for preferring the rule of law to the law of rulers. If those in power can do anything they like, most of us will not like what they do. Some laws are so unjust that when they are imposed on ordinary people, they should be violated. But allowing those in charge of a government to engage in massive violence and killing in defiance of the law is to sanction all lesser abuses as well, since no greater abuse is imaginable. It's understandable that proponents of war would rather ignore or "re-interpret" the law than properly change the law through the legislative process, but it is not morally defensible.

For much of U.S. history, it was reasonable for citizens to believe, and often they did believe, that the U.S. Constitution banned aggressive war. Congress declared the 1846-1848 War on Mexico to have been "unnecessarily and unconstitutionally begun by the president of the United States." Congress had issued a declaration of war, but the House believed the president had lied to them. (President Woodrow Wilson would later send troops to war with Mexico without a declaration.) It does not seem to be the lying that Congress viewed as unconstitutional in the 1840s, but rather the launching of an unnecessary or aggressive war.

Libya Lawsuit Against Obama