Barbara Lee: Congress must exert meaningful oversight on drones, and repeal AUMF

[Enrique]

imo this means Democrats, because it's unrealistic to expect this GOP to do anything responsibly

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/letters/la-le-0209-saturday-drones-obama-20130209,0,7250229.story

The recently leaked Justice Department memo that outlined the overly broad and vague legal boundaries used to justify drone strikes should shake the American people to the core.

While I applaud President Obama for releasing more information to the Senate and House intelligence committees, the root of the problem remains: The administration is using the Authorization for the Use of Military Force passed by the House on Sept. 14, 2001, as one of the justifications for the lethal use of drones. As the only member of Congress who voted against this blank check, I believe now more than ever that we must repeal it.

We need a full debate of the consequences of the September 2001 action, and meaningful oversight by Congress is vital. As commander in chief, it is Obama's duty to keep our country safe, but Congress must not retreat from its constitutional obligation of oversight. These checks and balances are the foundation of our democracy, and they must stay intact.

Rep. Barbara Lee

(D-Oakland)

[msongs]

1. representing the democratic wing of the party, Ms Lee. You go for it Ms Lee! nt

[ProSense]

2. That would be great,

"The administration is using the Authorization for the Use of Military Force passed by the House on Sept. 14, 2001, as one of the justifications for the lethal use of drones...We need a full debate of the consequences of the September 2001 action, and meaningful oversight by Congress is vital. As commander in chief, it is Obama's duty to keep our country safe, but Congress must not retreat from its constitutional obligation of oversight."

...and it would force such a debate. The issue isn't going to go away without this debate.

[msanthrope]

3. Yes--it would force a debate, which would force Congress to decide if the

objectives sought under the AUMF have been met.

I think Rep. Lee is right--it's time for Congress to revisit what they want the Executive to do with regards to Al Qaeda.

[rhett o rick]

4. Congress opened the barn door. The horses are out. Good luck trying to get them

back.

[rhett o rick]

5. IMO the AUMF violates the Constitution but good luck getting the

conservative SCOTUS to agree.

[msanthrope]

8. How does the AUMF violate the Constitution?

The reason I ask is because the AUMF invokes the War Powers Act of 1973, which was put in place to check the powers of the Executive.

What makes this AUMF unconstitutional?

[OldDem2012]

6. Meanwhile, we have officers of the LAPD exerting ACTUAL lethal force....

....in two DIFFERENT instances while looking for Dorner. What does anyone intend to do about that? How many more innocent people are going to be fired on without any warning whatsoever?

[felix_numinous]

7. Yes-because they using shock and awe

of the elementary school shooting to expand militarization domestically. And people are beginning to wake up, what with FOX going down in ratings....

[msanthrope]

9. What? nt

[felix_numinous]

10. I agree with Barbara Lee

and have noticed that further loss of civil rights happened right after a mass killing event. Just an observation.

[sibelian]

11. Oh, piffle. It hasn't shaken ANYONE to the core.

Nobody following the course of American politics with an analytic eye is surprised in the least and the people who want to feel comfortable actively SUPPORT drones.