Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
What is your argument and legal authoriities for this proposition:

from Van
He still misses the bigger point; the CIA's direct action capability is a clear violation of the Constitution, specifically the seperation of powers.
If a separate agency were created for the sole purpose of conducting DA operations, would you present the same objection(s) ?
Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution -

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 define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

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;
Even if you try to justify DA as "letters of Marque" (now abolished under international law), or "Captures on Land and Water", the authority to order these things is reserved for Congress, unless they pass an explicit delegation of authority to the President (like the management of the strategic arsenal). To have the standing capacity to direct clandestine DA without Congressional authority or oversight makes a mockery of the seperation of powers, and is unconstitutional.

If that agency gave the President the power to order acts of war to be commited without a declaration of war from Congress, or Congress' approval, yes, I certainly would. Under the Constitution, the government's power is carefully balanced between three branches. To give the Executive branch this degree of power in international affairs runs the risk of the President drawing the country into war without Legislature having an opportunity to assess the situation.