can they take cover for the actions per previous resolutions (US and UN)? What would be considered a violation - and thus beyond bounds per those standing resolutions? For example, at various times during the Clinton years we heard of slight escalations of bombings - I don't know the level then and how this compares. It is very important to get some clarity on this point. We know the repubs will claim this - (they always say ... no different than when under Clinton) but... MORE importantly... and also needing clarification:
Just before the first gulf war there was a lot of public discussion around the War Powers Act. If I recall correctly at issue was the time line - that a president could start an invasion for a period of time (to allow a quicker response to a growing threat than might occur through a 'deliberative' body such as Congress) - but that within a certain period of time (60 days sticks in my mind - but I do not recall if it was 30, 60, or 90) Congress had to act/move for the efforts to continue. Also - if I recall - there is a timeline in which the president has to inform congress of the initial actions (though in normal circumstances - new actions - it would become obvious... because of the ongoing no-fly-zone efforts - there was no siren/alarm bells going off because we had been already pertiodically "bombing" - though under specific guidelines.
So in short the two questions are: 1) what would constitute the beginning of a military action/war in these circumstances (what line had to be crossed to show this wasn't a continuation that was already "allowed")?
I just remember there was a lot out there about the act - in the public domain - back in 1991. It seems that it might be time to get those discussions back out in the public eye.