Sign in to follow this  
Saorsa

Thoughts on the AUMF

Recommended Posts

Yeah, Boehner first hectored Obama to submit a request for authorization to use force in Syria.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/boehner-sends-letter-to-obama-over-syria-1377724328

Then when Obama did submit a request for authorization to use force in Syria, Boehner rejected it saying (strangely):

"Until the President gets serious about fighting the fight, until he has a strategy that makes sense, there's no reason for us to give him less authority than what he has today. Which is what he's asking for," Boehner said.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/07/politics/congress-obama-war-authorization/index.html

Republicans literally told Obama to use the 9/11 AUMF for Syria. Fact was/is that Republicans didn't want to vote on another AUMF because they'd have to put their names on another AUMF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Yeah, Boehner first hectored Obama to submit a request for authorization to use force in Syria.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/boehner-sends-letter-to-obama-over-syria-1377724328

Then when Obama did submit a request for authorization to use force in Syria, Boehner rejected it saying (strangely):

"Until the President gets serious about fighting the fight, until he has a strategy that makes sense, there's no reason for us to give him less authority than what he has today. Which is what he's asking for," Boehner said.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/07/politics/congress-obama-war-authorization/index.html

Republicans literally told Obama to use the 9/11 AUMF for Syria. Fact was/is that Republicans didn't want to vote on another AUMF because they'd have to put their names on another AUMF.

I doubt the Republicans were specifically concerned about another aumf and extending Presidential powers

If there was a Republican presidential at the time you mention, Boehner would be handing out pens.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

I doubt the Republicans were specifically concerned about another aumf and extending Presidential powers

If there was a Republican presidential at the time you mention, Boehner would be handing out pens.....

No. You are completely and utterly misunderstanding the 2001 AUMF. There was/is/will be no need to extend it ever. The 9/11 AUMF is a never ending wild card authorization.

it has been used in Afghanistan, the Philippines, Georgia, Yemen, Djibouti, Kenya, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Iraq, and Somalia. It could be used in Australia tomorrow, no questions asked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists

It has no expiration, no spending limit, no need to say you're sorry, and more importantly no need to vote ever. Boehner was correct that Obama didn't have to ask for any authority because he already had it, as every President for the duration will have it.  It is a complete abdication of legislative authority and responsibility to the executive.

It's not even clear whether Congress even has the Constitutional right to repeal it. With the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (Vietnam War), Congress repealed it, Nixon ceremoniously signed the repeal and then ignored it because he claimed he had the right to defend the troops already there.

Obama wanted Congress to go on record and Boehner wanted none of that. But that didn't mean Boehner couldn't complain about Obama not asking for authority beforehand and then complain again about Obama not needing it after ignoring his request for the authority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Republicans didn't want to vote on another AUMF because they'd have to put their names on another AUMF.

I don't disagree with you, but do you honestly think the DemRat's would have put their names on another AUMF either???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I don't disagree with you, but do you honestly think the DemRat's would have put their names on another AUMF either???

I think he already answered that elsewhere.

On 10/29/2019 at 1:20 PM, Olsonist said:

what really was going on was that Congress had passed W's AUMF and Hillary had been held politically accountable for her vote. No one in Congress wanted that. So hell if they were going to pass another AUMF.


Blessed bipartisan unity prevailed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Olsonist said:

No. You are completely and utterly misunderstanding the 2001 AUMF. There was/is/will be no need to extend it ever. The 9/11 AUMF is a never ending wild card authorization.

it has been used in Afghanistan, the Philippines, Georgia, Yemen, Djibouti, Kenya, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Iraq, and Somalia. It could be used in Australia tomorrow, no questions asked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists

It has no expiration, no spending limit, no need to say you're sorry, and more importantly no need to vote ever. Boehner was correct that Obama didn't have to ask for any authority because he already had it, as every President for the duration will have it.  It is a complete abdication of legislative authority and responsibility to the executive.

I do disagree with you on this however.  Irregardless of how the AUMF has been used to date, I don't think it is unlimited.  The text of the authorization was specifically about the 9/11 attacks and the nations/organizations who committed the attack:

 

Quote

 

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.

 

I agree that the last part can be interpreted liberally and loosely.  But even if you extrapolate to ALL terrorist organizations in the future that might attack the homeland - the US involvement in both Syria and Libya at the start had nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism or a potential threat to the US.  Remember, our initial involvement in Syria was about the "red line".  It had nothing to do with ISIS, as they had not emerged on the scene when O was asking for his new AUMF.  And to be fair - In hindsight, the 2003 Iraq invasion also didn't meet the AUMF constraints.  

I certainly think there are some on-going little conflicts which still to meet the intent of the original AUMF - such as places where there are affiliates of AQ still at work.  But I don't think it's completely unlimited.

However - and this is an important point...... it is effectively an unlimited authorization in practice.  Because as we both agree - no one in congress is going to stick their neck out on the line to propose removing it or limiting the current one and authorizing a new one for the obvious reasons that they are complete spineless cowards and have no intention of going on record and having it bite them in the ass like it did Hillary and likely will Biden.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

So, are you for it or against it?

- DSK

You haven't been paying attention have you?  Or is your attention span one post at a time.

I have said for years that Congress has abdicated their responsibilities to the country in favor of the president and that party interests have been allowed to demand more loyalty than their constituency.

the AUMF is only one part of that.

I notice you didn't have the balls to state your own position but, there is mine.

You and your little Wonkey Dong buddy can now oppose it without bothering to think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I don't disagree with you, but do you honestly think the DemRat's would have put their names on another AUMF either???

The Whataboutbothsiderism is strong with this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Saorsa said:

You haven't been paying attention have you?  Or is your attention span one post at a time.

I have said for years that Congress has abdicated their responsibilities to the country in favor of the president and that party interests have been allowed to demand more loyalty than their constituency.

the AUMF is only one part of that.

I notice you didn't have the balls to state your own position but, there is mine.

You and your little Wonkey Dong buddy can now oppose it without bothering to think.

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Saorsa said:

You haven't been paying attention have you?  Or is your attention span one post at a time.

I have said for years that Congress has abdicated their responsibilities to the country in favor of the president and that party interests have been allowed to demand more loyalty than their constituency.

the AUMF is only one part of that.

I notice you didn't have the balls to state your own position but, there is mine.

You and your little Wonkey Dong buddy can now oppose it without bothering to think.

Sorry, you're right, I have not been paying attention, I don't even know who my buddy is supposed to be.

Are you jealous because most people don't think I'm a mean-spirited dumbass, or are you just auditioning for a spot on hate-spew media?

FWIW I don't think the AUMF was a good idea, I didn't when it was first enacted, and Ive expressed that opinion several times in this forum.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Olsonist said:

The Whataboutbothsiderism is strong with this one.

Its only strong because its completely and utterly true and you know it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Its only strong because its completely and utterly true and you know it.  

Jeff, are you ever right? The Kenyan specifically requested an AUMF which Boehner denied even a vote on. What you’re saying is the Congressional Dems wouldn’t have supported the Kenyan which is loony even by your standards. With the original 9/11 AUMF did the Dems (except for Lee for what turns out to be an excellent reason) not support Bush? Do you have any evidence for you whataboutism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AUTHOR: Thomas Henry Huxley (1825–95)
QUOTATION: You and your descendants have to ascertain whether this great mass will hold together under the forms of a republic, and the despotic reality of universal suffrage; whether state rights will hold out against centralisation, without separation, whether centralisation will get the better, without actual or disguised monarchy; whether shifting corruption is better than a permanent bureaucracy; and as population thickens in your great cities, and the pressure of what is felt, the gaunt spectre of pauperism will stalk among you, and communism and socialism will claim to be heard.
ATTRIBUTION: THOMAS HENRY HUXLEY, Science and Education, p. 138 (1904).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Maybe this world is another planet’s hell.”
Aldous Huxley

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Olsonist said:

No. You are completely and utterly misunderstanding the 2001 AUMF. There was/is/will be no need to extend it ever. The 9/11 AUMF is a never ending wild card authorization.

it has been used in Afghanistan, the Philippines, Georgia, Yemen, Djibouti, Kenya, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Iraq, and Somalia. It could be used in Australia tomorrow, no questions asked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists

It has no expiration, no spending limit, no need to say you're sorry, and more importantly no need to vote ever. Boehner was correct that Obama didn't have to ask for any authority because he already had it, as every President for the duration will have it.  It is a complete abdication of legislative authority and responsibility to the executive.

It's not even clear whether Congress even has the Constitutional right to repeal it. With the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (Vietnam War), Congress repealed it, Nixon ceremoniously signed the repeal and then ignored it because he claimed he had the right to defend the troops already there.

Obama wanted Congress to go on record and Boehner wanted none of that. But that didn't mean Boehner couldn't complain about Obama not asking for authority beforehand and then complain again about Obama not needing it after ignoring his request for the authority.

I understand it.

I also understand that Boehner would have expanded it if asked for by a Republican President.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/17/2019 at 12:37 AM, Olsonist said:
On 11/16/2019 at 11:06 PM, Shootist Jeff said:

Its only strong because its completely and utterly true and you know it.  

Jeff, are you ever right? The Kenyan specifically requested an AUMF which Boehner denied even a vote on. What you’re saying is the Congressional Dems wouldn’t have supported the Kenyan which is loony even by your standards. With the original 9/11 AUMF did the Dems (except for Lee for what turns out to be an excellent reason) not support Bush? Do you have any evidence for you whataboutism?

Yes, Bohener denied the vote.  I'm just saying the every dem there breathed a sigh of relief when he did - because no way in hell did they want to go through that again.  Almost every dem who signed onto the original AUMF has had that used against them in elections ever since.  It was a major sticking point for Hillary in 2008 and she was beaten up mercilessly by democrates repeatedly.  As have other D's as well.  

Good article here:  https://morningconsult.com/2017/11/01/critics-say-publics-tepid-response-war-debate-congress-failure/

Quote

 

Glennon said the abdication of Congress’ role in war authorization is a reflection of political concerns, particularly following the electoral fallout from the U.S. occupation of Iraq last decade, which helped Democrats sweep into power in 2006 and 2008, but also cost former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in her presidential bids.

“Members of Congress have every incentive to avoid casting a vote on a potentially career-ending issue,” he said. “They continue to say publicly that they think Congress should step up to the plate, and then proceed behind the scenes to do everything possible to avoid having to take a position.”

 

If you think its just the R's who do this, then you're a bigger idiot than previously thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/18/2019 at 11:48 PM, Shootist Jeff said:

Yes, Bohener denied the vote.  I'm just saying the every dem there breathed a sigh of relief when he did - because no way in hell did they want to go through that again.  Almost every dem who signed onto the original AUMF has had that used against them in elections ever since.  It was a major sticking point for Hillary in 2008 and she was beaten up mercilessly by democrates repeatedly.  As have other D's as well.  

Good article here:  https://morningconsult.com/2017/11/01/critics-say-publics-tepid-response-war-debate-congress-failure/

If you think its just the R's who do this, then you're a bigger idiot than previously thought.

Yeah. And also all you libruls who say the sky isn't blue are massive idiots. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Alex, I'll take "things that BC says that don't make sense" for $1000"

Holz18.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this