Did President Obama just start World War III by waiving the U.S. ban on arming terrorists?

wordpress ^ | September 17, 2013 | Dan from Squirrel Hill

[grundle]

Dan from Squirrel Hill's Blog

Did President Obama just start World War III by waiving the U.S. ban on arming terrorists?

The Washington Examiner has just reported:

Obama waives ban on arming terrorists to allow aid to Syrian opposition

President Obama waived a provision of federal law designed to prevent the supply of arms to terrorist groups to clear the way for the U.S. to provide military assistance to “vetted” opposition groups fighting Syrian dictator Bashar Assad.

Some elements of the Syrian opposition are associated with radical Islamic terrorist groups, including al Qaeda

The law allows the president to waive those prohibitions if he “determines that the transaction is essential to the national security interests of the United States.”

That sounds pretty scary to me.

It also sounds like grounds for impeachment.

I hope this doesn’t lead to World War III.

[FreedomStar3028]

blog pimpin

[hinckley buzzard]

Wasn't this law the basis for the Contra-gate scandal of the late 80's?

[Ben Mugged]

I have a question for the legal freepers. Can a citizen place the president under citizens arrest for treason?

[Blood of Tyrants]

How does Obastard get away with “waiving” federal law? He has no authority to do it! This is nothing but BREAKING the law.

[2ndDivisionVet]

[familyop]

Russia also decided to reconsider possible military action against Syria in the deal negotiations.

[Blood of Tyrants]

His pet Attorney General, who is in charge of the Justice Department who would have to prosecute him would just laugh at you and charge you with some obscure crime.

[Ben Mugged]

Is it hopeless then? Have the radical liberals so empowered the chief executive that he rules without restraint? Whatever happened to our Republic? Where are our heroes when we need them most?

[Smokin' Joe]

How in blazes does a President just up and say "I'm going to ignore the law"?

Congress should be on him like stink on poo for this sort of usurpation.

[The_Reader_David]

In answer to the question of the title: No.

(Even leaving aside Norman Podhoretz’s argument that the Cold War should be denominated “World War III” — it had all the characteristics, just got fought in slow motion thanks to nuclear deterrence.)

We’ve been in WW III (or IV) since the mid-1990’s, but were mostly too slow on the uptake to notice until 9/11, then mostly went back to sleep, lulled out of any strategic clarity by the obnoxious habit of the strategically-illiterate media denominating campaigns in different countries as separate “wars”, begun back during the Cold War.

[Texas Fossil]

“Obama waives ban on arming terrorists to allow aid to Syrian jihadists”

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/09/obama-waives-ban-on-arming-terrorists-to-allow-aid-to-syrian-jihadists.html

The U.S. is now officially on the side of al-Qaeda.

—

This is being reported in several sources.

[Tilted Irish Kilt]

grundle ~:" President Obama waived a provision of federal law designed to prevent the supply of arms to terrorist groups to clear the way
for the U.S. to provide military assistance to “vetted” opposition groups fighting Syrian dictator Bashar Assad. "

I find it amuzing, if not inconsistant , that a President who was never previously propperly " vetted "
has taken a stand to defend an enemy , which has already been "vetted " as being a 'terrorist organization'.
He has rendered Congress' legislative function as 'moot' and 'irrelevent' and there isn't one squawk from the legislative body ?

[eyeamok]

WW3??? My copy of the US Constitution says it is TREASON, and CONGRESS IS GOING ALONG WITH IT.

[Tilted Irish Kilt]

“There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers.
We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.”
- Ronald Reagan (1964)

[Texas Fossil]

“Yes, we can: Obama waives anti-terrorism provisions to arm Syrian rebels”

http://rt.com/usa/obama-terrorist-arms-supply-966/

—

This is a pretty clearly written article by Russian Times. (I think that is what RT is)

[ReaganGeneration2]

According to the Examiner, ‘The law allows the president to waive those prohibitions if he “determines that the transaction is essential to the national security interests of the United States.” ‘

This seems impeachable, morally. But am I missing the legal reason? I’m admitting ignorance here.

FYI, article - http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-waives-ban-on-arming-terrorists-to-allow-aid-to-syrian-opposition/article/2535885.

[Texas Fossil]

Here it is on the Blaze:

“Did Obama Just Waive the Ban on Arming Terrorist Groups?”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/16/did-obama-just-waive-the-ban-on-arming-terrorist-groups/

President Barack Obama on Monday announced he would waive the federal law intended to prevent the supply of arms to terrorists groups so the U.S. can provide arms and other military assistance to the Syrian rebels, the Washington Examiner’s Joel Gehrke reports.

[Blood of Tyrants]

I have resigned myself that the only thing that will save us from Obastard is Jan 20, 2017.

[VerySadAmerican]

Can anyone explain why republicans think it’s okay for obama to “waive” laws?