The only reason he is even bothering to ask Congress for a new authorization vote is to make a political statement about support for the intervention. Under these circumstances, the debate would be a farce. There would be no danger that the vote might come out “wrong,” and so the debate would be even more heavily skewed in favor of war than it usually is. Congress would be participating in the process with the understanding that its involvement is purely for show, and so I doubt most members would take the debate seriously....
December 10, 2015
"The Farcical Debate Over an Authorization for the War on ISIS."
"... In other words, Obama will continue the war in Iraq and Syria regardless of what Congress does, and he will keep pretending that he has legal authority to do this even if they never vote on it."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
25 comments:
The farcical debate over an authorization for wars, coups, assassinations, etc.
Make abortion, not life.
President Obama's push for mi.itary authorization to fight ISIS won't go anywhere in Congress. Here's why.
It's interesting that the Republican House sues Obama because of Executive overrereach regarding Obamacare, yet seems perfectly satisfied with his overrereach regarding war powers. No one seems highly motivated to vote or even debate it. Obama should more forcefully push for the authorization and the Congress should stop being cowardly.
I don't see how he can argue that an AUMF against the people who orchestrated the attacks on WTC can cover a group that didn't exist for over a decade afterwards.
Especially given that he was quite adamantly OPPOSED to that AUMF.
Wrong link in my comment above. Here's the correct one. Why won't Congress debate or vote, giving Obama war powers?
I wonder if Obama taught his students about this in his Con Law classes.
Whatever results from the anti-ISIS military action, does no one else see this as continuing a terrible precedent, where the president has absolute contempt for Congress re: warmaking, and Congress absolutely abdicates its responsibility? At some point, shouldn't the Former Con Law Prof in Chief think "to set a good example, I should be seeking the authorization of Congress up front"?
Barack just looking to shift blame for his failure, per usual.
The guy is just shameless.
It is incomprehensible that members of this Congress would not vote to authorize the use of force against ISIL - even this Congress.
A prince only considers the advice he solicits.
He's doing the right thing for the wrong reason
I just know it! #analysis
I'm a strong believer in the power of the executive to wage unconventional warfare without prior approval as Obama has been doing. This is not war against germany, or north korea, or the vietkong. This is ideological warfare - which is ironic when the commander in chief won't name what ideology he's at war with...
That being said, I can't get over how Bush - despite all the name calling against him - built a laundry-list case for war with Iraq and in Afghanistan, carefully laid it out, built a coalition, led the call for authorization, obtained authorization, and then carefully conducted war as a result. He had significant legal advice that's been well documented on gray area things - like interrogation of non-Geneva prisoners (i.e. Suspected/known terrorists taken prisoner).
And he was relentlessly called, to this day, a war criminal, called a liar, etc.
By contrast Obama wages near unilateral war through executive authority and without laying out a clear case or strategy, nor seeking approval of the people, including the killing of american citizens without a clear legal standard, has reduced transparency into who is being killed in drone strikes, and has basically stopped taking prisoners that we're aware of because instead his focus has been on killing them with only modest evidence and without trial....
And yet, no cries of war criminal. No demands for tribunal.
I mean, honestly, polar opposite treatment for far worse abuse of executive authority.
It shouldn't be farcical, because there are potentially limitations that Congress would put on this.
The Preezy already assured us over and over and over again that he had already contained the JV team which apparently required no congressional authorization at all.
The Preezy assures us he's taking the fight to ISIL (another poke in the eye to Israel) as we speak.
Remember, obambi "won", doesnt want any lip from the republicans, wants you to know that only he and the dems have "smart strategy", and that he has a pen and a phone.
So naturally, now that the world watches in amazement at the failure of the obambis policies suddenly, suddenly, obambi wants someone elses name on the policy.
Hmmmm.
No thanks. Just keep on keepin' on brother. You have it all figured out, just as you and your minions have reminded us ad nauseum and ad infinitum.
Muslims in Britain raped 1,400 girls.
One thousand, four hundred.
And were shielded by leftists.
Because, leftism.
Obama is not a serious man, certainly not about affairs in the Middle East. His past life as community organizer and part-time "lecturer" at Law school come to the forefront, showing his lack of experience.
Yes, it would be better and cleaner for Congress to give a clean Declaration of War against ISIS, or, a lesser Authorization for war.
But it won't change anything substantively. With respect to Syria and Iraq and Isis, Obama will do what he wants and not do what he doesn't want -- based mostly on political calculations. Currently, Obama has his acolytes believe that Israel is the biggest obstacle to peace in the Middle East, and that Global Warming is the biggest threat to humanity. That is the problem -- misguided viewpoints, and lawyerly defense of them.
And, these 2 misguided viewpoints is why we have radical Islam murdering innocents here, and why Donald Trump is ascending in the polls.
garage mahal: "He's doing the right thing for the wrong reason"
LOL
Even more confused than normal!
"The Obama Administration currently maintains it has the authority to prosecute the war using the 2001 AUMF intended against Al Qaeda...."
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/262808-house-senate-lawmakers-introduce-bicameral-isis-war-authorization
Why didn't anyone think to tell our resident middle schooler?
Looks like this thread is "fin" 'cuz the obambi-ites say so!
"I don't see how he can argue that an AUMF against the people who orchestrated the attacks on WTC can cover a group that didn't exist for over a decade afterwards."
The argument is that ISIS split off from al Qaeda.
The President has been trying to get Congress to take action since the focus became ISIS. It becomes more urgent now that it looks like the level of special ops operations will soon increase to the point that fatalities on the ground are inevitable. Up until now there has just been the one fatality in the Kurdish prison rescue operation.
So ISIS, an organization trying to establish a Caliphate and that has seized and held large swaths of land in Iraq and Syria, is supposed to really be Al qaeda 2.0, an organization that started over 20 years ago and has never publicly sought or succeeded in holding large swaths of land or establishing a Caliphate.
While at the same time Al Qaeda publicly denounces ISIS.
But yes, our AUMF for Al Qaeda definitely covers ISIS too.
According to Wikipedia, ISIS started in 1996 or so and was in bed with Al Qeada until 2011 or so when they were at odds due to excessive use of brutality by ISIS.
Ron Johnson, Senator from WI, said that he was opposed to voting for an AUMF because the wording that the Obama administration wanted was "too narrow" if they passed what was asked for. I think that the Republicans simply don't want to do it. In the meantime the President can do whatever he wants because no one will exercise the Constitutional duty of Congress to declare war.
We have to keep in mind that The Lying Liar in Chief runs all kinds of head fakes all the time to show a pretense that he is doing something while he secretly is 100% against doing it and will never do it at all.
The three year pretense to be negotiating a Nuclear Bomb treaty with Iran was never anything but a pretense that was done to block Israel attacking the Iranian sites until it was too late.
Remember, he is one of the Muslims who arrogantly Dominates infidel fools.
I'm STRONGLY OPPOSED to an Authorization for Use of Military Force.
I do favor that the US should recognize the Islamic State as a nation, and them immediately and formally declare war on them.
This would have a number of real advantages, including the right to seize any tankers carrying ISIS oil, on any ocean, anywhere. No merchant skipper in the WORLD would load ISIS oil if he knew that SEALS would likely board his ship and sail it under escort to the Norfolk Naval Base or to Pearl Harbor, and intern his crew for the duration of the war.
ISIS terrorists would be subject to summary execution for fighting without recognizable uniform or markings. We'd bomb Raqqa flat, and launch drones targeting every vehicle moving more than a camel's pace.
We'd arm and equip the Kurds, and give them an independent Kurdistan formed out of the northern parts of what used to be Iraq and Syria. If it were me, I'd partition the remnant of Iraq into Shia and Sunni states, and heavily mine the borders to ensure that nobody would sneak through.
I'm tired of pussy-footing around there. Do it ONCE, do it RIGHT, and then if the barbarians want to burn down their own homes, LET THEM.
Amanda said...
President Obama's push for mi.itary authorization to fight ISIS won't go anywhere in Congress. Here's why.
It's interesting that the Republican House sues Obama because of Executive overrereach regarding Obamacare, yet seems perfectly satisfied with his overrereach regarding war powers. No one seems highly motivated to vote or even debate it. Obama should more forcefully push for the authorization and the Congress should stop being cowardly.
It's called a "constitution", Amanda. And curiously enough it delineats what section of government is allowed to do what. Called seperation of powers. Can you name all three branches of government, Amanda? It's a facinating document. It's history is rich and varied. You should read it sometime.
Since the president is only leading a fake effort against ISIS, why not have a fake vote to support his fake effort?
No harm to ISIS, either way, so when Hillary takes office in 2017, she can proceed as she likes without any political repercussions.
Which will result in a US city being nuked.
Which is the only thing that might satisfy her desire for revenge against this country.
Which is the only thing that can make her live with herself for having Bill as a cheating husband.
Post a Comment