© www.tpnn.com
Obama's using the law that authorized attacks against al Qaeda to justify his new fight in Syria and Iraq. One small problem: ISIS and al Qaeda are at each others' throats. Legal experts were shocked to learn Wednesday that the Obama administration wants to rely on that 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force against al Qaeda for the new ISIS war.
"On its face this is an implausible argument because the 2001 AUMF requires a nexus to al Qaeda or associated forces of al Qaeda fighting the United States," said Robert Chesney, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law. "Since ISIS broke up with al Qaeda it's hard to make that argument."
Ideally, when beginning a new war like Obama is doing now, the president would ask Congress to declare it. That is the approach that he took a year ago when Obama came close to authorizing airstrikes against the Syrian government as a response to its chemical weapons attacks on rebel positions outside of Damascus.
This approach is also consistent with how Obama himself campaigned for the presidency in 2008. During the campaign he told The Boston Globe, "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
Comment: Nothing in politics happens by chance, without a reason. Then again, many things in politics happen for lack of reason. Fact: The U.S., U.K. and Israel brought ISIS (or ISIL) into being, trained by the Mossad. It is inconceivable that this "sort of secret" intrusion into the terrorist realm would not come back to bite the Mothers of Invention. Whether ISIS is a total fake (as some say), or a brutal cabal of killer psychopaths (prevalent message), the question remains: WHAT WERE THEY THINKING? Unless...it was a way to covertly "fight terrorists" while gaining access to territory off limits for undisclosed reasons and, whoops please don't notice, the plan is now off course...or is it? If you are a diehard neocon, grab-hungry politician, or a mad dog...maybe this whole ugly mess is exactly according to plan. And to hell with that legal mumbo-jumbo.
---
FYI - How would you interpret the legality of Obama's executive right to action?
The following resolution was enacted after being signed by the President on September 18, 2001:
S.J. Res.23
One Hundred Seventh Congress of the United States of America
AT THE FIRST SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, the third day of January, two thousand and one
Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: 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'.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.(a) IN GENERAL- 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.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.(b) 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.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.