Skip to main content

View Diary: Repeal AUMF, the blank check for war (69 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The AUMF was (21+ / 0-)

    a complete abrogation of Congress' duty. It gives the President broad, unchecked authority that no one should have.

    Neither Bush, nor Obama, nor any President to come should have this authority.

    It should absolutely be repealed.

    We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

    by raptavio on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 03:42:03 PM PDT

    •  It doesn't give the president as much authority as (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ffour, NonnyO

      Obama and Holder claim it does. Obama is just abusing his power, with the courts being unwilling to restrain him.

      That said, I agree that the AUMF should be repealed. (Like Rep. Lee, I was always against.)

      American exceptionalism is America's road to perdition.

      by Alexandre on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 03:50:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, actually, it does. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KenBee, elwior, truong son traveler

        It very specifically gives the President sole determination of who is the target, and sole determination of what constitutes necessary and appropriate force against those targets. In essence, it takes the 'safety' off the President's war powers, to the broadest possible extent.

        This legally justifies any 'targeted strikes' at issue. The only things that are alleged to have happened that are potentially not justified are the claimed 'double-tap' strikes, which would be a likely violation of international treaty. However, I am unaware of any evidence that the tactic was approved at any level that high, nor that Obama or Holder attempted any justification thereof.

        We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

        by raptavio on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 03:59:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  There is debate about whether the AUMF (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          walkshills

          actually justifies attacks on various al-Qaeda "branded" groups that have nothing to do with the original al Qaeda and are solely interested in causing trouble in their local region.

          Tell me how

          the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons
          justifies the drone strikes Obama is making in northern Africa. The "organizations" there had nothing to do with 9/11; most of them didn't even exist at the time.

          Of course, the POTUS can make any "determinations he wants, no matter how patently false,  but the people passing the resolution probably assumed he would act in good faith.

          American exceptionalism is America's road to perdition.

          by Alexandre on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 05:00:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Oh, that's easy. (6+ / 0-)
            the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons
            The President has, according to the AUMF, sole and unchecked discretion in determining who aided the 9/11 attacks, and also who provided safe harbor to those who did.

            Which means the President is perfectly within his rights to use very thin evidence to make that determination. He's also well within his rights to determine that al-Qaeda in Iraq or Sudan or Yemen is an outgrowth of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and therefore the same organization rather than a separate and loosely affiliated organization. And then they're targets.

            The problem is the AUMF. It gave the President a loaded gun and free rein to point it at anyone he wanted. The AUMF needs to be repealed.

            We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

            by raptavio on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 06:07:47 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  they're forces that are allied with al-Qaeda. (0+ / 0-)

            per the courts, the AUMF extends to associated forces of al-Qaeda.  if you want to understand more, go read the opinion of the court.

        •  The US Constitution does NOT... (0+ / 0-)

          ... give 'war powers' to a president.  That would make him an elected dictator.

          US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, paragraphs 11-16:
          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;

          To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

          To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

          To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

          Remember, we did not have a standing army when the Constitution was written; that didn't happen until after the War of 1812.  [I could go into my genealogy research and ancestors in the Rev. War and microfilm copies of the record of the latest one that I just found not long ago..., a discharge paper signed by 'G. Washington' at Newburgh, and why.... but that's not appropriate here.]
          US Constitution, Article II, Section 2, first paragraph, starts out:
          The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;
          This is the sum total of a president's responsibilities in time of war:  "WHEN called into the actual service" he may be Commander in Chief when asked.  He does not even have to be asked to be CiC, it's not a given duty.  He can stay out of it completely and Congress can run the whole thing.

          Congress is the ONLY body authorized to start or stop a legal and constitutional war or finance a legal and constitutional war for TWO years - not a president.  No, Congress is not authorized to wage a war against a little band of fanatical criminals.  That responsibility should have been given to some kind of international body of law enforcement since the crimes committed on 9/11 were horrendous civilian crimes on a massive scale, but they can in NO way be construed as war crimes since the whole thing was NOT an 'act of war.'

          I know.  I know.  When Dumbya was installed as the pResident he talked like it was his sole duty to be Commander Codpiece, but that was a false impression those Media Morons floated around without reading the Constitution and analyzing what he was doing vs what the Constitution actually says.

          The fact remains, what Dumbya did and what Obama is doing now with drones and extending the "military action" in Afghanistan is totally unconstitutional and illegal and breaks all the treaties onto which we are signed as the law of the land because they're incorporated into the US Constitution.

          Jefferson was under no illusions about the educational background of most people in his day.  The entire Constitution and Bill of Rights are written very plainly using elementary words and concepts.  No loopholes like modern laws are written.

          Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure.
           ~ Thomas Jefferson

          I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

          by NonnyO on Mon Mar 11, 2013 at 06:40:55 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site