Obama Requests AUMF for ISIS

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-02-10/obama-s-islamic-state-war-authorization-limits-u-s-ground-forces

The Cliff's Notes:

-There will be no geographic restrictions on the AUMF
-No protracted operations with regular ground forces
-Has a three year sunset date with no automatic renewal

My thoughts:

I feel like this is just another in a long line of half-measures. From my perspective, we either need to stay completely out of there, or go all in and commit to the fight. Dropping bombs on tent cities and Toyota Hilux's will only go so far, before the inevitable "you blew up a school full of orphans and puppies" air strike.

Either let the dogs off the chain, or stop dumping millions of dollars into bouncing rubble around with bombs that are smarter than the targets they are destroying.

He wants to pull a George Bush? FUCK THAT.

Alright I was being hyperbolic. However, I disagree with the war authorization. Why should we fight another region's war for them?

The article says "will soon", i.e., this has not happened.

How will our continued meddling in that region reap rewards for us in the future?

The Mat Pimp - The article says "will soon", i.e., this has not happened.

He's using the previous war authorization now.

I think nuclear weapons are the answer here. Then we'll just blame it on some other country. Like Mexico. Then we nuke Mexico and we're heros! Phone Post 3.0

attjack - 
The Mat Pimp - The article says "will soon", i.e., this has not happened.

He's using the previous war authorization now.

Yes, but I'm not sure where the predictions re: the content of the AUMF are coming from, given that it hasn't been issued yet.

Raezor19 - 
jzspanky - 
attjack - He wants to pull a George Bush? FUCK THAT.
Actually he's doing the opposite... he's putting a limitation to the power. The Bush power we are using now he wants to end since it's going to have it's fourteenth birthday September 18th. Phone Post 3.0


How is there still Bush power when he's been out of office for 6 years ?


Imagine if it was a real war and not a "war on amorphous terror". It would make sense for the power to transfer to the next president. In this case not so much, but that's the rationale. We still have the patriot act and NSA spying too. Thanks, Bush. And thanks Obama for doing nothing about either of those erosions of our basic freedoms.

Here is a better idea. We let the AUMF expire and if the U.S. wants to go to war Congress has to declare it. There will be a draft. Let's see how much of a stomach we have then.

Look out guys, the name callers have arrived to tell you you're a "stupid faggott" for having a difference of opinion.

Information - 
Currently we are using the AUMF signed Sept 18th, 2001 and gives the president the ability to name anyone he wants to be an enemy combatant and the AUMF doesn't sunset or require re-authorization.

Name anyone he wants an enemy combatant?

Holy. Fucking. Shit.

You have to be the stupidest motherfucker on here.

Actually Information you and Munk would have to contend for that honor.

So while you are at it go look up NDAA 2012-2014.

http://www.salon.com/2013/12/27/obama_signs_ndaa_2014_indefinite_detention_remains/

A little on the tin foil hat side but still is factual:

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/bollingerS1867treason05dec11.shtml

Tidbits - Here is a better idea. We let the AUMF expire and if the U.S. wants to go to war Congress has to declare it. There will be a draft. Let's see how much of a stomach we have then.


Why would we need a draft when we have plenty of military personnel already?

jzspanky - 
Tidbits - Here is a better idea. We let the AUMF expire and if the U.S. wants to go to war Congress has to declare it. There will be a draft. Let's see how much of a stomach we have then.
That's what he is requesting. He was the old AUMF closed and Congress to grant a new one catering towards ISIL. Phone Post 3.0

No. He is requesting a new AUMF not a declaration of war. 2 totally different things.

Information - 
jzspanky - 
Information -
Currently we are using the AUMF signed Sept 18th, 2001 and gives the president the ability to name anyone he wants to be an enemy combatant and the AUMF doesn't sunset or require re-authorization.

Name anyone he wants an enemy combatant?

Holy. Fucking. Shit.

You have to be the stupidest motherfucker on here.
"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

It's how we legally killed an american citizen in anwar al-awlaki and we are currently fighting ISIL.

Sorry you aren't informed very well on the situation. Phone Post 3.0

You literally have to be retarded to get from the AUMF to, "The President [has] the ability to name anyone he wants to be an enemy combatant."

Literally. Retarded.

It is you who are retarded for not understanding how the AUMF and NDAA go together.

Information - 
Tidbits - 
Information - 
Currently we are using the AUMF signed Sept 18th, 2001 and gives the president the ability to name anyone he wants to be an enemy combatant and the AUMF doesn't sunset or require re-authorization.

Name anyone he wants an enemy combatant?

Holy. Fucking. Shit.

You have to be the stupidest motherfucker on here.

Actually Information you and Munk would have to contend for that honor.

So while you are at it go look up NDAA 2012-2014.

http://www.salon.com/2013/12/27/obama_signs_ndaa_2014_indefinite_detention_remains/

A little on the tin foil hat side but still is factual:

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/bollingerS1867treason05dec11.shtml

Tidbits,

How is being CTO of a major IT company going? You seem to have a lot of time on your hands for being a C-suite guy.

LOL. Seems someone is making up facts again. I was an IT Director, doing the job of a CTO/CIO for 8 and half years, with a company that did environmental and engineering consultancy and contracting with the federal and state gov. That job ended back in 2009.

jzspanky - 
Tidbits -
jzspanky - 
Tidbits - Here is a better idea. We let the AUMF expire and if the U.S. wants to go to war Congress has to declare it. There will be a draft. Let's see how much of a stomach we have then.
That's what he is requesting. He was the old AUMF closed and Congress to grant a new one catering towards ISIL. Phone Post 3.0

No. He is requesting a new AUMF not a declaration of war. 2 totally different things.
We no longer have to declare war, it's implied if Congress gives the president the authority and the funding... an AUMF. Phone Post 3.0

Which is a problem, and technically unconstitutional. Basically Congress are a bunch of pussies and are abdicating their power and responsibility.

Information - 
Tidbits - 
Information - 
Tidbits - 
Information - 
Currently we are using the AUMF signed Sept 18th, 2001 and gives the president the ability to name anyone he wants to be an enemy combatant and the AUMF doesn't sunset or require re-authorization.

Name anyone he wants an enemy combatant?

Holy. Fucking. Shit.

You have to be the stupidest motherfucker on here.

Actually Information you and Munk would have to contend for that honor.

So while you are at it go look up NDAA 2012-2014.

http://www.salon.com/2013/12/27/obama_signs_ndaa_2014_indefinite_detention_remains/

A little on the tin foil hat side but still is factual:

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/bollingerS1867treason05dec11.shtml

Tidbits,

How is being CTO of a major IT company going? You seem to have a lot of time on your hands for being a C-suite guy.

LOL. Seems someone is making up facts again. I was an IT Director, doing the job of a CTO/CIO for 8 and half years, with a company that did environmental and engineering consultancy and contracting with the federal and state gov. That job ended back in 2009.

I was mocking you, nutball.

Well you need to try harder then. I guess since you can't discuss the fact that you were wrong in calling someone retarded and not understanding how they got from the AUMF to declaring someone an enemy combatant, you prefer to try and insult/mock your betters. It is ok, though, I understand that you lash out due to deep seeded feelings of inadequacy and inferiority.

jzspanky - 
Tidbits -
jzspanky - 
Tidbits -
jzspanky - 
Tidbits - Here is a better idea. We let the AUMF expire and if the U.S. wants to go to war Congress has to declare it. There will be a draft. Let's see how much of a stomach we have then.
That's what he is requesting. He was the old AUMF closed and Congress to grant a new one catering towards ISIL. Phone Post 3.0

No. He is requesting a new AUMF not a declaration of war. 2 totally different things.
We no longer have to declare war, it's implied if Congress gives the president the authority and the funding... an AUMF. Phone Post 3.0

Which is a problem, and technically unconstitutional. Basically Congress are a bunch of pussies and are abdicating their power and responsibility.
It's not technically unconstitutional, it was how we decided to proceed when we created the War Powers Act. Basically we changed the law. Phone Post 3.0

The only legal and allowed change to the Constitution is an amendment. Section 8 clause 11 specifically states that the power to declare war is given to Congress.

In order to change that an amendment would be needed.

It is unconstitutional.

What you are saying is the same thing that government says in regards to our rights. That they can pass laws and such that supersede or are exceptions to the Bill of Rights or Constitution.

Just like saying that torture is/was "legal" that the NSA spying is "legal".

They very well may be "legal" but that does not make them Constitutionally valid.

jzspanky - The Supreme Court set-up by the Constitution ruled it Constitutional... they didn't ask your opinion?

"A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation and another.

For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to ... declare War". However, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation must have in order to be considered a "declaration of war" nor does the Constitution itself use this term. Many[who?] have postulated "Declaration(s) of War" must contain that phrase as or within the title. Others oppose that reasoning. In the courts, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in Doe v. Bush, said: "[T]he text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an 'authorization' of such a war."[1] in effect saying an authorization suffices for declaration and what some may view as a formal Congressional "Declaration of War" was not required by the Constitution."

The Supreme Court has been wrong and is wrong on many occasions. Citizens United, Hobby Lobby, Slavery, Separate but Equal......

I think they are wrong on this and in being wrong they are allowing Congress to abdicate their authority, their duty under the system of check & balances and are also part of creating an overpowered Executive branch.