White House: Senate ISIS measure too 'limiting'

[Jesus Malverde]

The White House on Friday said it is concerned that a Senate measure on the use of force against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) would tie the president's hands, including restrictions on the deployment of ground troops.

The legislation, which cleared the Senate Foreign Relations Committeee in a 10-8 vote with majority Democratic support, would not allow ground combat operations, except to protect or rescue U.S. soldiers and citizens. It also includes provisions allowing American troops to conduct intelligence operations, provide advice and assistance, or coordinate airstrikes from the ground.

Press secretary Josh Earnest described the language as "limiting the flexibility of the commander in chief in a way that we wouldn’t support."

snip

Earnest also said the White House was concerned by language that would put a three-year limitation on the authorization. The press secretary said the White House would support that limit if provisions for extension were built in — which could allow the bill to renew without requiring another vote.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/226959-white-house-senate-isis-bill-too-limiting

Earlier
Kerry Warns Senate Against Curbs on Fighting ISIS

Secretary of State John Kerry urged Congress on Tuesday not to preclude the use of ground forces to fight the Islamic State as lawmakers consider setting limits on the nature and extent of American involvement in the military campaign against the group.

Mr. Kerry made his request in testimony before an unusual session of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He underscored that the administration was prepared to negotiate over a measure authorizing the use of force, but he made clear that the administration believes it needs greater flexibility than many lawmakers seemed ready to allow.

“The president has been crystal clear that his policy is that U.S. military forces will not be deployed to conduct ground combat operations against ISIL,” Mr. Kerry said, using an alternate name for the group. “It doesn’t mean that we should pre-emptively bind the hands of the commander in chief or our commanders in the field in responding to scenarios and contingencies that are impossible to foresee,” he added.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/us/politics/kerry-warns-senate-against-curbs-on-fighting-isis.html

[VanillaRhapsody]

1. Of course it is.....they don't want him beating ISIS....its not a part of their "plan" to let him

succeed at anything....what better way than to under fund or tie his hands?

[morningfog]

2. Who is "they?" It made it out of committee with

majority dem support.

[VanillaRhapsody]

3. Republicans!

[morningfog]

4. Dem majority voted it out of committee.

[jakeXT]

5. "presidents make war on their own, and congresses acquiesce"

The administration’s rationale, at odds with the war it is steadily expanding, is to forestall an endless conflict foisted upon it by a bloodthirsty legislature. Yet one of the main authorities Obama is relying on for avoiding Congress is the 2001 wellspring of the war on terrorism he advocated repealing only last year, a document known as the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) that few think actually applies to Isis.

Taken together with the congressional leadership’s shrug, Obama has stripped the veneer off a contemporary fact of American national security: presidents make war on their own, and congresses acquiesce.

The constitution envisions the exact opposite circumstance. A 1973 reform, the War Powers Resolution, attempted a constitutional restoration in the wake of the Vietnam war, ensuring that the legal authorisation for conflict deployments were voided after 60 days. Yet its restrictions on military action have proven far less durable in conflicts like Grenada, Kosovo, Libya and now the 2014-vintage Iraq war.

For the Obama administration, an allergy to congressional authorisation is enmeshed with the president’s stated desire to end what he last year termed a “perpetual war” footing. It has led Obama in directions legal scholars consider highly questionable.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/11/obama-isis-syria-air-strikes-legal-argument

[Igel]

6. It's called "being human." For the most part.

When regulations and laws are made, people in pursuit of their own goals and self-interest try to find ways around them. They don't like being imposed upon, limited, bound.

This greatly frustrates every president and every administration, because they make all these regulations and push for all these laws--always to "help people"--and people get around them. From EPA regs to speed limits, IRS regulations to storage of hazardous materials and disposal of waste motor oil. The people trying to circumvent, minimize, avoid these regulations and laws are always considered selfish, mean-spirited, petty, evil.

As soon as there are regulations and laws made that impose upon, limit, and bind the president and the administration, however, those folk are all about getting around them--circumventing, minimizing, and avoiding those regulations and laws. When this happens, it's those making the regulations and laws that are selfish, mean-spirited, petty, and evil.

Me, good. Them, bad.

[jakeXT]

7. Now Counties, like the one with Ferguson in it, have discovered 'laws' as a cash cow

It's this selective enforcement that gets people up in arms.

To understand some of the distrust of police that has fueled protests in Ferguson, Mo., consider this: In 2013, the municipal court in Ferguson — a city of 21,135 people — issued 32,975 arrest warrants for nonviolent offenses, mostly driving violations.

A new report released the week after 18-year old Michael Brown was shot and killed in Ferguson helps explain why. ArchCity Defenders, a St. Louis-area public defender group, says in its report that more than half the courts in St. Louis County engage in the "illegal and harmful practices" of charging high court fines and fees on nonviolent offenses like traffic violations — and then arresting people when they don't pay. The report singles out courts in three communities, including Ferguson.

Thomas Harvey, who started the organization to provide legal services to the poor in the St. Louis region and is the lead author of the report, says residents, especially in Ferguson, have come to see the use of fines and fees as a way for courts to collect money from residents who are often the least able to pay.

"Folks have the impression that this is a form of low-level harassment that isn't about public safety. It's about money," he says.

http://www.npr.org/2014/08/25/343143937/in-ferguson-court-fines-and-fees-fuel-anger