AUMF Resolution Text: Text Of The Use Of Force Resolution

[Tx4obama]

Here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/164538584/AUMF-Resolution-Text

[JayhawkSD]

1. That is an absolute absurdity

Paragraph IV says that "Whereas the conflict in Syria will only be resolved through a negotiated political settlement, and Congress calls upon all parties in the conflict in Syria to participate urgently and constructiveliy in the Geneva process,"

and then says therefore, "the President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he decides to be necessary and appropriate..."

On what planet does that make any sense? "It can only be solved through negotiation so let's go and bomb the shit out of it."

[bigdarryl]

2. Thats sounds like an open end resolution to me nothing in that text says LIMITED

The President can use the Armed Forces against weapons of mass destruction. That can mean ANYTHING from a tank to a pistol Are we being BAMBOOZLED!! again

[jakeXT]

3. Kucinich and Jack Goldsmith agree

[blockquote class="twitter-tweet"][p]Blank check for [a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23war&src=hash"]#war[/a] in [a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Syria&src=hash"]#Syria[/a] & beyond. [a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Congress&src=hash"]#Congress[/a], vote [a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23NOwar&src=hash"]#NOwar[/a]! -- Text [a href="https://twitter.com/BarackObama"]@BarackObama[/a] sent congress: [a href="http://t.co/y1xW3oWy89"]http://t.co/y1xW3oWy89[/a] [a href="https://twitter.com/WSJwashington"]@WSJwashington[/a]

— Dennis Kucinich (@Dennis_Kucinich) [a href="https://twitter.com/Dennis_Kucinich/statuses/373973190374338560"]September 1, 2013[/a]
[script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"][/script]
https://twitter.com/Dennis_Kucinich

The Administration’s Proposed Syria AUMF Is Very Broad [UPDATE on Ground Troops]

There is much more here than at first meets the eye. The proposed AUMF focuses on Syrian WMD but is otherwise very broad. It authorizes the President to use any element of the U.S. Armed Forces and any method of force. It does not contain specific limits on targets – either in terms of the identity of the targets (e.g. the Syrian government, Syrian rebels, Hezbollah, Iran) or the geography of the targets. Its main limit comes on the purposes for which force can be used. Four points are worth making about these purposes. First, the proposed AUMF authorizes the President to use force “in connection with” the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war. (It does not limit the President’s use force to the territory of Syria, but rather says that the use of force must have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian conflict. Activities outside Syria can and certainly do have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war.). Second, the use of force must be designed to “prevent or deter the use or proliferation” of WMDs “within, to or from Syria” or (broader yet) to “protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons.” Third, the proposed AUMF gives the President final interpretive authority to determine when these criteria are satisfied (“as he determines to be necessary and appropriate”). Fourth, the proposed AUMF contemplates no procedural restrictions on the President’s powers (such as a time limit).

....

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/09/the-administrations-proposed-syria-aumf-is-very-broad/

[morningfog]

4. Wow. This is horrible. This is so open-ended and ill edfined it can keep us in Syria as long as

we have been in Afghanistan.

And, even with Congressional AUMF, it will be a war crime. Congress does not have the power to make a war legal under international law.

This is very bad and needs to be voted down asap.

[Igel]

5. Isn't that ugly?

On the other hand, it was written by the Executive, for the Executive.

While those on the outside can easily see how it could go wrong, politicians and leaders seldom have a reason to doubt their own rightness and usually judge what they do to be both moral and necessary for what they perceive to be the greater good. When they do make a mistake, it's almost always somebody else's fault or sabotage. To even allow that they might make a mistake is to be a traitor.

Humility is so ... Never mind.