Obama AUMF would do little to limit him - Could leave next president with enormous war-making power

[bigtree]

Last edited Thu Feb 12, 2015, 10:15 AM - Edit history (1)

Greg Sargent ?@ThePlumLineGS 36m36 minutes ago
ICYMI: Obama war auth request falls short; both he & Cong are guilty of perpetuating bad historical pattern: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/02/11/obamas-war-authorization-request-is-way-too-broad-and-the-damage-has-already-been-done/ …


___Some Democrats criticized the proposal as too broad and too vague. They are right. Several critics I spoke to note that, in its current form, at least, it would not only do little to limit Obama right now, but could also leave the next president with enormous war-making latitude — whether he or she is a Democrat or a Republican...

The proposal would authorize armed force against “ISIL or associated persons or forces,” a category that is loosely defined as any entity that is fighting “alongside ISIL” or is a “closely-related successor.” It would not authorize the use of force in “enduring offensive ground combat operations,” which is also pretty loose wording and doesn’t say what operations force would be limited to. It says authorization would terminate three years after the proposal’s enactment by Congress, which means it might be operative after the mission is accomplished, however that might be defined.

“This is a constructive proposal, but it’s not sufficiently limited,” Jameel Jaffer of the American Civil Liberties Union tells me. “It lacks geographic limitations, it uses loose language to describe the category of groups that can be targeted, and it fails to state at all clearly the specific objective for which military force is being authorized.”

Perhaps most important, it would not repeal the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force, or AUMF, which authorized force against the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. The problem with this is that the administration has already cited the 2001 AUMF as the legal basis for the authority to wage war on ISIS. That was an absurd argument to begin with, but absent the repeal of that measure, the administration could theoretically still rely on it to carry out activities not sanctioned by a new authorization.

“If you don’t repeal the original AUMF, you create the possibility the president will continue to rely on it,” Jaffer said. “Any limitations Congress imposes under the new AUMF could be ignored. This is a meaningless exercise unless it includes repeal of the original AUMF.”

Obama’s successor could theoretically do the same. “The next president could simply say, ‘Just as President Obama relied on the 2001 AUMF, I’m going to do the same thing,’” Dem Rep. Adam Schiff of California told me.


read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/02/11/obamas-war-authorization-request-is-way-too-broad-and-the-damage-has-already-been-done/

related:

full text of the resolution proposed by President Obama: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/02/11/obamas-request-for-congressional-authorization-to-fight-the-islamic-state-full-text/

Full text of President Obama’s letter to lawmakers accompanying draft war powers resolution: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/obama-sends-congress-draft-war-authorization-article-1.2110734

Lawfare: Obama's draft ISIL AUMF actually expands presidential war-making power from the current baseline
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026215518

my post, 'There no such thing as limited strikes, limited war. We’re going to find out the hard way": :http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026211061

[bigtree]

1. kick

[RoccoR5955]

2. Endless War!

Coming soon.
Congress will pass this, and Obama will sign it.
I am feeling like I am living in 1984.
War is peace
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength.


Nope, as General Smedley Butler said in 1930, "War is a racket!"

[bigtree]

8. how come we play war and not peace?

[KG]

3. Well since hillary is inevitable, this is not a problem. everybody knows

the worst democratic war is better the the best republican war.

[Fred Sanders]

4. Drafting a document that limits the world military power of America's massive killing machine

is tough word smithing.

What Obama is trying to do is admirable, so admirable the War Dogs are loudly barking TOO limited.

It is a debate long overdue. I trust Obama infinitely more than the Dogs.

This War Resolution and limiting the power of the Executive Branch is exactly what the fascists wish he would NOT do.

[Scuba]

5. More arms equals more peace, right?

I mean, what could go wrong?

[bigtree]

7. war is peace, baby!

[marmar]

6. Yep. This is very dangerous.

[bigtree]

9. »