Trump’s war powers to be limited under new Senate resolution

The Washington Times ^ | April 16, 2018 | Stephen Dinan

[jazusamo]

U.S. troops could continue fighting the Taliban and al Qaeda and would be given explicit new permission to battle the Islamic State — but would not be authorized to attack the capabilities of any nation state, such as Syria — under updated rules of war proposed by a bipartisan group of senators Monday.

Led by Sen. Bob Corker, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, the new Authorization for the Use of Military Force would replace 2001 and 2002 AUMFs that started the war on terror and paved the way for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

The commander in chief — in this case President Trump — would be authorized to keep up the fight against a long list of international terrorist organizations that were either affiliated with or spun off of al Qaeda, including the Haqqani Network, al Shabaab and the Al Nusrah Front.

[jazusamo]

This is quick, they drag their feet on judges and other confirmations.

[goldstategop]

Liddle Bob Corker.

I don’t see it passing the House.

[rockinqsranch]

Corker. Figures.

[Hostage]

Is such a Senate resolution binding?

[BobL]

Good. This crap needs to end. Hopefully Trump either signs it (and therefore gets to blame Congress if anything goes wrong), or he’s overridden and it becomes law that way.

The same damn thing should have been done when Clinton was president (Kosovo) and, of course, Obama. But it’s a start here.

[Jim Noble]

My view is that the President (Trump, Obama, Bush, Reagan, LBJ) has NO authority to do anything except repel attacks.

I think attacking Syria is totally illegitimate.

[luv2ski]

Can’t PDJT just veto it?

[Renegade]

We REALLY need an “Eagle Eye” event.

[proust]

When did Syria attack us?

[luv2ski]

Although everyone knows it was primarily us, it was publicly acknowledged to be a joint attack with Britain and France joining us. I don't necessarily want to see us trying to police the world but if no one stands up to the thug dictators, they will be emboldened to do more and worse. Look what happened in the Obama administration when he ran around bowing to everyone. NK became a world bully, Iran was strengthened, Venezuela got much worse, etc. If the UN had any guts, they would do something to curb this type of odious behavior but the UN is run by the despots themselves so I'm not holding my breath.

I also don't want to see executive power curtailed by a bunch of petty senators, regardless of who is in the White House.

[jazusamo]

MAGA!

Support Free Republic, Folks!

Please bump the Freepathon or click above to donate or become a monthly donor!

[Chauncey Gardiner]

OK for Obama to start an illegal invasion of Libya - but lob some missiles as a Republican, and the swamp creatures wake up...

[Jim Noble]

“OK for Obama to start an illegal invasion of Libya ”

No it wasn’t

[JBW1949]

When a preemptive strike is really needed somewhere and the President goes to Congress, we could be hit and hard before our slow footed, slow witted Congress gets around to either approving or rejecting the strike...

War is covered under the War Powers Act of 1973...A surgical strike to eliminate a danger is the duty of the Commander in Chief....

[Blood of Tyrants]

Resolutions carry absolutely no power or authority.

[Blood of Tyrants]

No.

[jazusamo]

Thanks, I wasn’t sure on this.

[TigersEye]

Corker wants to neuter the Chemical Weapons Convention treaty?

[Mariner]

“I don’t see it passing the House.”

Let’s hop it does.

All President’s unilateral war making power is excessive.

In a sane, constitutional world they are limited to defense against imminent and immediate threats.

For anything else they must seek Congressional approval.

NO PRESIDENT should be empowered to pursue what they perceive to be “US Interests” with military force otherwise.

[MNJohnnie]

Going no where. Shameless clown posturing by GOP-E Senators too stupid to realize spending all their time fighting their own political base will only result in their own defeat.