Sneaky Provision Provides New Authorization of Worldwide War Without End?

[NoStateofMind]

New Authorization of World Wide War Without End

Congress may soon vote on a new declaration of worldwide war without end, and without clear enemies. A “sleeper provision” deep inside defense bills pending before Congress could become the single biggest hand-over of unchecked war authority from Congress to the executive branch in modern American history.

President Obama has not sought new war authority. In fact, his administration has made clear that it believes it already has all of the authority that it needs to fight terrorism.

But Congress is considering monumental new legislation that would grant the president – and all presidents after him – sweeping new power to make war almost anywhere and everywhere. Unlike previous grants of authority for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, the proposed legislation would allow a president to use military force wherever terrorism suspects are present in the world, regardless of whether there has been any harm to U.S. citizens, or any attack on the United States, or any imminent threat of an attack. The legislation is broad enough to permit a president to use military force within the United States and against American citizens. The legislation contains no expiration date, and no criteria to determine when a president’s authority to use military force would end.

PDF Link

Excerpt:

Under the guise of a “reaffirmation” of authority, Section 1034 of the Chairman’s mark for the NDAA would give the President unchecked authority--and if the section constitutes a declared “war,”possibly the unchecked duty
--to use military force worldwide against or within any country in which terrorism suspects reside. The proposed new Declaration of War would be without precedent in the scope of war authority or duties transferred by Congress to the President:The President would be able to use this authority--or might be required to use this authority--regardless of whether there has been any harm to United States citizens, or any attack on the United States or any imminent threat of any attack. There is not even any requirement of any threat whatsoever to the national security of the United States.
There is no geographical limitation--the new Declaration of War has no
specification of countries against which military force could be used, and
no specification of countries where U.S. armed forces could be deployed

The most critical sentence of section 1034 of the Chairman’s mark for the NDAA is “Congress affirms that the United States is engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces and that those entities continue to pose a threat to the United States and its citizens, both domestically and abroad.” If “affirms” is replaced with the synonym “declares” and “armed conflict” is replaced with the synonym “war,” the result is “Congress declares that the United States is in a war with al-Qaeda, the
Taliban, and associated forces . . . “, which is very similar to the declaration of war clauses of the eleven declarations of war made by Congress, from the War of 1812 through World War II. Since 1942, Congress has passed several authorizations for use of military force, but has not made any declarations of war.

From what I gather from this is its basically Congress voting for war without knowing about it or clearly defining it. Not to mention the al-Qeada we are at war with we are also supporting.

 

[1prophet]

When you run out of money/and or resources it ends.

 

[yllus]

Do you really need authorization? How long has the war on drugs already raged?

 

[Texashiker]

Wouldn't such a provision take a Constitutional Amendment, and not just a law?

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress

To declare War,

 

[Schadenfroh]

Wouldn't such a provision take a Constitutional Amendment, and not just a law?

Nah, we can just attack countries without congressional approval. Anyone care to argue that we are not committing acts of war against Libya?

 

[Jaskalas]

Authorizations to go to war are always best kept safely tucked away in the nooks and crannies of defense spending bills.

 

[werepossum]

I suspect the purpose of this very bad idea is to allow our Congresscritters the freedom to be for or against (or both) a war depending on how it's going or even the audience being addressed, without that embarrassing vote for or against on record.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Do you really need authorization? How long has the war on drugs already raged?

Thats true and I agree. To what/who's benefit is it to essentially have Congress declare war? Military industrial complex? Defense spending security? I won't pretend to know for sure but those would be my guesses.

Wouldn't such a provision take a Constitutional Amendment, and not just a law?

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress

Well if I understand correctly Congress is declaring war with this provision?

 

[Anarchist420]

There were only 5 declarations of war, not 11.

This is exactly why the Articles of Confederation was better. The legislative should be allowed to decide whether they want a commander in chief, and if they do, then they control him. Having a President, Supreme Court, and Congress is ridiculous, you only need a decentralized legislative branch.

 

[MayorOfAmerica]

There were only 5 declarations of war, not 11.

This is exactly why the Articles of Confederation was better. The legislative should be allowed to decide whether they want a commander in chief, and if they do, then they control him. Having a President, Supreme Court, and Congress is ridiculous, you only need a decentralized legislative branch.

*snicker*

EDIT: *sigh*

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

*snicker*

EDIT: *sigh*

I hope you don't think The Articles of Confederation have anything to do with the Confederate South. Because they are completely different things.

 

[fskimospy]

I hope you don't think The Articles of Confederation have anything to do with the Confederate South. Because they are completely different things.

They shared several important similarities in that they were both nonviable entities who found themselves unable to cope with difficult circumstances due to a lack of centralized power.

On the other hand, one of the two was only a 50% race based slave state.

 

[MayorOfAmerica]

I hope you don't think The Articles of Confederation have anything to do with the Confederate South. Because they are completely different things.

Yeah thanks. I paid attention in 5th grade history.

 

[wuliheron]

I suspect the purpose of this very bad idea is to allow our Congresscritters the freedom to be for or against (or both) a war depending on how it's going or even the audience being addressed, without that embarrassing vote for or against on record.

Exactly. They've already surrendered their power to do anything in the short run, so they might as well not take a public position on the matter until they decide to possibly do something.

 

[Fern]

Sounds bad. But what's the difference? We already do all that stuff anyway.

We use military (drones etc) force in Pakistan against terrorists, and AFAIK without Congressional approval.

Also refer to Libya (although I think it quite likely we're helping terrorists there)

If there was a terrorist group in the USA does anybody really think the President wouldn't use military force?
--------------------------

The odd thing about this is that during the Bush presidency Dems/Libs/Progressives argued that anti-terrorism efforts were better handled by (civilian) law enforcement.

While I'm glad the Obama admin and apparently the Dem members of Congress have finally 'seen the light', I'm curious why all our Dem/Lib/Progresive friends here and elsewhere happily follow along like a bunch of somnambulists.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

Exactly. They've already surrendered their power to do anything in the short run, so they might as well not take a public position on the matter until they decide to possibly do something.

Or even more likely, until it's clear which position is most politically useful.

 

[wuliheron]

Or even more likely, until it's clear which position is most politically useful.

That's always part of a politicians decision making process.

 

[chucky2]

Or even more likely, until it's clear which position is most politically useful.

Exactly, just like Iraq...

 

[VirtualLarry]

Authorizing use of military force against US citizens? Sounds like they're preparing to use their concentration camps soon.

 

[Jaskalas]

Exactly. They've already surrendered their power to do anything in the short run, so they might as well not take a public position on the matter until they decide to possibly do something.

Congress can simply write and vote into power a law that nullifies any previous authorization. Just because they too are warmongers doesn't mean they don't retain the authority to say no at ANY moment.

Hell, they can impeach the President if he refuses to act the way they want.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Don't worry. Obama will most likely be President and can be trusted with anything. If he says you are guilty you are.

I'd like to see the particulars and who sponsored/will sponsor it. As far as Obama not asking for it, I'll wager he won't veto it either. Like the states before them, Congress and the SCOTUS seem destined to impotence.

 

[wuliheron]

Congress can simply write and vote into power a law that nullifies any previous authorization. Just because they too are warmongers doesn't mean they don't retain the authority to say no at ANY moment.

Hell, they can impeach the President if he refuses to act the way they want.

Duh! What they've surrendered is the de facto power to do anything except in emergencies or extreme situations. They can hem and haw about the letter of the law all they want, but if they can't get it together to enforce it they might as well be complaining about jaywalking.