Obama’s weak and unnecessary war authorization

[Truth Detector]

I keep hearing this dumb claim from the Liberal left; that Obama is waiting for a war authorization from Congress.

The problem with that moronic narrative is that Congress doesn't just declare war willy nilly; it requires the Commander and Chief to request a declaration, which Obama has not done.

The next one is; who would Obama declare war on? ISIS is not a sovereign nation or a state and has already clearly stated he is not at war with radical Islam and refuses to use the term.

The LA Times, a huge propaganda arm of the Obama Admin, gets some things right just like a stopped clock is right twice a day; this is one of those times:

Obama’s weak and unnecessary war authorization

President Obama has asked Congress to authorize the use of force against the Islamic State, declaring in his State of the Union address “We need that authority.”

No, he doesn’t.

Obama has been using force against the Islamic State for six months now. Between his inherent authority as commander in chief and two existing authorizations for the use of military force, he has all the authority he “needs” to defeat the Islamic State. What is holding Obama back is not the lack of congressional authorization but his own stubborn unwillingness to employ the kind of force his military commander says is necessary to win.

So if there is no legal or warfighting reason for Obama to ask Congress for a new AUMF, why does he want one?
.............

Obama wants Congress to formally declare an end to President George W. Bush’s Iraq war by rescinding the 2002 authorization, while passing a new, more limited authorization to fight his new, more limited campaign against the Islamic State. But the idea that the current campaign against the Islamic State is a not continuation of the same war that Bush was fighting is a fantasy.

and;

Second, and more important, Obama wants to tie the hands of his successor with a resolution that prevents him or her from deploying significant ground forces to defeat the Islamic State. He has asked Congress to explicitly state that the new AUMF “does not authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces in enduring offensive ground combat operations.” Moreover, he wants Congress to declare that “the use of military force shall terminate” in three years “unless reauthorized.” This makes Obama the first president in history to formally ask that Congress restrict his authority as commander in chief to fight a war.

The rest of the story:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-weak-and-unnecessary-war-authorization/2015/02/16/69ae8df8-b5f7-11e4-aa05-1ce812b3fdd2_story.html

[Cigar]

Don't worry, he really doesn't need your permissions ... :laugh:

He's The King!

[Matty]

A king with no nads!

[Ethereal]

Where does the constitution say the President must request a declaration of war? And even if that were true, isn't that exactly what Obama is doing?

Who would he declare war on? ISIS, obviously. The fact that they are not a "nation-state" is irrelevant. The perpetrators of 9/11 were not a nation-state either, but that didn't stop the congress from declaring war on them.

But Obama has dug himself into this hole. He already stated that he does not need Congressional authorization to make war in Syria, and he didn't obtain Congressional authorization for his war in Libya, so I don't know what he's doing or thinking. I suspect that he's starting to become disillusioned with being the Pentagon's little butt-boy and is actually resisting their incessant, ludicrous war-mongering. But who knows with him. He is a consummate liar and con artist, so there is no way to know what his motives are at this point.

[Cigar]

Where does the constitution say the President must request a declaration of war? And even if that were true, isn't that exactly what Obama is doing?

Who would he declare war on? ISIS, obviously. The fact that they are not a "nation-state" is irrelevant. The perpetrators of 9/11 were not a nation-state either, but that didn't stop the congress from declaring war on them.

But Obama has dug himself into this hole. He already stated that he does not need Congressional authorization to make war in Syria, and he didn't obtain Congressional authorization for his war in Libya, so I don't know what he's doing or thinking. I suspect that he's starting to become disillusioned with being the Pentagon's little butt-boy and is actually resisting their incessant, ludicrous war-mongering. But who knows with him. He is a consummate liar and con artist, so there is no way to know what his motives are at this point.

Congress has to PAY for WARS, the POTUS doesn't.

[Truth Detector]

Don't worry, he really doesn't need your permissions ... :laugh:

He's The King!

Wasn't it you claiming he needed this "authorization" from Congress yet not getting it?

[Truth Detector]

A king with no nads!

He's no King; he'd barely pass muster as court jester. ;)

[Truth Detector]

Where does the constitution say the President must request a declaration of war? And even if that were true, isn't that exactly what Obama is doing?

Who would he declare war on? ISIS, obviously. The fact that they are not a "nation-state" is irrelevant. The perpetrators of 9/11 were not a nation-state either, but that didn't stop the congress from declaring war on them.

But Obama has dug himself into this hole. He already stated that he does not need Congressional authorization to make war in Syria, and he didn't obtain Congressional authorization for his war in Libya, so I don't know what he's doing or thinking. I suspect that he's starting to become disillusioned with being the Pentagon's little butt-boy and is actually resisting their incessant, ludicrous war-mongering. But who knows with him. He is a consummate liar and con artist, so there is no way to know what his motives are at this point.

Many on the left are claiming that the reason Obama's ME policies are failing is due to a Republican Congress; but I agree, the claims are asinine and idiotic.

[Truth Detector]

Congress has to PAY for WARS, the POTUS doesn't.

How are they not paying for them? And what “WAR” is Obama waging other than the one on Republicans and political opponents?

[Green Arrow]

The constitution says that only Congress has the power to declare war, and the two AUMFs on the books only applied to Iraq and Afghanistan. These things are not open-ended allowances to make war anywhere in the Middle East and at any time, they applied specifically to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 and Afghanistan in 2001.

So, yes, the president does need to request a war authorization from Congress to go after the Islamic State, and Congress needs to give him that authorization if they are serious about destroying ISIL. The problem is both sides are playing politics on this issue.

[Ethereal]

Congress has to PAY for WARS, the POTUS doesn't.

The President doesn't have the constitutional authority to declare wars without the authorization of Congress, it's as simple as that.

The Congress shall have Power To ...declare War....

[Ethereal]

The constitution says that only Congress has the power to declare war, and the two AUMFs on the books only applied to Iraq and Afghanistan. These things are not open-ended allowances to make war anywhere in the Middle East and at any time, they applied specifically to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 and Afghanistan in 2001.

So, yes, the president does need to request a war authorization from Congress to go after the Islamic State, and Congress needs to give him that authorization if they are serious about destroying ISIL. The problem is both sides are playing politics on this issue.

I would quibble with one thing in your post. The original AUMF did not authorize the invasion of any particular country; rather, it authorized the military to go after the perpetrators and enablers of 9/11 regardless of what country they were in. But that authorization applies only to the individuals who contributed directly to the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks, so you're correct when you say it cannot conceivably apply to an organization like ISIS who was not involved in either the planning or execution of 9/11. The original AUMF has been stretched so far beyond its actual meaning as to become positively criminal.

[Green Arrow]

I would quibble with one thing in your post. The original AUMF did not authorize the invasion of any particular country; rather, it authorized the military to go after the perpetrators and enablers of 9/11 regardless of what country they were in. But that authorization applies only to the individuals who contributed directly to the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks, so you're correct when you say it cannot conceivably apply to an organization like ISIS who was not involved in either the planning or execution of 9/11. The original AUMF has been stretched so far beyond its actual meaning as to become positively criminal.

Well, that just makes the Iraq War illegal and unconstitutional, then.

Not that it surprises me, but you know.

[Ethereal]

Well, that just makes the Iraq War illegal and unconstitutional, then.

Not that it surprises me, but you know.

There were two separate authorizations. One to authorize the US military to go after the perpetrators of 9/11 and one to invade Iraq, so the invasion of Iraq, although incredibly stupid, crooked, and fraudulent, was technically legal and constitutional.

[Green Arrow]

There were two separate authorizations. One to authorize the US military to go after the perpetrators of 9/11 and one to invade Iraq, so the invasion of Iraq, although incredibly stupid, crooked, and fraudulent, was technically legal and constitutional.

Oh, okay. That's what I thought. I must have misread what you said then.

Regardless, the point is the president does not currently have any constitutional authority to go after ISIL and needs a war authorization from Congress. Though, I'm perplexed as to why it matters, because he has put us at war with ISIL for months without a congressional war authorization and it's not like he asked for one for Libya or any of the other seven or so countries he has bombed. I suspect he's just playing politics at this point.

[Cigar]

The President doesn't have the constitutional authority to declare wars without the authorization of Congress, it's as simple as that.

The Congress shall have Power To ...declare War....

I already know that, but someone here is asking why The President is asking for Congress to pull their head of of their azz

[Truth Detector]

The constitution says that only Congress has the power to declare war, and the two AUMFs on the books only applied to Iraq and Afghanistan. These things are not open-ended allowances to make war anywhere in the Middle East and at any time, they applied specifically to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 and Afghanistan in 2001.

So, yes, the president does need to request a war authorization from Congress to go after the Islamic State, and Congress needs to give him that authorization if they are serious about destroying ISIL. The problem is both sides are playing politics on this issue.

Wrong; who the hell are they going to "declare war" on? The Syrians? We aren't even actually fighting there. The Afghanistani's? The Iraqi's? You don't declare war on non-entities who are not a sovereign nation or represent one. That is dumb rhetoric.

The ONLY reason there is still no authorization is that Congress wants to give the ObamaTARD more authority and not let him tie his own hands with a limited watered down version. You don't put a timeline on total victory unless your dumb, naive, gullible or never intended to win in the first place for purely political posturing.

Learn more:

In 1862, the Supreme Court opined that the President "has no power to initiate or declare a war," but if there were an invasion, "the President is not only authorized but bound to resist force by force...without waiting for any special legislative authority." Prize Cases (1863).

On the other hand, the Constitution distinguishes between "declaring" war and "engaging in" (see Article I, Section 10, Clause 3) or "levying" war (see Article III, Section 3, Clause 1). Moreover, there is no express requirement of legislative consent in other sections of the Constitution or in earlier documents before the President may commence hostilities.

Accordingly, much of the debate over the power to initiate hostilities focuses on understanding the meaning of the words, "declare War." Supporters of presidential authority contend that the Founders were well aware of the long British practice of undeclared wars. They assert that the Constitution likewise does not require formal war declarations for the President to authorize hostilities as a matter of domestic constitutional power.

Under this view, Congress's power to declare war was established for an altogether different purpose. Declarations of war alter legal relationships between subjects of warring nations and trigger certain rights, privileges, and protections under the laws of war. According to Grotius, declarations gave notice of the legal grounds for the war and the opportunity for enemy nations to make amends and thereby avoid the scourge of war. It served notice on the enemy's allies that they would be regarded as cobelligerents and their shipping subject to capture. Under a declaration of war, one's own navy and privateers could not be treated as pirates by the enemy, but on the other hand one's own citizens were subject to prosecution if they dealt with the enemy.

Furthermore, under previous practice, declarations of war triggered other legal actions, such as the internment or expulsion of enemy aliens, the breaking of diplomatic relations, and the confiscation of the enemy's property. In short, the power to declare war was designed as a power to affect legal rights and duties in times of hostilities. It is not a check on executive power to engage in such hostilities in the first place.

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/49/declare-war

[Truth Detector]

Well, that just makes the Iraq War illegal and unconstitutional, then.

Not that it surprises me, but you know.

That's silly and based on nothing more substantive than "because you say so."

[Truth Detector]

There were two separate authorizations. One to authorize the US military to go after the perpetrators of 9/11 and one to invade Iraq, so the invasion of Iraq, although incredibly stupid, crooked, and fraudulent, was technically legal and constitutional.

How was it stupid, crooked and fraudulent; other than, because you say so?

[Cigar]

SOMEONE HAS TO PAY FOR WARS ... :laugh:

Guess who Authorizes Spending :rollseyes:

[Truth Detector]

Oh, okay. That's what I thought. I must have misread what you said then.

Regardless, the point is the president does not currently have any constitutional authority to go after ISIL and needs a war authorization from Congress. Though, I'm perplexed as to why it matters, because he has put us at war with ISIL for months without a congressional war authorization and it's not like he asked for one for Libya or any of the other seven or so countries he has bombed. I suspect he's just playing politics at this point.

The President absolutely has the authority and has been using all this time.....DUH.

[Truth Detector]

I already know that, but someone here is asking why The President is asking for Congress to pull their head of of their azz

STRAWMAN ALERT; there you go again.

[Cigar]

The President absolutely has the authority and has been using all this time.....DUH.

Then Stop B!thing about Deficits

[Truth Detector]

SOMEONE HAS TO PAY FOR WARS ... :laugh:

Guess who Authorizes Spending :rollseyes:

STRAWMAN ALERT; we are not at war. DUH

[Green Arrow]

Wrong; who the hell are they going to "declare war" on?

It's not wrong, it's a fact that the president cannot use the military without congressional authorization.


The Syrians? We aren't even actually fighting there. The Afghanistani's? The Iraqi's? You don't declare war on non-entities who are not a sovereign nation or represent one. That is dumb rhetoric.

Syria and Iraq would be what the declaration would be against, or just ISIL. I don't see why we can't declare war against ISIL, we did for "the perpetrators of 9/11" for the War in Afghanistan, despite the fact that the "perpetrators of 9/11" were terrorists with no state. It's meaningless at this point anyway.


The ONLY reason there is still no authorization is that Congress wants to give the ObamaTARD more authority and not let him tie his own hands with a limited watered down version.

Yes, I agree with that. I've said as much.

[Truth Detector]

Then Stop B!thing about Deficits

Liberals are the ones that bitch about them during a time of war with a Republican in charge; until of course their "dear leader" was elected and then all the massive accumulation of deficits and debt was perfectly fine with them. DUH.

Pot; seek they kettle.

[Green Arrow]

The President absolutely has the authority and has been using all this time.....DUH.

Really? Kindly link me to the congressional authorization.

[Cigar]

Really? Kindly link me to the congressional authorization.

This may take awhile

[Truth Detector]

It's not wrong, it's a fact that the president cannot use the military without congressional authorization.

It is a FACT that he already has it. Next false and specious claim?


Syria and Iraq would be what the declaration would be against, or just ISIL.

ISIL has NOTHING to do with the nations of Syria or Iraq; so declaring war on Syria or Iraq is patently stupid. You cannot declare war on an ideology. You can semantically engage in a war on terror....but that only requires Congressional authorization and spending approval....which the Congress has done for Obama.


I don't see why we can't declare war against ISIL,

Because a war declaration is about nation states, not an ideology.


we did for "the perpetrators of 9/11" for the War in Afghanistan, despite the fact that the "perpetrators of 9/11" were terrorists with no state.

No we did not; they were called "authorizations" like the Joint Resolution. Spending bills were open ended as are all war time expenditures until victory is won; or in Obama's case, handed to the opposition.


It's meaningless at this point anyway.

I agree; but the Liberals think that Obama is a failure because those gosh darned mean spirited Republicans are tying his hands. :laugh:

[Cigar]

Dude ... give up :laugh:

[Truth Detector]

Really? Kindly link me to the congressional authorization.

The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Pub. L. 107-40
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Te rrorists

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

[Truth Detector]

This may take awhile

Did it? I'll understand your inability to comprehend anything beyond the kool-aid you are spoon fed by the DNC.

[Truth Detector]

Dude ... give up :laugh:

I never give up defending the truth; you keep me quite busy with all the BS, strawmen and lies you spam the forum with.

[Cigar]

I never give up defending the truth; you keep me quite busy with all the BS, strawmen and lies you spam the forum with.

Glad to help

[Green Arrow]

It is a FACT that he already has it. Next false and specious claim?

Okay, if he already has it, link me to it.


ISIL has NOTHING to do with the nations of Syria or Iraq; so declaring war on Syria or Iraq is patently stupid. You cannot declare war on an ideology. You can semantically engage in a war on terror....but that only requires Congressional authorization and spending approval....which the Congress has done for Obama.

Because a war declaration is about nation states, not an ideology.

No we did not; they were called "authorizations" like the Joint Resolution. Spending bills were open ended as are all war time expenditures until victory is won; or in Obama's case, handed to the opposition.

Again...the "perpetrators of 9/11" didn't have a nation state, they were terrorists with an ideology. We still declared war against them in 2001, so there is a precedent for declaring war on an ideology, even if that concept is fucking stupid.

[Green Arrow]

The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Pub. L. 107-40
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Te rrorists
That applies solely to the perpetrators of 9/11. ISIL was not a perpetrator of 9/11. That authorization is not a blanket authorization to go after anyone anywhere for any reason.


Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

That applies solely to the government of Iraq, which was officially defeated in 2004. That authorization is not a blanket authorization to go after anyone anywhere for any reason.

Neither of those are legal authorizations to go after ISIL.

[Peter1469]

The President doesn't have the constitutional authority to declare wars without the authorization of Congress, it's as simple as that.

The Congress shall have Power To ...declare War....

Yes, the actual declaration of war (or the authorization for the use of force) is a function of the Legislative branch.

Listen carefully to FDR's words. He is not strictly asking for a declaration of war; he is asking the Congress to recognize that a state of war has existed between the United States and the Empire of Japan since the attack on Pearl Harbor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lK8gYGg0dkE

[Tahuyaman]

The problem with Obama and his decision making process can be explained like a game of chess. Our enemies are looking ahead to their next move while Obama is looking at the board trying to figure out which pieces are his.