Pentagon to wage war twenty more years, and or anywhere on the globe.

[midnight]

&list=SP50BDB9BCCFAF09CA

[midnight]

1. From Boston to Pakistan, Pentagon Claims Entire World Is a Battlefield

http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/323-95/17464-from-boston-to-pakistan-pentagon-claims-entire-world-is-a-battlefield


SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: Do you agree with me, the war against radical Islam, or terror, whatever description you like to provide, will go on after the second term of President Obama?

MICHAEL SHEEHAN: Senator, in my judgment, this is going to go on for quite a while, and, yes, beyond the second term of the president.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: And beyond this term of Congress?

MICHAEL SHEEHAN: Yes, sir. I think it's at least 10 to 20 years.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: So, from your point of view, you have all of the authorization and legal authorities necessary to conduct a drone strike against terrorist organizations in Yemen without changing the AUMF.

MICHAEL SHEEHAN: Yes, sir, I do believe that.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: You agree with that, General?

BRIG. GEN. RICHARD GROSS: I do, sir.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: General, do you agree with that?

GEN. MICHAEL NAGATA: I do, sir.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: OK. Could we send military members into Yemen to strike against one of these organizations? Does the president have that authority to put boots on the ground in Yemen?

ROBERT TAYLOR: As I mentioned before, there's domestic authority and international law authority. At the moment, the basis for putting boots on the ground in Yemen, we respect the sovereignty of Yemen, and it would-

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about: Does he have the legal authority under our law to do that?

ROBERT TAYLOR: Under domestic authority, he would have that authority.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: I hope that Congress is OK with that. I'm OK with that. Does he have authority to put boots on the ground in the Congo?

MICHAEL SHEEHAN: Yes, sir, he does.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: OK. Do you agree with me that when it comes to international terrorism, we're talking about a worldwide struggle?

MICHAEL SHEEHAN: Absolutely, sir. [inaudible]

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: Would you agree with me the battlefield is wherever the enemy chooses to make it?

MICHAEL SHEEHAN: Yes, sir, from Boston to the FATA [the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan].

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: I couldn't agree with you more. We're in a-do you agree with that, General?

BRIG. GEN. RICHARD GROSS: Yes, sir. I agree that the enemy decides where the battlefield is.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: And it could be anyplace on the planet, and we have to be aware and able to act. And do you have the ability to act, and are you aware of the threats?

MICHAEL SHEEHAN: Yes, sir. We do have the ability to react, and we are tracking threats globally.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: From my point of view, I think your analysis is correct, and I appreciate all of your service to our country.

SEN. CARL LEVIN: Senator King.

SEN. ANGUS KING: Gentlemen, I've only been here five months, but this is the most astounding and most astoundingly disturbing hearing that I've been to since I've been here. You guys have essentially rewritten the Constitution here today. The Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, clearly says that the Congress has the power to declare war. This-this authorization, the AUMF, is very limited. And you keep using the term "associated forces." You use it 13 times in your statement. That is not in the AUMF. And you said at one point, "It suits us very well." I assume it does suit you very well, because you're reading it to cover everything and anything. And then you said, at another point, "So, even if the AUMF doesn't apply, the general law of war applies, and we can take these actions." So, my question is: How do you possibly square this with the requirement of the Constitution that the Congress has the power to declare war?

[msongs]

2. wars are justification for their jobs + retirement and free health care for life nt

[malthaussen]

3. I think what depresses me the most...

... is how gleeful they all are about it.

-- Mal

[ancianita]

4. By 2033 because this. It's worth a read.

http://intellihub.com/2013/05/06/deep-underground-military-base-intelligence-briefing/

I keep reading more and more about the military's tunnelling, which is factual and can't be denied. Then it's apparent that they've had a plan and a network in place since the end of WWII. Maybe that's why so many military personnel who 'act up' never get booted.

[limpyhobbler]

5. Senator King is apparently a sane person accidentally locked in an insane asylum.

great post. It really lays the insanity bare for all to see.

[limpyhobbler]

6. Nobody could have known the AUMF would be used as a license to wage endless global war?

Excerpts from Glenn Greenwald's thing in the Guardian.

Barbara Lee and Dick Durbin's 'nobody-could-have-known' defense
The standard Beltway excuse to justify bad acts fails to explain the radically overbroad 2001 AUMF

Various senators are reportedly considering changes to the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) in light of how far beyond its scope US military action is now routinely deployed. That may seem like a welcome development, but as Marcy Wheeler notes, the officials involved and the "experts" on whom they're relying strongly suggest that any changes would entail expanding and broadening this authorization, not narrowing or rescinding it. One of the Senators who is pushing for changes is Democrat Dick Durbin, who said this:

None of us, not one who voted for it, could have envisioned we were voting for the longest war in American history or that we were about to give future presidents the authority to fight terrorism as far flung as Yemen and Somalia. I don't think any of us envisioned that possibility."

This is a common tactic in Washington political and media circles: whenever they do something destructive and wrong, they exonerate themselves with this "nobody-could-have-known" formulation: yes, we turned out to be horribly wrong, but nobody could have known at the time that this would happen. But almost always, not only could someone have known, and not only should someone have known, but someone - usually many people - did know. They just weren't the kind of people that those making this claim believe are worth listening to.

Immediately after the 9/11 attack, Democratic Rep. Barbara Lee of California knew exactly that which Durbin now says nobody "could have envisioned". She not only knew it, but she stood up on the floor of the Congress a mere three days after the 9/11 attack in order to cast the lone vote against the AUMF, citing precisely these dangers:
...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/07/aumf-durbin-barbara-lee-defense

[midnight]

7. Great speech:"I'm opposed to granting that broad power to any president"

'I believe Congress has got to be part of the decision-making process when we're talking about going to war against sovereign nations. This resolution, even though it was focused on the World Trade Center attack, is open-ended. It doesn't have an exit strategy; it does not have any reporting requirements. And the president already has authority to use force [internationally for 60 days without congressional approval] under the War Powers Act. So what was this about?. . .

"I agonized over this vote. We're all mourning. We're angry and frustrated. I felt that [someone] in this environment of grief needed to say let's show some restraint in our response. Let's not do anything that could escalate this madness out of control. Let's know the implications of our actions, and let's make sure that our system of checks and balances is maintained. We need to figure out a way to stamp out international terrorism and bring these perpetrators to justice without creating more loss of life. . . . We need to know where we're going and who we're going after."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/07/aumf-durbin-barbara-lee-defense

On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) with the headline: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” The PDB (partially declassified in 2004 as a result of the 9/11 Commission investigation) predicted an al-Qaeda attack on New York’s World Trade Center. Bush stayed on vacation in Texas, going fishing the next day.

In yesterday’s New York Times, Kurt Eichenwald reports on the contents of prior PDBs that the Bush administration kept secret (emphasis added):
http://www.oneutah.org/2012/09/nyt-president-bush-ignored-cia-warnings-before-august-6th-pdb/

If only our national security had been a top priority then, like it is now.....