per their US training, and the weapons will LATER
be transferred to them as before?
"Mission accomplished, the "rebels" are armed."
Posted on 09/17/2014 3:16:50 PM PDT by Kaslin
A few years ago, when President Obama unilaterally decided to get involved in Libya's civil war, he argued that he did not need approval from Congress because bombing military targets does not constitute "hostilities" under the War Powers Resolution. That argument was so laughable that even the war's supporters in Congress and the press, not to mention Obama's own Office of Legal Counsel, rejected it.
For a while last week, it seemed the Obama administration was trying out a variation on that claim as an excuse for the newly expanded military campaign against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which Secretary of State John Kerry repeatedly refused to call a war. But the White House quickly corrected Kerry: This is a bona fide war -- just not the sort that Congress has to declare.
To be more precise, Obama claims Congress already declared war on ISIS, although it surely did not realize it was doing that. Thirteen years ago this week, the president notes, Congress authorized George W. Bush "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."
It is hard to see how that Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) covers ISIS, which did not exist at the time and, although it used to be affiliated with al-Qaida, has been repudiated and expelled by the latter organization. Defending Obama's interpretation of the AUMF, former Solicitor General Walter Dellinger tells The New York Times you could "read the reference to 9/11 organizations to include all the evolving versions of radical jihadism." Yes, you could read it that way, but not very plausibly.
In a speech last year, Obama argued that Congress should "refine, and ultimately repeal, the AUMF's mandate," because "unless we discipline our thinking, our definitions, our actions, we may be drawn into more wars we don't need to fight, or continue to grant presidents unbound powers more suited for traditional armed conflicts between nation states." You can't say he didn't warn us.
Obama has a back-up justification for the war against ISIS -- or at least, the part of it that is happening in Iraq. "The 2002 Iraq AUMF would serve as an alternative statutory authority basis on which the president may rely for military action in Iraq," the White House says. "Even so, our position on the 2002 AUMF hasn't changed and we'd like to see it repealed."
So here is another authority that Obama says he should not have but is nevertheless happy to use as a rationale to avoid a constitutionally required vote by Congress. Nor is that the only awkward part.
Obama was famously against the war in Iraq, which he called "dumb" and "rash." Three years ago, the White House bragged that his promise to end that war had been "wholly fulfilled." Last June, the White House said the Iraq AUMF "is no longer used for any U.S. government activities."
By citing the Iraq AUMF as cover for the war against ISIS, Obama contradicts himself. Apparently the war he ended continues, and the obsolete authorization for it is suddenly relevant.
Obama needs a legal fig leaf to cover his blatant hypocrisy. As a presidential candidate in 2007, he declared that "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." Obama admits ISIS does not pose such a threat.
A cowardly Congress is happy to accommodate Obama's power grab. Legislators are mindful of popular support for action against ISIS but afraid to endorse a war that may end disastrously. By limiting their role to approving the arming and training of Syrian rebels, they can have it both ways, and all they have to sacrifice is the Constitution.
"Mission accomplished, the "rebels" are armed."
Obama dithered around for a year and did nothing. The US could have bombed the hell out of ISIS.
A pathological liar cannot help but to lie.
He prefers to lie, even when the truth is a better justification.
In Obama’s case, I think we have identified the world’s first pathological lawbreaker. Knowing he could easily get the legal authority for his actions, he prefers to flout the legal process. He must truly hate the rule of law to dedicate himself so completely to undermining it.
That goes for all liberals. They lie because it comes natural to them, and therefore cannot help it
I heard phrased differently. The saying was "the worst are people who lie when they don't have to."
NY POST EXCERPT---A message posted on an ISIS Web forum lists widely available ingredients needed to build a pipe bomb, and includes photos showing how to combine them into a deadly explosive device---using orange watch parts as an ignition timer.
The Arabic-language message cites NY's Times Square — the scene of a failed 2010 car-bomb attack by al Qaeda sympathizer Faisal Shahzad — and the Las Vegas Strip as prime targets........but also suggests striking sites in Texas and mass-transit stations across the country.
The message is titled “To the Lone Wolves in America: How to Make a Bomb in Your Kitchen, to Create Scenes of Horror in Tourist Spots and Other Targets,” and was written three weeks ago.
BE ON THE LOOKOUT---this may be the ISIS dress code.....used to signal comrades-at-arms.
http://anarchodutch.wordpress.com/2014/08/20/john-mccain-the-caliph/
“Obama dithered...
Obama gave a speech today I believe for these reasons:
1. It was a campaign type speech against Bush: “I won’t
send you to fight in Iraq (like Bush did, and those
other white boy presidents.)
2. Obama will always refuse to assert American power
because he wants to destroy American power.
3. Obama is weak and giving speeches around the country
is his substitute for action. Today Rush said Obama’s
goal is make people believe what they hear rather than
what they see.
None of this seems to matter to most “conservatives” and indeed Freepers. They are agreeing to this reckless war without questioning who’s leading it - Obama, McCain, Biden...
The use of the AUMF sets a dangerous precedence. It can be invoked with the NDAA to imprison Americans without due process. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-09-12/obama%E2%80%99s-isis-war-not-only-illegal-it-makes-george-w-bush-look-constitutional-scholar
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.