Jga: my reading of the War Powers Act of 1973 is that Congressional authorization under Section 5.b. can be in the form of a joint resolution; if that is the case, it (like all joint resolutions) would not be subject to the 60-vote cloture rule in the Senate.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, March 13, 2026 - 09:57 am: Edit

Jessica, he should have been denaturalized and deported, as should anyone with a felony conviction. Along with his entire household.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Friday, March 13, 2026 - 10:25 am: Edit

Denaturalization for a felony is generally limited to cases where the crime was committed before or during the naturalization process and was not disclosed. Mind, there are exceptions, and active support for a terrorist organization is among them; as such, he should have been denaturalized and deported after his conviction in 2016 and sentencing in 2017, and I've no idea why this wasn't done.

As for "entire household", that would run directly counter to U.S. law, which takes a dim view on punishing people for the crimes of their relatives.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, March 13, 2026 - 10:25 am: Edit

More on the old dominion shooting….

The one dead victim was a retired Army officer.

It was an ROTC class.

Two wounded victims were also “Army” not sure if they were students/cadets.

The shooter entered rhe room and asked if it was the ROTC class. Told it was, he screamed “Allahu Akbar” and opened fire.

In many schools the students are told that if a shooter enters the room and opens fire, they should all start throwing things at the shooter, anything, everything. Books, pens, whatever is to hand. My cousin, a teacher, keeps a hammer and a big crescent wrench in her desk and was told to grab them and physically attack the shooter. I will leave the issue of armed teachers carrying pistols for another BBS.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Friday, March 13, 2026 - 10:30 am: Edit

In other news, the U.S. and the 31 other countries that make up the International Energy Agency agreed two days ago to the release of some 400 million barrels of oil from their reserves, the intent being to bring down prices.

Prices have rather stubbornly refused to come down in response, and this is in part due to how the massive release is being viewed. Tapping the strategic oil reserves not only suggests this war could go on for a while, it also means that one of the biggest and most "break glass in case of emergency" options is gone, because the glass has already been broken.

By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Friday, March 13, 2026 - 11:34 am: Edit

From US Central Command:

All Crew Members of U.S. KC-135 Loss in Iraq Confirmed Deceased

TAMPA, Fla. – All six crew members aboard a U.S. KC-135 refueling aircraft that went down in western Iraq are now confirmed deceased. The aircraft was lost while flying over friendly airspace March 12 during Operation Epic Fury.

The circumstances of the incident are under investigation. However, the loss of the aircraft was not due to hostile fire or friendly fire.
The identities of the service members are being withheld until 24 hours after next of kin have been notified.

By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Friday, March 13, 2026 - 12:03 pm: Edit

Re: War powers act.

IIRC the Obama administration when conducting more than 90 days of airstrikes over Libya without Congressional aproval insisted that they did not need congressional authorization for an air/naval operation, but only for boots on the ground, and the Democrats in Congress largely supported this claim.

Republicans of course opposed this rather silly claim.

I feel sure that if Trump cited that precedent, and made the at least equally silly claim that the War Powers act does not apply to the current action, most Republicans in congress would support him in this.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Friday, March 13, 2026 - 01:47 pm: Edit

The specific authority claimed by the Obama administration is that they were acting in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1973, establishing and enforcing a "no-fly" zone. It was a mighty thin reed, but that's what they used; while Sen. Paul (R-KY) tried to get a joint resolution (S.J.Res.14, 112th Congress) condemning the continuing military action for having exceeded the administration's authority, his resolution garnered no cosponsors and died without so much as a committee hearing.

The Trump administration doesn't even have that thin reed (and has stated, to date, some seventeen different casus belli, several of them mutually contradictory). Nevertheless, we're there now, and it is unlikely that the current Congress will express disapproval.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, March 13, 2026 - 01:57 pm: Edit

The War Powers Act (WPA) is a curious thing under the law. (I'm discussing law here, not the merits of any application of it.)

While it has been litigated, there are only Court of Appeals decisions, particularly with respect to the WPA as a whole or presidential compliance with the WPA.

The Court has consistently avoided direct rulings these issues on procedural or justiciability grounds and has never issued a substantive decision upholding or striking down the WPA.

From a constitutional perspective, that's not surprising. The WPA directly implicates the separation of powers of all three branches of the Federal government, and thus it is an incredibly sticky wicket for SCOTUS. Probably one of the worst, IMO.

The president is "commander in chief" and thus commands the military. However, only Congress has the power to declare war. SCOTUS can resolve which power takes precedence under the constitution.

In short, it's ugly and could lead to a constitutional crisis - which is why SCOTUS has been SO CAREFUL with respect to any litigation over the WPA.

Which means presidents will say they can ignore the WPA, and then do so. And Congress will scream that presidents must obey it. And SCOTUS skirts around the edges of that conflict.

It will be interesting if SCOTUS is ever called on to finally resolve whether the WPA itself is constitutional, and what the meets and bounds of any limitations under the WPA could be applied to the president if it is constitutional.

We may never know...

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Friday, March 13, 2026 - 02:15 pm: Edit

IMHO, there's really no need for WPA. Congress can cut funding for the military, or impeach and remove (unilaterally!) just about anybody in the administration or the president himself. The fact they don't speaks volumes for the will of the citizenry, through their elected representatives who comprise Congress.

--Mike

By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Friday, March 13, 2026 - 02:54 pm: Edit

The current court tends to go with original intent as far as they can determine and interpret it.

IIRC, the debates on the constitution's drafting had a discussion of whether Congress should have the authority to "Wage" war or to "Declare" war, and they explicitely went with "Declare" on the basis that the President might have need to wage a war without Congress having time to act.

Which doesn't much help. 90 days, with the current Congressional sessions, is clearly enough time for Congress to act. OTOH, they also clearly intended for the President to have the authority to unilaterally order military actions and the President is constitutionally the CiC.

I'd probably try hard to avoid the whole issue too if I were on the court.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, March 13, 2026 - 02:59 pm: Edit

Unless the party, not having as a member, the person currently residing in the White House with the title POTUS, does not possess a majority of both houses of Congress (aka the House of Representatives, and the Senate).

Without a majority, they can not, of their own volition, cut funding for the military. They could pass a non binding resolution… (big ding!)

In short, your course of action is not actually, currently, on the table for the democratic party.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Friday, March 13, 2026 - 05:18 pm: Edit

Looking at the KC-135 that made it back I suspect that the wing of the downed aircraft hit the tail of the surviving aircraft.

Not sure how this could happen but they were both likely flying with no exterior lights in the really dark night sky.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Friday, March 13, 2026 - 07:40 pm: Edit

So, the driver/shooter in the Detroit synagogue attack was a naturalized U.S. citizen originally from Lebanon. Turns out that two of his brothers, as well as a niece and a nephew, were killed in an Israeli airstrike on the Lebanese town of Mashgharah last week. Not much doubt about his motive.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, March 13, 2026 - 07:44 pm: Edit

Tough as the punishment would be, expelling the entire family if anyone in the household commits a felony is said by experts to be the single most effective means of counter-radicalization. Knowing that your wife and kids will go home to squalor if you commit a felony is clearly a strong motivation to behave.

That might not be so effective in the case of career criminals or pre-radicalized person, those should not be allowed in the country anyway.

Decitizening and exiling native born Americans and their families for treason, capital felonies, or terrorism would never be approved by anyone but would be quite powerful.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, March 13, 2026 - 11:05 pm: Edit

SVC:

Would it not depend on the level of knowledge, and overt cooperation the family members provided?

If they whole family participated in the production of explosive devices… what if the terrorist wore an explosive vest? If a wife, sister or daughter helped fabricate or sew such an article of clothing, would that constitute aid to a terrorist? Since it logically requires that it occurred prior to the actual terror event (presumably, a bombing),it would seem to be proof of prior knowledge .

Even if you can’t prove complicity, it would seem that current laws under RICO statues should apply.

If the family spent money provided by terrorists, and did not report the money or its source, it would seem the internal revenue service could build a case for tax evasion… after all, that is how they were able to convict al capone.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, March 13, 2026 - 11:24 pm: Edit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0a6qLujLTs

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, March 13, 2026 - 11:25 pm: Edit

The point is that a potential baddie would not risk his family; the family of a potential baddie would not risk their own future and would stop him from being a problem.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Saturday, March 14, 2026 - 03:23 am: Edit

Yes, it is not even nice as a theory. Parents are famously known to have full control of their kids and their activities, and that uncle that watches conspiracy theories on youtube can be talked to and come to his senses.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, March 14, 2026 - 04:19 am: Edit

An uncle who doesn’t live with you is not relevant.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Saturday, March 14, 2026 - 06:48 am: Edit

That is a clear definition of who would be affected, but that would only hit families of baddies who still lives with their parents.
I can see a new sop. Before your terror attack move away if you hasn't already.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Saturday, March 14, 2026 - 08:29 am: Edit

Five USAF refueling planes (type unspecified) were damaged on the ground at Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia by an Iranian missile strike.

Speaking of refueling planes, a bit more detail has come in on that KC-135 that went down earlier this week. It collided with another KC-135 (which, while damaged, was able to make an emergency landing).

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Saturday, March 14, 2026 - 08:52 am: Edit

In other fuel-related news in the war:

The U.S. hit - and appears to have largely destroyed - military facilities on Kharg Island, the site of Iran's loading terminal for some 90% of their oil exports. The terminal itself was not targeted.

Iran, meanwhile, tried to hit the oil terminal in Fujairah, U.A.E.; while the drones were shot down, the debris hit the terminal and started major fires, resulting in at least partial shutdown of the terminal. This is significant; Fujairah is on the Gulf of Oman, not the Persian Gulf, and is the termination point of pipelines that allow exportation of oil without transiting the Strait of Hormuz. It's also where the lion's share of tankers operating from the region take on bunker oil.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, March 14, 2026 - 09:07 am: Edit

The primary purchaser of Iranian Oil exports, according to Google, in 2025, was China. China appears to have purchased 91% of Irans exported oil for that year.

There are reports of shortages in China, which explains why they have started using their strategic oil reserves.

By MarkSHoyle (Bolo) on Saturday, March 14, 2026 - 09:51 am: Edit

Knowing that your wife and kids will go home to squalor if you commit a felony is clearly a strong motivation to behave.

Maybe from the U.S., though it did little to curb attacks in Israel when they immediately upon identifying the attacker sent out bulldozers to his home....