Posted on 09/12/2014 8:05:46 AM PDT by Kaslin
In his address to the nation Wednesday night about how the United States is going to handle the growing ISIS threat, President Obama announced new airstrikes in Syria and called on Congress to give "input," but didn't ask for their authorization. Why? Apparently President Obama thinks he can use the authorization given to President George W. Bush in 2001 to go after al Qaeda. Legally, that move isn't panning out. Al Eli Lake over at the Daily Beast writes, Obama's latest war is probably illegal:
Obama’s using the law that authorized attacks against al Qaeda to justify his new fight in Syria and Iraq. One small problem: ISIS and al Qaeda are at each others’ throats. Legal experts were shocked to learn Wednesday that the Obama administration wants to rely on that 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force against al Qaeda for the new ISIS war.
“On its face this is an implausible argument because the 2001 AUMF requires a nexus to al Qaeda or associated forces of al Qaeda fighting the United States,” said Robert Chesney, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law. “Since ISIS broke up with al Qaeda it’s hard to make that argument.”
Ideally, when beginning a new war like Obama is doing now, the president would ask Congress to declare it.
As a reminder, President Obama campaigned on asking Congress for war authorization back in 2008. My how things have changed.
Yesterday Secretary of State John Kerry said the United States isn't "at war" with ISIS but instead has launched a "counterterrorism" operation against the army. The White House echoed that statement. The administration won't admit Obama is starting a war for two reasons. The first is political in that it upset Obama's far left base. The second is that declaring war would require Obama to ask Congress for authorization, which in return would require the President to come up with a coherent strategy and be accountable to lawmakers for implementing that strategy as planned and promised. Obama doesn't want to answer to anyone, but especially Congress.
And, of course, then he can blame Bush.
ironic- a month and a half ago he sent a letter to Boehner demanding repeal of the Iraqi War Authorization:
“The Obama administration is calling on Congress to fully repeal the war authorization in Iraq to ensure that no U.S. troops return to the country, which is under siege by the extremist Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS).”
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/white-house-wants-repeal-of-iraq-war-authorization/
For the same reason he campaigns against his own policies — he doesn’t want HIS name associated with a War Authorization.
That way, he can still blame Bush, while claiming now and in the future that HE never authorized the war.
Also, if it turns into an even worse mess than he made of Iraq, he can disassociate HIMSELF from the results.
"You mean that's not a good idea?"
Great idea. Put him in a box. He deserves it.
Nice find!
God forbid that he soil his Nobel Peace Prize with a nasty war on his record.
I like your idea!
It also doesn’t give him authority to go into Syria either
Obama is so obsessed with regime change in Syria. I wonder if Assad mocked his ears or something.
Obama is a maggot feeding off the flesh of the United States.
To say that it authorizes a new action in Iraq not only contradicts those prior positions (which I believe would have been stated by Obama, too, although he was a state senator in Illinois at the time), but it is also no longer viable, given that Obama has declared the Iraq war ended, and has pulled out all the troops that were there previously. To rely on the 2001 authorization would be to use logic that would also allow him to attach Japan and Germany under the December 8, 1941 declaration of war.
That must be the poster on every network news lobby wall.
One too many “m’s” and you’re short an “f”
Hey..., I hate it when you make a good point.
Third reason: every member of Congress would have to vote yes, no, or present on such a resolution. The Democrats' heads would be spinning trying to figure out whether to support "their" president -- in a time of "war" -- or play to the Democrat voters, who apparently prefer Sharia law over fighting terrorists.
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.