..acting similarly (CinC ordering a strike) in Somalia and in Afghanistan and Iraq, in the past.

Doesn't mean I agree with the logic behind it, only that it has been done before.

Come to think of it, Wasn't some of the New Jersey's shelling fo targets in Lebanon in the '80's not congressionally approved, but ordered by Reagan?

-5.75,-4.05
"We're all fucked. It helps to remember that." --George Carlin

... our shelling of South Lebanon is what led to the Marine barracks being bombed.

In September 1983, midway through Lebanon's 16-year civil war, US warships shelled the Druze-dominated Chouf mountains south of Beirut in support of the Lebanese Army, then battling pro-Syrian militias. The shelling further convinced those Lebanese who were opposed to the then US-backed Lebanese government that Washington was not a neutral peacekeeper in Lebanon.

In October 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was destroyed by a suicide bomber, killing 241 US servicemen. Two months later, the USS New Jersey, a World War II-era battleship, fired on Syrian troops and allied militia positions in what was the heaviest shore bombardment since the Korean War.

And yes, use of military force without Congressional approval is illegal regardless of who does it. Our armed forces are not the Presidents personal army, they're our army. He can't use them without our consent, received through our direct representatives. That's the way its supposed to work, anyhow.

"...cunning, baffling, powerful."

the way things *should* work and they way things *actually* work are often 2 different things.

It's been a part of the interpreted duties of the President that, in his capacity as CinC, he can order the military into places and circumstances that frequently lead to people dying (ours *or* theirs).

Don't get me wrong---I tend to agree with you in that the President's capability to order teh military needs to be reviewed and restricted, but that's likely to require a Constitutional Amendment, since any 'simple Law' could be interpreted by later Presidents as a promise by the Executive that he'll "be a good boy, and do as he's told".

As we see with Bush and Cheney, this approach doesn't work---they don't see the Executive as answerable to either of the other 2 branches, at the very least, for the activities in which they're embarked.

As I read teh Constitution, *at present*, the President has the ability, as commander in Chief, to order the military to go places and do things (within the framework of US law, and, probably/maybe International Law/treaty) without the knowledge or permission of Conress or the Courts. Presidents have exercised this power thoughout the history of the US, from Jackson forcibly evicting the Cherokee, to Lincoln in the first weeks of the Civil War, to Grant and others in the Indian Wars, to Teddy Roosevelt's activities in Central America and elsewhere. So, for the moment, there's nothing explicitly illegal in what Bush has done in Somalia.....not by present-day interpretations of Constitutional duties.

This needs to change----but a Law isn't enough to stop criminals like those we presently have in office. I feel that a new Constitutional Convention needs to be convened, and the Constitution reviewed and updated, with appropriate verbiage used to limit the capability of the President to abuse his position as CinC as a platform for international terrorism, as Bush and Cheney have done.

It would also help if we had a Congress that wasn't so completely emasculated and terrified of its own shadow that it refuses to perform its Constitutional Duty and Impeach these criminals.

I'm getting pissed---time to go crank up my Beatles.....

-5.75,-4.05
"We're all fucked. It helps to remember that." --George Carlin

"I feel that a new Constitutional Convention needs to be convened, "

It would be gamed, and not for the better, I think. Rather, a new precedent has to be set. Scurrilous politicians will always be able to find a way to much things up. We need to clean up well when they do. I can dream, can't I?

"...cunning, baffling, powerful."

At war with a person? I don't think so. That type of thinking leads directly to what happened; innocents paying for the crimes of others. Why do you think he blew up the embassy to begin with?

"...cunning, baffling, powerful."

International Criminal Court. Duh.

Too bad the US refuses to acknowledge its potential, evidently preferring "shock and awe" instead to fight criminal acts with even larger criminal acts.

Duh. Do you seriously condone the unleashing of the biggest, most well equipped, most technologically advanced military in the entire world against a "rogue" individual? These pissing contests are patently absurd, in my opinion, even when an effort is made to justify crazy over reaction by addressing the few instigating incidents allegedly caused by these individuals as "acts of war." Are people truly so maddened by fear that they can't see the silliness?

..the signatory nations attach to it.

Simply put, the USA has stated that it reserves the right to ignore subpoenas from the ICC, and also to ignore verdicts from the Court. so, Insofar as the ICC is concerned, it cannot presently prosecute or convict our Executive Criminals, because the US government will not hand them over, nor would it honor the verdicts rendered.

Pretty much the same jurisdiction and sovreignty issues that hamstrung the old League of Nations, and slid us into WWII.....

-5.75,-4.05
"We're all fucked. It helps to remember that." --George Carlin