Obama soon to have powers to wage perpetual war anywhere and detain indefinitely

[Schadenfroh]

That is, if this measure is approved...

http://www.npr.org/2011/05/23/136500471/making-it-official-hunting-al-qaida-worldwide

This week, the House begins debate on a defense spending bill that would authorize the president to attack al-Qaida and its associates all over the world.
...
The bill says the U.S. is at war with al-Qaida, the Taliban and associated forces. It gives the White House the power to take action against anyone who belongs to those groups or anyone who supports them, anywhere in the world.
...
"The fact of the matter is that it's a radical expansion of existing authority that would commit the United States to open-ended policing of the world. It would in effect make the United States the master of the world," says Remes, who works with the Washington-based Appeal for Justice.

Congress is giving up too much, Remes says. "It's a blank check to the president to wage war."

I agree with the ACLU on this one, this would make The War on Terror officially like The War on Drugs, unending, perpetual conflict and drainer of funds.

Laura Murphy, who runs the Washington legislative office at the American Civil Liberties Union, says if the House bill moves forward, the conflict might never end.

"It could be like the war on drugs," she says. "No one has declared an end to the war on drugs."

Because the measure doesn't say the conflict is confined to, say, Iraq or Afghanistan, Murphy fears that it could lead to some alarming situations.

Here is where we basically can detain people indefinitely in the unending conflict:

Stimson, now a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, said the new defense bill finally makes explicit that the administration can hold detainees until the end of any hostilities.

This is where it gets a bit spooky and once the precedent is set, opens a bad can of worms:

"Unlike the Authorization for Use of Military Force that was passed in 2001, it has no geographic boundaries, so the president could take America to war in any country in the world, including inside the United States itself," she adds.

And of course, former Bush admin officials applaud this move:

Michael B. Mukasey, an attorney general in the Bush administration, told the bill's House sponsors Friday that the measure is "both timely and constructive."

Hope you guys like being the world's policeman, looks like the President (and future presidents) will soon have a great deal of power to wage war whenever and wherever they see fit, as long as we are fighting terror.

Repost
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2165554

-Schadenfroh (AT Mod)

 

[umbrella39]

Yet another reason not to re-elect black Bush.

 

[Jaskalas]

Yet another reason not to re-elect black Bush.

He could veto the damn thing and Congress would still forcibly pass abuse of power. It is in their nature and they're not going anywhere, two party politics guarantees it.

The President isn't the problem here. It's everyone in Congress voting yes.

 

[fskimospy]

Yet another reason not to re-elect black Bush.

The reason not to re-elect him is a bill that the Republicans are writing and putting through the House that Obama has never asked for or voiced any support for? That's pretty bizarre.

That's not to say of course that he's likely to turn down this power, but no president is. (who turns down being handed more power?) Obama has been just awful from a civil liberties standpoint, but you should get mad at him for the things HE does, not something people from the other party did that he didn't even ask for.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

The reason not to re-elect him is a bill that the Republicans are writing and putting through the House that Obama has never asked for or voiced any support for? That's pretty bizarre.

That's not to say of course that he's likely to turn down this power, but no president is. (who turns down being handed more power?) Obama has been just awful from a civil liberties standpoint, but you should get mad at him for the things HE does, not something people from the other party did that he didn't even ask for.

Shhhhhh... Obama is responsible for everything that ever happens...unless it's good or beneficial. He even gives puppies cancer.

 

[Anarchist420]

The reason not to re-elect him is a bill that the Republicans are writing and putting through the House that Obama has never asked for or voiced any support for? That's pretty bizarre.

That's not to say of course that he's likely to turn down this power, but no president is. (who turns down being handed more power?) Obama has been just awful from a civil liberties standpoint, but you should get mad at him for the things HE does, not something people from the other party did that he didn't even ask for.

How do you know that he doesn't want it? It's pretty illogical to think that Obama doesn't support it 100%.

 

[fskimospy]

How do you know that he doesn't want it? It's pretty illogical to think that Obama doesn't support it 100%.

You're stupid and now apparently I see you are functionally illiterate too. Stop posting.

 

[mchammer187]

How do you know that he doesn't want it? It's pretty illogical to think that Obama doesn't support it 100%.

So you are saying this is Obama's fault?

I think he probably would take it but that is irrelevant to the discussion since he has not lobbied for it or even asked.

 

[thraashman]

You're stupid and now apparently I see you are functionally illiterate too. Stop posting.

Since when is Anarchist functional?

 

[NoStateofMind]

Repost http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2165554

But really I don't care about that, the more exposure this gets the better.