I’m but a mere juror. I’ll let you be the judge.

Article I, Section 9 of the U. S. Constitution (the law of our land) states:

• “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States . . .   To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces. . . .”

While I have a Ph.D. in English Language and Literature, I’m not arrogant. I know you don’t need me to interpret this for you. Neither of us needs a lawyer, either, to explain away the “separation of powers.”

America has tended since World War II to engage in “conflicts” without a declaration of war by the Congress. As a result, each such adventure has met with strong opposition among the citizenry, both left and right. The left tends to oppose all violent conflicts; the right tends to be isolationist and oppose committing our blood and tax money to policing the world. And I have it on good authority from someone who grew up in a military family, the military is the foremost opponent of war in this country (well, at least the military who don’t attack from the safety of a ship at sea, like a lot of former Navy officers).

In 1950, President Truman sent troops to Korea to support the Korean government without a declaration of war by Congress. As justification, the situation was seen as a continuation of World War II, during which the Japanese invaded and occupied Korea. At the end of the war, Allied Soviet and U. S. forces split the country into north and south zones (rather the way they split Berlin and Germany). When South Korea was invaded by Communist North Koreans, with the aid of the Soviets, the United Nations issued a resolution calling on its member nations to send troops in support of The Republic of Korea. Some U. S. troops were already there. The Korean War (undeclared) was never tremendously popular in the U. S. (BTW: Truman was a Democrat.)

The war in Vietnam also had its roots in World War II. Vietnam was a French colony until the early 1950s. After World War II, the country split into north and south regions, the north under the government of Communist Vietnamese with the support of the Chinese and the south under a French sponsored government. America had “advisors” on the ground throughout this period. President Kennedy (a Democrat), fearful of the “dominoes” falling, increased American involvement in Vietnam without any Congressional vote, and President Johnson (a Democrat) induced Congress to issue the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964 authorizing naval reprisals for the Gulf of Tonkin incident. The resolution was as close to a declaration of war as the Congress ever came throughout the whole, bloody, stupid “conflict.”

In 1983, without consulting Congress but with the approval of the Organization of the Eastern Caribbean States, former Democrat turned Republican, President Reagan, sent U. S. troops to invade the Communist island of Grenada. The justification was the OECS request, as well as fears of the spread of Soviet-style Communism throughout the Caribbean, right in America’s back yard. The invasion was short-lived, and America’s investment was relatively small, so the citizenry didn’t object too vociferously.

In 1989, without consulting Congress or any other official body, Republican George H. W. Bush sent troops into the Republic of Panama  and “arrested” the Panamanian “President,” General Manuel Noriega. The justification for this was that by treaty the Panama canal was soon to be returned to Panamanian control, and the U. S. could not afford to have a hostile, corrupt government in control of this vital shipping route. Noriega was brought to the U. S., incarcerated, then convicted under the Geneva Conventions for various crimes, and sentenced to 30 years, which was reduced to 17 years for “good behavior.” Thereafter, in 2010 (with the approval of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton) he was extradited to France, where he was convicted of money laundering and is now in prison.

In 1990, with the consent of Congress (for once) but not a declaration of war, Republican President George H. W. Bush authorized an American invasion of Kuwait in order to drive invading Iraqi troops out of the tiny country. He did not authorize U. S. forces to invade Iraq afterwards, however. Instead, the U. S. taxpayers were forced to fund for 13 years a “no-fly zone” over southern Iraq to protect Iraqi citizens (a bit) from genocidal attacks by Saddam Hussein. The justification for the Gulf War was fear for Kuwait’s vital oil fields, although Bush also used a somewhat questionable report of Iraq atrocities against infants in a hospital to gain public support. Of course, Saddam was a mass murderer, so few Americans wanted to let him continue to get away with his evil deeds.

In 2001, Congress authorized Republican President George W. Bush to invade Afghanistan in order to destroy the Al-Qaida and their hosts in Afghanistan, the Taliban. This was a response to the 9/11 attacks on the U. S.

In 2003, under the same Congressional authorization (but without a separate vote) Republican President George W. Bush sent U. S. troops into Iraq to overthrow Saddam’s regime. World opinion opposed this war, although Bush did work very hard to gain a U. N. resolution of authorization. Ultimately, he had to justify the attack under pre-existing U. N. resolutions, especially those condemning Iraq for its weapons of mass destruction.

But the attack on Libya is so beyond the pale that it utterly and truly boggles the mind.

President Barack Obama (Democrat) has not provided Americans with an American-oriented justification and instead used a U. N. resolution and an Arab League resolution to create a “no-fly zone” over Libya. He has not even attempted to demonstrate that the attack is in the United States’ interests in any way, shape, or form. There’s no claim that Gaddafi is spreading Communism (because he isn’t), no claim that America’s economic interests are dependent on Libyan oil or Libya’s strategic location (because they aren’t—we buy no Libyan oil), no claim that Gaddafi is a terrorist or terrorist sponsor (even though he is). Interestingly, apparently President Obama secretly lobbied the Brits to release the Lockerby Bomber from prison. In fact, President Obama bowed his head when he was first introduced to Gaddafi at a G8 conference.

• Everybody assumed Senator Barak Obama was opposed to the Iraq war—in fact, he was assumed to be generally anti-war. For example, on Sept. 20, 2007, Senator Obama declined to vote on an amendment to express support for General Petraeus and our troops in Iraq.

The U. N. resolution authorizing the no-fly zone was based on the premise that Gaddafi was killing innocent civilians rather than armed rebels. Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear that Gaddafi is intentionally killing anyone except the rebels (they aren’t mere “protestors” as in Egypt). Truly innocent lives are being lost through air attacks on rebel strongholds, as is usual in war, and there is no guarantee now that allied bombing of Libya isn't also hitting a few innocents, too. Unfortunately, innocent civilian (pro-Gaddafi tribes) have come out in droves in opposition to the allied attackers and are populating the sites that are deemed to be military targets. According to BBC World News yesterday morning, a British bombing run had to be aborted when they spotted the pro-Gaddafi protestors in the area. Unfortunately, yet again an American President is turning not to the Congress and the American people for authority to wage war, but to the United Nations.

How many times can a President do this without handing American sovereignty over to the United Nations? When did the United Nations ever prevent genocide (as in the Chadian-Libyan War), prevent a war (such as the Chadian-Libyan War), end a war, or nourish democracy? When did the United Nations ever do anything that benefited the United States? Will we and the Brits have to fund the no-fly zone over Libya for 13 years? How can we afford this when we can barely afford the undeclared war in Afghanistan? Will we really be able to withdraw from Iraq while there are protestors in the streets there, as well as in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, Algeria, Syria . . . ? Why aren’t we supporting the protestors in Yemen, rather than propping up its government?

Gaddafi is a dictator, but he has not committed mass atrocities against his own people (only against other nations): he executes dissidents, but one at a time. This is little different from other totalitarian regimes. I wish George H. W. Bush’s bombing run over Gaddafi’s castle had killed him instead of his adopted daughter. But having failed once, it seems like we’ve chosen an odd time to enforce a no-fly zone over the ruins of that building.

Why aren’t we condemning the Hamas massacre of the Fogel family? This has got to be the absolute depths of depravity and cruelty. This is a war crime. Gaddafi’s attempt to put down a rebellion is litle different than Richard Nixon’s sending the National Guard to Kent State University to stop protestors against the War in Vietnam. It’s what totalitarians and autocratic elected leaders do. So, I guess from now on the U. S. will be picking and choosing among dictatorships—Yemen is okay, Libya is not okay, Saudi is okay. Oh, and by the way, the President can suspend the Constitution whenever he wants to. That’s clear—Presidents have been doing it for a very long time now.