Peter1469
05-23-2016, 06:44 PM
The foggy number of Obama’s wars and non-wars (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/the-foggy-numbers-of-obamas-wars-and-non-wars/2016/05/22/5648b798-1d2f-11e6-b6e0-c53b7ef63b45_story.html)
Mark started a thread that he doesn't understand. This may help. It has to do with the current wars that we are fighting and the authorities that the Administration is relying on. The argument is that new authorities must be passed by Congress. Read more at the link.
The United States justifies its counterterrorism attacks under a variety of domestic and international laws. The Authorization for Use of Military Force passed by Congress in 2001 allows force to prevent further attacks by al-Qaeda, responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks that year, and the government for more than a decade has construed this to include al-Qaeda’s “associated forces.”
A complete list of “associated forces” has never been released, although both Bush and Obama have said it includes Yemen-based al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP, and Obama has said individuals in al-Shabab with AQAP ties can be subject to counterterrorism strikes. The administration also considers the Islamic State part of al-Qaeda, despite the bitter rivalry between the groups, while it has unsuccessfully pressed Congress for a new AUMF to cover the Islamic State more specifically.
Article II of the Constitution gives the commander in chief powers to defend the country. It is a provision frequently cited by Bush and eschewed by Obama at the beginning of his administration, but later incorporated into his lexicon of legal justifications. International law allows countries to defend themselves and their allies in the event of an “armed attack,” which the government has interpreted as extending to preventive defense against defined terrorists wherever they are located.
When the administration announced its new rules for counterterrorism, it said they went beyond those required by law. Under the 2013 guidelines, deadly attacks would be used only against those groups and individuals posing a “continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons,” a much smaller universe than the former “U.S. interests.” Only the president could approve such strikes, and the go-ahead would be given only when there was a “near certainty” of no civilian deaths.
Mark started a thread that he doesn't understand. This may help. It has to do with the current wars that we are fighting and the authorities that the Administration is relying on. The argument is that new authorities must be passed by Congress. Read more at the link.
The United States justifies its counterterrorism attacks under a variety of domestic and international laws. The Authorization for Use of Military Force passed by Congress in 2001 allows force to prevent further attacks by al-Qaeda, responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks that year, and the government for more than a decade has construed this to include al-Qaeda’s “associated forces.”
A complete list of “associated forces” has never been released, although both Bush and Obama have said it includes Yemen-based al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP, and Obama has said individuals in al-Shabab with AQAP ties can be subject to counterterrorism strikes. The administration also considers the Islamic State part of al-Qaeda, despite the bitter rivalry between the groups, while it has unsuccessfully pressed Congress for a new AUMF to cover the Islamic State more specifically.
Article II of the Constitution gives the commander in chief powers to defend the country. It is a provision frequently cited by Bush and eschewed by Obama at the beginning of his administration, but later incorporated into his lexicon of legal justifications. International law allows countries to defend themselves and their allies in the event of an “armed attack,” which the government has interpreted as extending to preventive defense against defined terrorists wherever they are located.
When the administration announced its new rules for counterterrorism, it said they went beyond those required by law. Under the 2013 guidelines, deadly attacks would be used only against those groups and individuals posing a “continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons,” a much smaller universe than the former “U.S. interests.” Only the president could approve such strikes, and the go-ahead would be given only when there was a “near certainty” of no civilian deaths.