BUCKNACKT'S SORDID TAWDRY BLOG
We should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive & well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate, bier or wein in hand, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WHOO-HOO, WHAT A RIDE!!!!!!"
NORTON META TAG
Showing posts with label war powers clause. Show all posts
Showing posts with label war powers clause. Show all posts
JON STEWART really, really lays fox "news" out on war, "latte" salute, and respect for the military, and gets a few good hits on conress too. Click the link and watch....and share. From +AlterNet .....
"Boobs on the ground?" Is that how you show respect for the troops?
Photo Credit: via Comedy Central
September 26, 2014 |
So, we're at war, and how are we dealing with it? With all the
maturity of a bunch of kindergartners, that's how. Jon Stewart opened
with a far-ranging rant Thursday night in which he blasted Congress for
refusing to do its job, again, and draft up a resolution declaring war
(as the Constitution suggests.) The reason, of course, is the upcoming
midterm elections. Brave congressmembers would not want to do something
that might jeopardize their jobs, so that they might continue to do
nothing, and agree on less.
With Congress abdicating its responsibility, it's up to the media to
lead an adult discussion of the War on ISIS and, judging from the amount
of time devoted to the trivial matter of Obama holding coffee while he
saluted troops, "We are so f*cked," Stewart suggested. "I don't even
know what to do."
Of course, one network lead the charge on that non-story. Can you
guess which one? Stewart to Fox: "Shut up, you don't even care about
this." The cherry on top: After criticizing Obama for lacking respect
for the troops by saluting with a cup of latte in his hand (or was it
chai, Karl Rove?), Eric Bolling got off that hilarious line about
whether a female fighter pilot might be considered "boobs on the
ground." Respect for the troops, indeed.
"F*ck you and all your false patriotism," Stewart said to just about all the Fox Newsians. We couldn't agree more.
Pretty good rant. Watch: http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/b7hxzd/the-way-we-war
SEN Tim Kaine D VA has been one of the most vocal critics of Pres Obama's plans, without congressional approval, to drag us in another war in the Middle East. While I oppose his support of another war, I do admire him for insisting congress be informed, consulted and approve or disapprove Obama's war. At least he is strong enough to insist the president recognize and follow the U.S. Constitution. I still believe the American people do not want another war in the Middle East and we can stop our government from forcing this war on us. Here is another petition demanding congress vote yes or no to war. Click the link to tell them to vote NO, not even for Sen Kaine' proposal. From the ACLU, followed by Sen. Kaine's proposal and the report on the WAR PIGS of the US House vote for war from +NPR .....
Please note: If you forward or distribute, the links will open a page with your information filled in.
Can you believe it? President Obama wants to take our country to war all on his own, even without Congress’ approval. Last week he announced the ramping up of yet another U.S. military intervention in the Middle East.
Meanwhile Congress, anxious to leave for recess in 24 hours, wants to
avoid tough decisions about whether or not to go to war in Iraq and
Syria. That doesn’t leave us much time – together we have to stop this dangerous combination of presidential overreach and Congressional cowardice.
Whatever you may think of the extremist group commonly referred to as
ISIS, without a sudden attack on the U.S., our Constitution is clear:
only Congress has the authority “to declare war.”
Yet already, over the past few weeks, President Obama—on his own—sent
over 1,500 uniformed American service members into Iraq and ordered
more than 150 airstrikes. He doesn’t have the authority to launch yet
another war in the region on his own.
He now wants to go into Syria too, and his top general said yesterday that Americans fighting a ground war is also possible. We can’t let the President overstep his powers.
Congress needs to delay the start of its 7-week recess and deal with
this pressing decision. Congress might want to delay tough choices so
incumbents can hit the campaign trail before the election – but if our
representatives don’t deal with this now, the American people will pay
the price.
Our Constitution has checks and balances for a reason. It’s up to
Congress to reject the Obama administration’s attempt to claim excessive
authority, make its own decision to authorize or prohibit the war, and
not skip town while America plunges into a new war.
Time is running out - the Congressional recess starts in 24 hours.
Together we need to make sure Congress does its job and is accountable
for deciding what an appropriate U.S. response to the threat of ISIS is.
Congress needs to act before it goes on vacation.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Tim Kaine, a member of the
Senate Armed Services Committee and Chairman of the Foreign Relations
Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South and Central Asian Affairs, will
introduce a narrow and specific authorization for use of military force
against ISIL. As the Foreign Relations Committee prepares to draft a
tailored authorization to provide President Obama with authority in the
mission to degrade and destroy ISIL, Kaine’s proposal is meant to
reinforce the President’s strategy, as well as set key limitations he
hopes will be included in final authorizing language for broader
Congressional consideration.
In announcing the proposal,Kaine said:
“Last week, President Obama laid out a strong case for the need to
degrade and destroy ISIL and invited broader Congressional support for
this effort. I was heartened when Foreign Relations Committee Chairman
Menendez answered this call by saying the committee would soon craft
authorizing language for the U.S. military mission. It’s my hope that
this proposal will help move the ball forward on what a specific and
narrow authorization for limited military action against ISIL should
look like – one that bars the deployment of U.S. ground combat troops
except for rescue missions or limited operations against high-value
targets, and sunsets in one year so that progress can be assessed before
continuing the mission. I also propose the repeal of the obsolete 2002
Iraq War authorization. If Congress isn’t willing to do the hard work –
to debate and vote on an authorization – we should not be asking our
servicemembers to go into harm’s way.”
The authorization is specific to ISIL and supports President Obama’s key pillars: a multinational effort to degrade and destroy ISIL, the use of necessary and appropriate force in a campaign of air strikes against ISIL in Iraq and Syria and the provision of military equipment to appropriately vetted forces in Iraq and Syria,
including the Iraqi security forces, Kurdish fighters, and other
legitimate, appropriately vetted, non-terrorist opposition groups in
Syria.
It also includes four key limitations: 1) No U.S. ground troops; 2) Repeal of the 2002 Iraq Authorization for Use of Military Force; 3) Sunset after one year; 4) Narrow definition of “associated forces.” Full text of Kaine’s legislation is below: To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant:
Whereas that the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), also
known as ISIS or the Islamic State, is a terrorist organization
committing daily acts of barbarity currently encompassing large portions
of Syria and Iraq, and is a serious threat to the United States and the
international community;
Whereas ISIL’s violence is destructive of religious freedom, the
equality of women, protections against genocide, principles of national
sovereignty, freedom of expression, and other core human rights
protected by international law;
Whereas ISIL’s grisly execution of United States hostages,
recruitment of United States citizens and others to serve as foreign
fighters that threaten to return to the United States and other nations,
and pledges to carry out additional acts of violence directly against
the United States make it a threat of growing significance to the United
States; and
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolutions 2169 (2014) and
2170 (2014) note that ISIL’s advancement is a major threat to Iraq’s
future, condemn attacks by ISIL, reiterate international community
support for Iraq’s security and territorial integrity, and emphasize the
need for the international community to work together to help stabilize
Iraq and combat ISIL: Now therefore be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the “Authorization for Use of
Military Force against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant”. SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AGAINST THE ISLAMIC STATE IN IRAQ AND THE LEVANT.
(a) In General.—In order to protect the United States and other
countries from terrorist attacks by the Islamic State in Iraq and the
Levant (ISIL), and in order to protect individuals from acts of violence
in clear contravention of international law and basic human rights, the
President is authorized, as part of a multinational coalition, subject
to the limitations in subsection (b)—
(1) to use all necessary and appropriate force to participate in a
campaign of airstrikes in Iraq, and if the President deems necessary, in
Syria, to degrade and defeat ISIL; and
(2) to provide military equipment and training to forces fighting
ISIL in Iraq or Syria, including the Iraqi security forces, Kurdish
fighters, and other legitimate, appropriately vetted, non-terrorist
opposition groups in Syria.
(b) No Authorization for Use of Ground Forces or Force Against
Associated Forces.—The authorization in this section does not include—
(1) authorization for the use of United States ground combat forces,
except for the purposes set forth in subsection (a)(2) or as necessary
for the protection or rescue of members of the United States Armed
Forces or United States citizens from imminent danger posed by ISIL, or
for limited operations against high value targets; or
(2) authorization for the use of force against forces associated with
ISIL, unless such forces are identified in a report submitted under
section 4 as individuals or organizations that are immediately and
directly fighting alongside ISIL in Iraq and Syria.
(c) Expiration.—The authorization in this section shall expire on the
date that is one year after the date of the enactment of this joint
resolution.
(d) War Powers Resolution Requirements.—
(1) Specific statutory authorization.—Consistent with section 8(a)(1)
of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section
is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the
meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) Applicability of other requirements.—Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution. SEC. 3. REPEAL OF PRIOR AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AGAINST IRAQ.
The Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107–243; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) is hereby
repealed. SEC. 4. DESIGNATION OF ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS IMMEDIATELY AND DIRECTLY FIGHTING ALONGSIDE ISIL.
Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this
resolution, and every 90 days thereafter, the President shall submit to
Congress a list of those organizations or individuals immediately and
directly fighting alongside ISIL for purposes of actions taken pursuant
to this joint resolution. The list shall be maintained in unclassified
form but may contain a classified annex. SEC. 5. REPORTS.
The President shall report to Congress every 90 days after enactment
of this resolution regarding the progress of the effort against ISIL. SEC. 6. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this resolution shall be construed as—
(1) authorizing support for force in support of, or in cooperation
with, the national government of Syria that was in power as of the date
of the enactment of this resolution, or its security services; or
(2) limiting the constitutional or statutory powers of the President
or Congress, or any additional powers held by the United States pursuant
to international law or treaty.
In a vote that eschewed traditional Washington divisions in
favor of novel ones, the House approved a bill that authorized the
training and arming of Syrian rebels in their fight against the
so-called Islamic State.
The final tally was 273-to-156. But
many members of both parties broke ranks with their leaders — Reps. John
Boehner and Nancy Pelosi — who strongly backed the measure. According to a count by NBC News' Frank Thorp, 114 Democrats voted in favor of the measure; 85 voted no. Republicans broke down similarly voting 159-to-71. The New York Times adds:
"'The
American forces that have been deployed to Iraq do not and will not
have a combat mission,' President Obama said Wednesday in addressing
troops at MacDill Air Force Base in Florida. 'I will not commit you and
the rest of our armed forces to fighting another ground war in Iraq.'
"But
the theater around the debate and the vote belied that portrayal. The
president, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and top White House
officials personally lobbied for the measure's passage, calling more
than 70 Democrats and Republicans on national security committees and in
leadership posts to appeal for their support. Mr. Obama and his allies
pleaded with lawmakers not to cut his legs out from under him as he
tries to assemble an international coalition to confront the terrorist
group."
"'Obama is our commander in chief,' said Representative
C. A. (Dutch) Ruppersberger of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the
House Intelligence Committee. 'You don't weaken the commander in chief
when we're in a serious crisis.'"
MORE beating of the war drums by the military-industrial complex and the big oil / energy companies who are more interested in their profit margins than the deaths of American soldiers in another worthless war in Iraq and probably Syria. These war pigs care nothing about the fate of the American men and women in uniform serving and defending our country. The American interest they say we need to protect are the war profiteers who reap millions from death and destruction. We need to stop this before we are in another full blown war to "save" another Middle Eastern country who will turn against us once we have saved the asses of their corrupt political leadership. I wish Pres Obama and Congress were as outraged over the neglect and suffering of the tens of thousands of wounded vets from Iraq and Afghanistan as they are over the murder of James Foley. Maybe then the government would actually take the necessary action to take care of these wounded warriors. War is not the answer, when will we, as a nation learn? From +PBS NewsHour
Islamic
State fighters captured the last major military base in northeastern
Syria on Sunday, bolstering its influence in the already unstable
region. The U.S. kept up airstrikes against the group over the weekend,
amid growing talk of an expanding ai campaign into Syria. Jeffrey Brown
gets analysis on the threat from retired Army Col. Peter Mansoor and
Stephen Walt of Harvard University.
GWEN IFILL: Last
week’s execution-style murder of journalist James Foley has intensified
the debate over how the U.S. should handle the expanding Islamic State
group. Officials at the White House and the Pentagon have signaled they
will act against the militant group soon, perhaps striking within Syria.Jeffrey Brown takes a closer look at the choices facing the Obama administration.
http://youtu.be/nth1vLvqHkw JEFFREY BROWN: U.S.
jets flying off the carrier George H.W. Bush kept up airstrikes against
Islamic State fighters in Iraq over the weekend. There was also growing
talk of expanding the air campaign across the border into Syria.
Army
General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said last week
that’s the only way to defeat the militant group. But at the White House
today, spokesman Josh Earnest was noncommittal. JOSH EARNEST, White House Press Secretary: The president thus far has not made a decision to order additional military action in Syria. JEFFREY BROWN: Also
today, Syria’s foreign minister today rejected any airstrikes, unless
Damascus is consulted. Still, he said Syria welcomes all help, despite
repeated U.S. calls for President Bashar al-Assad to step down. WALID AL-MOALLEM,
Syrian Foreign Minister (through interpreter): We are ready to
cooperate and coordinate with regional countries and the international
community in fighting terrorism following the resolutions of the
Security Council. We welcome everybody. JEFFREY BROWN: The
need for help was evident Sunday, as Islamic State forces captured the
last major military base in northeastern Syria. They celebrated in the
streets of Raqqa with vehicles honking horns and shots fired in the air.
Calls
for U.S. action to extend into Syria have mounted since American
journalist James Foley was beheaded by Islamic State captors. Sunday, on
NBC, the British ambassador to the U.S., Peter Westmacott, said
investigators are close to identifying the British-accented militant in
the video. He also acknowledged that some 500 Britons have joined the
Islamic State.
The chair of the House Intelligence Committee, Republican Mike Rogers, warned that Westerners in the group pose a mortal threat. REP. MIKE ROGERS,
R-Mich.: And one of the problems is, it’s gone unabated for nearly two
years, and that draws people from Britain, to across Europe, even the
United States to go and join the fight. They are one plane ticket away
from U.S. shores, and that’s why we’re so concerned about it. JEFFREY BROWN: Meanwhile,
the U.N. human rights chief, Navi Pillay, accused Islamic State forces
of widespread crimes in Iraq, including slavery, sexual abuse, and mass
executions of hundreds of prisoners.
How great a threat is the Islamic State group? And what should the U.S. do about it?
We
join the debate now with retired Army Colonel Peter Mansoor. He was
executive officer to General David Petraeus in Iraq during the surge in
2007 and ’8. He’s now an associate professor of military history at the
Ohio State University. And Stephen Walt is professor of international
relations at Harvard University. He’s written extensively about security
policy issues.
Peter Mansoor, let me start with you.
How do you define the threat and how urgent is the need to act? COL. PETER MANSOOR (RET.),
U.S. Army: Well, ISIS is a group that is well-funded, well-armed, and
has thousands of fighters under its ranks and more joining it every day.
It’s
a threat to the region. It can destabilize the Middle East, from which
we get most of our oil, in terms of the global economy. And it can
inject terrorism into Europe and the United States, given that it has
hundreds of fighters in its ranks who hold Western passports.
So this is a group that is a threat to the United States and the global community and it needs to be dealt with. JEFFREY BROWN: Stephen Walt, how do you respond to that? How do you define the threat first? STEPHEN WALT, Harvard University:I
think that there’s no question ISIS is a bunch of very bad guys. But
it’s primarily a threat to the people in the areas they control and not a
direct threat to the United States.
It’s a predominantly Sunni
group which will not be able to expand into non-Sunni areas. And the
potential terrorist threat there, I think, has been greatly exaggerated.
There are lots of groups around the world who would like to be able to
go after the United States. Most of them fail. And, in fact, the way to
deal with it is primarily with intelligence and counterterrorism here at
home. JEFFREY BROWN: All right, so, Peter Mansoor, what
exactly would you propose? Are there — are airstrikes into Syria
required? Are special forces on the ground required? Spell it out for
us, what you would like to see. COL. PETER MANSOOR: Well,
if the goal is to destroy ISIS, you have to do it on both sides of what
is now a nonexistent international border, because, otherwise, if you
just deal with the group in Iraq, it will just move back into Syria and
remetastasize.
I believe we need to wait until there’s an
inclusive and legitimate government in Baghdad. But provided that
happens under Prime Minister designate Haider al-Abadi, then I think we
need to provide advisers and trainers to reform and retrain the Iraqi
army and Kurdish Peshmerga, ramp up the equipment effort, especially to
the Kurdish forces in the north, ramp up our airstrikes and provide more
drone strikes and aircraft, and base them in the region, so they don’t
have to be based on ships floating out in the Gulf.
And then I
think — and this is probably the most controversial point of what I have
to say — we need to provide special forces to embed themselves with
Sunni tribes and rekindle the awakening that did so much to destroy the
forerunner to ISIS, al-Qaida in Iraq, in 2006, 2007 and 2008. And they
need to do that probably on both sides of the Iraqi-Syrian border. JEFFREY BROWN: All
right, Stephen Walt, you didn’t see the same threat, so I assume you
don’t see that same kind of ramp-up. What’s your response? STEPHEN WALT: I
think that, first of all, the United States should remember that we
have spent the last 15 years trying to use military power, including
military assistance, to try and organize the politics of this region.
And we have failed miserably.
We have got a failed state in Iraq.
We have a failed state in Libya, and we spent $25 billion training the
Iraqi army, which then subsequently turned and ran when confronted by
ISIS. So I think to believe that we can go in again with airpower
primarily and some special forces and eliminate this problem is
fanciful.
This is going to be ultimately a problem for locals to
deal with, not for the United States to try and deal with. And because
it is not a vital threat to core American security interests, it’s one
we should stay away from. JEFFREY BROWN: What about,
though, Mr. Walt, the argument that if we don’t — if the U.S. doesn’t do
something now, it may be too late later on if you are wrong? STEPHEN WALT: Well,
again, we have to recognize this is not the Third Reich. This is not an
incredibly powerful movement. It has maybe 20,000 fighters, no air
force, no navy, basically lightly armed infantry that has been able to
expand in stateless area, areas that are stateless in part because we
destroyed the states that were governing there.
And the idea that
we are going to go in again with a few thousand special forces and
reorganize the politics of that region, I think, has been tried and
found wanting in the past. And it would be found wanting again if we
tried it again. JEFFREY BROWN: And, Peter Mansoor, speaking
of complications in your argument, Syria has warned against airstrikes
into its space. Would your — would a push toward going across the border
not complicate things even more there? COL. PETER MANSOOR: Well, it’s a simple military mission of destroying an enemy armed force.
And
we send Syria a simple message: Stay out of our way or we will start
bombing you as well. And I think Bashar al-Assad and his forces would be
happy to watch us bomb ISIS with or without coordination with them.
I
think the main difference between Professor Walt and me is, he doesn’t
see ISIS as a threat to the United States. And I see it as a direct
threat to the United States. It has an ideology that will eventually
lead it to attack us. JEFFREY BROWN: But, Mr. Mansoor, even
if it is a threat or not to the United States, one of his arguments, as
I hear it, is history doesn’t bode well. It doesn’t show us that the
U.S. has the kind of power, ability, efficiency to do what you think we
can do. COL. PETER MANSOOR: Well, I beg to differ.
I
just finished writing a book on the surge. And in 2007 and 2008, we did
turn around a war effort that had nearly failed, and had that country on
the road to stability. Unfortunately, through political missteps, most
of them by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, that victory was thrown away.
So
I don’t see the same military dysfunction as Professor Walt. What I do
know is that, without U.S. help, Iraqi forces and Kurdish forces cannot
defeat ISIS. JEFFREY BROWN: Stephen Walt? STEPHEN WALT: I
think, first of all, if the Iraqi forces and Kurdish forces can’t
defeat them, then we’re not going to be able to defeat them ourselves.
And
we disagree on the success of the surge. The surge was a tactical
success, but a strategic failure, because it did not produce the
political reconciliation that was a requirement for strategic success
there. And there’s no evidence that we have the magic formula for
recreating political order in Syria or in Iraq. And, ultimately, that’s
going to be a task for the residents of those areas to do, and not
expect the United States to do it for them. JEFFREY BROWN: One
other brief issue, starting, Peter Mansoor. What about the allies? Does
— can — should the U.S. act alone if it doesn’t have the support of
other allies? COL. PETER MANSOOR: We actually do have the support of a lot of nations around the world who have been calling for U.S. leadership in this case.
European
nations would like to see ISIS destroyed. They realize that a lot of
their citizens are in ISIS ranks, and could be a threat to them as well.
So with U.S. leadership, I believe that we actually will have
international legitimacy for this mission, unlike the war in 2003. JEFFREY BROWN: And a brief last word for you, Stephen Walt, if the U.S. has that kind of legitimacy? STEPHEN WALT: There’s
no question that almost everyone around the world would like to see
ISIS weakened, but ultimately that is going to be a task for the people
who are mostly threatened. And it is the people who are living right
next door to ISIS, not the United States, which is an ocean away. JEFFREY BROWN: Stephen Walt and Peter Mansoor, thank you so much. We will continue the debate.
SEN TIM KAINE D VA is one of the few to publicly challenge the Obama administration on their plans to take us to war without congressional approval. I fear he will support the warmongers and those more concerned about the profit margins of the military-industrial complex and the oil and energy companies, choosing to forget we still have tens of thousands of wounded warriors from the Iraq and Afghan wars that we continue to neglect and that we lost several thousand brave Americans in battle in these countries AND that were are still fighting in Afghanistan while paying for the war there and in Iraq. The government and the people of Iraq have not been able to fight for and defend their own nation, there is no way congress and the Obama administration can justify shedding one more drop of American blood, sacrificing one more American life or spending one more American taxpayer dollar on Iraq. One more thing, I have nephews in the Army, and if they are sent to Iraq or Syria and any harm comes to them you can be sure Obama and my representative and senators will know I hold them personally responsible. Not a threat, but a promise.....
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Tim Kaine, Chairman of the Senate
Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Near Eastern, South and Central Asian
Affairs, released the following statement today on expanded U.S.
military operations against ISIL:
"Actions by ISIL over the past several months, including the gruesome
murder of an American journalist and threats against others, are
barbaric and the work of a callous terrorist organization. I agree that
ISIL poses a significant terrorist threat to U.S. interests and partners
in the region, which is why the Administration has initiated military
action against the group. But I do not believe that our expanded
military operations against ISIL are covered under existing
authorizations from Congress. The 2001 Authorization for Use of
Military Force does not apply, and the Administration has testified that
the 2002 Iraq war authorization is obsolete and should be repealed.
Under Article II, the President has authority to defend against imminent
threats to U.S. national security interests and personnel, but I have
reservations regarding whether our military actions against ISIL all
meet this test.
“I’m encouraged by reports that indicate Administration officials
have signaled that seeking Congressional authorization for U.S. military
action against ISIL is being considered. This fight, and the threat
posed by ISIL, is serious enough that Congress and the Administration
must be united on U.S. policy going forward. I urge the Administration
to use the next two weeks to clearly define the strategy and objectives
of its mission against ISIL, then bring it to Congress for a debate and
authorization vote.
“I have long stressed that Congress must formally approve the
initiation of significant military action – it is what the framers of
the Constitution intended, and Congress and the Executive have a
responsibility to do the hard work to build a political consensus in
support of our military missions. ??
"No one doubts the inhumane nature of ISIL. The Secretary of Defense
has described ISIL as ‘beyond anything that we’ve seen.’ I applaud the
setbacks ISIL has suffered at the hands of the U.S. military. And I
will always support the President when he takes action to protect
American servicemembers and diplomats. But I am calling for the mission
and objectives for this current significant military action against
ISIL to be made clear to Congress, the American people, and our men and
women in uniform. And Congress should vote up or down on it.” WAR PIG LYRICS by Black Sabbath "Generals gathered in their masses
Just like witches at black masses
Evil minds that plot destruction
Sorcerers of death's construction
In the fields the bodies burning
As the war machine keeps turning
Death and hatred to mankind
Poisoning their brainwashed minds, oh lord yeah!
Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor
Time will tell on their power minds
Making war just for fun
Treating people just like pawns in chess
Wait 'till their judgement day comes, yeah!
Now in darkness, world stops turning
As the war machine keeps burning
No more war pigs of the power
Hand of god has sturck the hour
Day of judgement, god is calling
On their knees, the war pigs crawling
Begging mercy for their sins
Satan, laughing, spreads his wings
Oh lord yeah!"
I do not like Sen rand paul R KY. I do not like his politics and I think he is both ignorant and hypocritical in his personal and political life. HOWEVER, I do appreciate his filibuster on drones in the Senate this week, both for the subject and because he was on the floor of the Senate publicly conducting his filibuster and not hiding behind a cowardly, anonymous hold. Considering the Obama administration's lack of respect for civil liberties and human rights (rivaling that of the previous bush administration) Sen paul did us all a favor by forcing the government to state publicly they will not use drones to attack and kill Americans on American soil. What a sad commentary that a people actually had to ask this of their own government. From Mother Jones....
Yes, the president does have the authority to use military force against American citizens on US soil—but only in "an extraordinary circumstance," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a letter to Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Tuesday.
"The US Attorney General's refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening," Paul said Tuesday. "It is an affront the constitutional due process rights of all Americans."
Last month, Paul threatened to filibuster the nomination of John Brennan, Obama's pick to head the CIA, "until he answers the question of whether or not the president can kill American citizens through the drone strike program on US soil." Tuesday, Brennan told Paulthat "the agency I have been nominated to lead does not conduct lethal operations inside the United States—nor does it have any authority to do so." Brennan said that the Justice Department would answer Paul's question about whether Americans could be targeted for lethal strikes on US soil.
Holder's answer was more detailed, however, stating that under certain circumstances, the president would have the authority to order lethal attacks on American citizens. The two possible examples of such "extraordinary" circumstances were the attack on Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 terrorist attacks. An American president ordering the use of lethal military force inside the United States is "entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront," Holder wrote. Here's the bulk of the letter:
As members of this administration have previously indicated, the US government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so. As a policy matter moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat. We have a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad. Hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts.
The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront. It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.
The letter concludes, "were such an emergency to arise, I would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the president of the scope of his authority."
In a Google+ Hangout last month, President Obama refused to say directly if he had the authority to use lethal force against US citizens. As Mother Jones reported at the time, the reason the president was being so coy is that the answer was likely yes. Now we know that's exactly what was happening. "Any use of drone strikes or other premeditated lethal force inside the United States would raise grave legal and ethical concerns," says Raha Wala, an attorney with Human Rights First. "There should be equal concern about using force overseas."
This post has been edited to include Paul's statement and the final line of Holder's letter.
Reporter
Adam Serwer is a reporter at the Washington, DC, bureau of Mother Jones. For more of his stories, click here. You can also follow him on Twitter. Email tips and insights to aserwer [at] motherjones [dot] com. RSS | TWITTER
Attorney General Eric Holder testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee.C-Span
It took Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) filibustering for 13 straight hours, but the White House has finally clarified that President Barack Obama cannot order a drone strike on an American citizen on American soil. In a curt, 43-word letter, Attorney General Eric Holder clarified the administration's stance.
"It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: "Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?" Holder wrote. "The answer to that question is no."
Holder had previously stated in a letter to Paul that he believed it would be appropriate to use deadly military force on American soil in two "catastrophic" scenarios—namely another Pearl Harbor or 9/11.
"Nobody questions if planes are flying towards the Twin Towers whether they can be repulsed by the military," Paul said during his filibuster Wednesday. "Nobody questions whether a terrorist with a rocket launcher or a grenade launcher is attacking us, whether they can be repelled."
Paul had also asked during his filibuster whether an Arab American "sitting in a cafeteria in Dearborn, Michigan," and suspected of ties to terror could be targeted with lethal force by a drone. "As for Paul and Holder, I suspect they're in complete agreement on the 'café' hypothetical—but who isn't?" says Steve Vladeck, a professor at American University School of Law. "This isn't about cafés—it's about dirt roads in northern Yemen."
If we dig beyond the headlines and read the actual letter Holder wrote, we'd realize that Holder absolutely did not write what those headlines would lead us to believe.
Before we continue, I'd like to make my position on all of this perfectly clear because it's becoming increasingly difficult to carry on a rational discussion about the use of lethal force against enemy combatants born in the U.S., as well as the use of drones as a military weapon. The president is on shaky ground when it comes to these related issues, given the endless nature of the war on terrorism and the war powers provided by the post-9/11 Authorization for Use of Military Force (endless war equals endless war powers, and such a prospect is unacceptable). The AUMF should be repealed, the president's war powers rescinded and the use of drones regulated and defined, otherwise we're allowing the president to retain war powers in perpetuity, making them ostensibly permanent.
But however much I disagree with the policy and the potential abuse of the technology, I can easily understand the administration's position. Congress granted it the wartime authority, both in terms of war powers and in terms of funding for drone technology. Under the current status of the executive branch (which I believe ought to be repealed) the White House, the CIA and the Pentagon has the power to fight the enemy as they see it, as has every administration that's operated under congressionally approved war powers.
Got it? I'm opposed the administration retaining its war powers. Against it.
So back to it. Nearly half of Holder's one-page letter discussed how it's not the administration's policy to use drones on American soil. In fact, Holder says the administration has no intention of ever doing so. Though if you read the headlines and leads in each of the above items, you'd think the White House was launching drones off the White House lawn and deploying them to your back yard. Holder continued:
As a policy matter, moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat. We have a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad. Hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts.
This is an explicit rejection of drone strikes against citizens inside the borders of the United States in lieu of a fairly straightforward embrace of traditional law enforcement mechanisms. And it's not a surprise. Since the outset, the administration has attempted to migrate the counter-terrorism process into line with something more closely resembling a traditional legal and judicial process. If you recall, the administration attempted to close Guantanamo and move its detainees to maximum security prisons on the mainland, but nearly every member of Congress, including very liberal members by the way, blocked funding for the move while simultaneously screaming the familiar "not in my back yard" refrain. Furthermore, Holder attempted to bring suspected terrorists to trial in American courts -- another move that was almost universally rejected.
In the third paragraph of his memo, Holder responded to Rand Paul's "hypothetical" scenario with speculation about an impending Pearl Harbor or 9/11 attack. But the paragraph contains no mentions of drones. None. Instead, Holder wrote that the president has the power to "authorize the military to use lethal force" against armed attackers. Granted, it's conceivable Holder was implying the use of drones, but he didn't explicitly write about the use of drones. Then again, what difference does the weapon make? If a hijacked plane is hurtling toward a skyscraper, does it really matter whether it's potentially shot down by a fighter jet (as were deployed on 9/11) or with a surface to air missile or with a predator drone?
As big a conundrum as this presents, he president absolutely has the authority to shoot down a hijacked airplane in a 9/11 scenario. Likewise with a Pearl Harbor attack -- even more so given the presence of foreign attackers. Or what if a Secret Service agent or an armed military escort spots a man in a window overlooking the presidential motorcade and the man is aiming a rifle at the president? Naturally the Secret Service agent is within the boundaries of the law to shoot that man in the head. These are the kinds of situations the Holder letter described, and the president has always held these powers long before the war on terror and long before Barack Obama.
Thus, this week's array of headlines weren't entirely inaccurate -- jumping to the conclusion that Holder believes the president reserves the right to use drones against American citizens on our soil, full stop. It's much easier, more dramatic and there's more potential for web traffic to hyper-jump to the conclusion that the attorney general put into writing that the president can wantonly deploy drones to patrol our skies with the authority to kill you if you're somehow suspected of being a threat to national security. He did nothing of the sort.
Fast forward to yesterday when Holder wrote a second letter to Rand Paul further clarifying the issue.
Dear Senator Paul:
It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: "Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?" The answer to that question is no.
Sincerely,
Eric H. Holder, Jr.
So the question should be more or less settled. The administration confirms that it doesn't have the authority to kill you while you're sitting at a cafe drinking coffee, as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) described this week. Furthermore, there's no authority granted to the president to deploy lethal force against an American citizen on American soil unless they're engaged in an attack against Americans.
Now tell me, I wonder how Rand Paul -- who, by the way, recently grilled Hillary Clinton in a senate hearing over the president's alleged failure in Benghazi -- would react if President Obama had refused to thwart such attacks and allowed them to happen. It's not a stretch to assume that Paul and his Republican Party would launch an inquisition leading to an impeachment trial if Obama had the opportunity but failed to shoot down a hijacked airliner and it crashed into, say, the U.S. Capitol building or a civilian facility like the Georgetown University Hospital. Imagine the Benghazi screeching times a gazillion.
But not once has any Republican, including Cruz and Rand Paul, mentioned anything about ending the war on terrorism or repealing the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). The lack of nuance, as well as the lack of a sense of history on both the far-right (and the far-left for that matter) is eerily coincidental. Again, it's important to have oversight on drones, but let's get real here. Too many players seem to have hastily constructed a bridge of paranoia and hyperbole between "a guy having a coffee" and "hijacked planes careening towards skyscrapers."
Why?
Other than the addition of a new weapon in the arsenal, what exactly has changed in terms of the president's military powers and policies inside the borders of the United States? Based on Holder's letter, nothing -- traditional law enforcement in nearly every circumstance and lethal military force if another 9/11 or Pearl Harbor happens to be in progress.
There's no harm in having an ongoing conversation about presidential powers and military authority. Such an endeavor requires perpetual diligence from both citizens and the press. But there's currently so much hysteria circulating around the topic of drones it's nearly impossible to see beyond the apoplexy. Historical precedent and heretofore commonly acknowledged presidential powers are forgotten, and too many people become instantly outraged whenever those powers are brought up in a 2013 context. Yes, throughout American history, the military and law enforcement has reserved the right to use lethal force to thwart crimes inside the United States. But when the word "drones" gets shoehorned into the context, everyone flips out and the truth gets lost. That's most certainly the case with the Holder letter.
So, we're at war, and how are we dealing with it? With all the
maturity of a bunch of kindergartners, that's how. Jon Stewart opened
with a far-ranging rant Thursday night in which he blasted Congress for
refusing to do its job, again, and draft up a resolution declaring war
(as the Constitution suggests.) The reason, of course, is the upcoming
midterm elections. Brave congressmembers would not want to do something
that might jeopardize their jobs, so that they might continue to do
nothing, and agree on less. 
