George Bush in 2001: "And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.  Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.  From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

--- I might add; the very same organization that Afghanistan was protecting, giving rise to our attack upon them. --- And wasn't Al Qaeda's collusion with Saddam the mendacious reason Bush used to bomb the sovereignty out of Iraq --- or was that just for the shock and awe of it?

A secret military operation in early 2005 to capture senior members of Al Qaeda in Pakistan's tribal areas was aborted at the last minute after top Bush administration officials decided it was too risky and could jeopardize relations with Pakistan, according to intelligence and military officials.

The target was a meeting of Qaeda leaders that intelligence officials thought included Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden's top deputy and the man believed to run the terrorist group's operations.

But the mission was called off after Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the defense secretary, rejected an 11th-hour appeal by Porter J. Goss, then the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, officials said. Members of a Navy Seals unit in parachute gear had already boarded C-130 cargo planes in Afghanistan when the mission was canceled, said a former senior intelligence official involved in the planning.

Bush supporters though attempting to argue a democratic presidential candidate's statement about deploying troops if he were president by saying the authorization doesn't exist for the sitting president to have cojones that big is what this diary is about because the authorization does exist.

I am seriously confused about whatever it is people seem so upset by what Gabe has explained. But, if MT is correct, I think I can start putting this all together.

Obama said we should be able to pursue AL Qaeda in Pakistan and this makes more sense than our current deployment and occupation in Iraq in our War on Terror.

I think Obama gets criticized for this by Hilary and some dems for his muddled speaking, but when Republicans start saying Obama has no authorization to go get Al Qaeda in Pakistan, then BTD states authorization does in fact exist.

Gabe points out that this may be authorized by congress, but it still could be considered a violation of international law.

This offends BTD and others, because if going after AL Qaeda in Pakistan is a violation of International law than the invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan, Ethiopia, etc, are also violations of International law.

Now, when it came to invading Afghanistan under the AUMF 2001, the point of the invasion was (as far as Congress and the President were concerned) self-defense. Arguably, our invasion as a blatant a violation of Afghanistan's sovereignty may have been considered a "feature, not a bug."

That is patently not the case with Pakistan. Not only do we support Pakistan's sovereignty, but we're officially allied with its government. Most importantly, it cannot be said that Pakistan is an aggressor against us.

As I said (and BTD, too), the President has all the authority he needs under domestic law to engage Al Qaida. However, that doesn't give him free rein to do whatever he wants. He still remains bound by international law. Of most importance in the present discussion are the issues of national sovereignty and aggression.

First, we start from the outset to note that military operations conducted in foreign territory or on citizens of foreign countries without the permission of that country are presumptively violations of that country's sovereignty. In the context of aggression, however, there is an important exception (some say the only exception): self-defense against an aggressor-country.

Afghanistan: War in Afghanistan against the Taliban was justified for two reasons: the important exception to national sovereignty, i.e. self-defense; and a questionable (in my opinion) claim that because the Taliban was not officially recognized as a legitimate government (by anyone except Pakistan, ironically), Afghanistan had no sovereignty to violate at the time.

In either case, the question of Afghanistan's sovereignty is largely beside the point. We undertook warfare against that nation and in warfare against nations, sovereignty is disregarded.

Pakistan: War in Pakistan against Al Qaida is an entirely different creature. Most importantly, we would be violating Pakistan's sovereign territory and we wouldn't be doing it for reasons of self-defense against Pakistan. It is entirely beside the point that we may be acting in self-defense against Al Qaida. The violation will be of Pakistan's sovereignty, not Al Qaida's.

More importantly, we would be undertaking warfare against a paramilitary organization, not a war against a nation. We cannot just disregard Pakistan's sovereignty because we want to chase bin Laden to the ends of the earth. Such a position is, as Senator Clinton put it, "Naive."

Iraq: Now I'm not sure why BTD has dragged Iraq into this. The Iraq war was authorized domestically under a different AUMF. Under international law, the same situation obtains as with the War in Afghanistan.

To put it simply, war against a nation obviously involves disregarding their sovereignty. This is so obvious as to be a big "No, duh, BTD." The safeguard provided by the law of nations is that such a war requires that the aggressor meet certain requirements of self-defense.

What BTD is talking about, however, is war against an organization.  And there is no exemption for running roughshod over the sovereignty of an ally nation just because we want to bomb the living daylights out of an organization.

For the record, the President has ample authority to attack Al Qaida in Waziristan based on the September 18, 2001 AUMF...

There is some poetic license in the above, but I think you see the point.

Whether or not it is wise to do so is another question.

All of this centers around Obama deciding to show us how tough he is so he chose to threaten a country that is a declared ally. Like many allies we aren't getting all we want from them. Countries are funny like that.

Obama didn't prove that he is tough, he proved he is essentialy not very smart. As we struggle in Iraq and have a major political season upon us, all leaders in the ME must decide if they want to back us, or back al-Qaeda, who they see as the winner of the war in Iraq.

Such threats won't force Pakistan to attack al-Qaeda, it will push Pakistan into the arms if al-Qaeda.

If Obama is the second best that the Demos have to offer,  Hillary has nothing between her and the nomination but time.

Either come clean and say the September 18, 2001 AUMF is a violation of international law and that Reynolds and Hanson do not in any way deal or xare about international law, or stop complaining when called on your BS.

Of course the 2001 AUMF is not a violation of international law. Congress can authorize the president to take what military actions it chooses. That is both domestically and internationally legal.

What would be a violation of international law is if the president bombed, say, London in his efforts to destroy Al Qaida agents and then claimed that such an act was justified by the 2001 AUMF. Obviously, such an act would be a violation of Great Britain's sovereignty and illegal under international law unless the United States could somehow claim to be acting to defend itself from Great Britain.

Hence, I can only assume that you are confused when you demand that I discuss the international law implications of the decidedly domestic AUMF 2001. International law cares not a whit if Congress tells the president he can go hunt and kill terrorists. On the other hand, if the president decides to go hunt terrorists through the streets of other nations without their permission, there will be important international law implications. Such an incursion into national sovereignty could be said to rise to the level of an act of war (and did become an act of war in Afghanistan, for example).

As an example of situations in which the sovereignty of a nation has been violated, here are a few of the regulars here at TalkLeft commenting on the CIA kidnapping of suspected terrorists in Italy. Note their focus on the implications for Italian sovereignty created by the CIA grabs:

sailor wrote:

Achille Lauro, chappaquidick, clinton, any kennedy ever born, have nothing to do with the US violating our ally Italy's soverign nation to kidnap someone on their soil. Kidnapping is illegal wherever it occurs and we have reciprocal extradition treaties with Italy.

kdog wrote:

I would want Italian govt. agents extradited here for trial if they were kidnapping people off of Main Street USA. The world is not our para-military playground. If we want our laws and sovereignty respected, we must respect others.

I think kdog summed it up nicely, so I will repeat it and make an addendum: if we want our laws and sovereignty respected, we must respect others'. This is a basic principle of national conduct. Please remember, however, that we are under no obligations to respect the sovereignty of a nation which aids or participates in aggression against us.