This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Obama’s ISIS War Is Not Only Illegal, It Makes George W. Bush Look Like A Constitutional Scholar
Submitted by Mike Krieger of Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,
Rudderless and without a compass, the American ship of state continues to drift, guns blazing.
- Andrew J. Bacevich, the Boston University political science professor and former Army colonel who lost his son in the Iraq war in 2007, in a recent Reuters article.
I have spent the past several days outlining my deep concerns about the “ISIS crisis” and Obama’s willingness to employ extreme propaganda in order to once again embark on another poorly thought out military campaign here and here. What I have also come to realize is that his latest war plan is brazenly illegal and unconstitutional.
While critics have been questioning the legality of U.S. military campaigns consistently since the end of World War II, one trend has become increasingly clear. With each new President and each new war, we have witnessed those who hold the office act more and more like dictators, and less and less like constitutional executives.
One very important, and up until recently, overlooked point about Obama’s latest “war on ISIS” is that this is not at all just more of the same. This crosses yet another very important line of shadiness, and if we as as American public allow him to do so, we will suffer grave long-term consequences to our economic future as well as our liberties. This is very serious stuff.
No one has outlined this point better than Bruce Ackerman, a professor of law and political science at Yale, in yesterday’s New York Times op-ed: Obama’s Betrayal of the Constitution. He writes:
BERLIN — PRESIDENT OBAMA’s declaration of war against the terrorist group known as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria marks a decisive break in the American constitutional tradition. Nothing attempted by his predecessor, George W. Bush, remotely compares in imperial hubris.
Mr. Bush gained explicit congressional consent for his invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. In contrast, the Obama administration has not even published a legal opinion attempting to justify the president’s assertion of unilateral war-making authority. This is because no serious opinion can be written.
This became clear when White House officials briefed reporters before Mr. Obama’s speech to the nation on Wednesday evening. They said a war against ISIS was justified by Congress’s authorization of force against Al Qaeda after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and that no new approval was needed.
But the 2001 authorization for the use of military force does not apply here. That resolution — scaled back from what Mr. Bush initially wanted — extended only to nations and organizations that “planned, authorized, committed or aided” the 9/11 attacks.
Not only was ISIS created long after 2001, but Al Qaeda publicly disavowed it earlier this year. It is Al Qaeda’s competitor, not its affiliate.
Mr. Obama may rightly be frustrated by gridlock in Washington, but his assault on the rule of law is a devastating setback for our constitutional order. His refusal even to ask the Justice Department to provide a formal legal pretext for the war on ISIS is astonishing.
Senators and representatives aren’t eager to step up to the plate in October when, however they decide, their votes will alienate some constituents in November’s midterm elections. They would prefer to let the president plunge ahead and blame him later if things go wrong. But this is precisely why the War Powers Resolution sets up its 60-day deadline: It rightly insists that unless Congress is willing to stand up and be counted, the war is not worth fighting in the name of the American people.
But for now the president seems grimly determined to practice what Mr. Bush’s lawyers only preached. He is acting on the proposition that the president, in his capacity as commander in chief, has unilateral authority to declare war.
In taking this step, Mr. Obama is not only betraying the electoral majorities who twice voted him into office on his promise to end Bush-era abuses of executive authority. He is also betraying the Constitution he swore to uphold.
Think about this for a second. Barack Obama is using the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which allowed for military action against “nations and organizations that planned, authorized, committed or aided the 9/11 attacks.” ISIS wasn’t even a twinkle in Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s eye back in September 2001. Even more stunning, ISIS and al-Qaeda more closely resemble enemies than allies. Yet this doesn’t seem to affect Nobel Peace Prize winning Barry Obama’s war planning. You can’t get much more insane and Orwellian than that.
Who cares right? This won’t ever affect you. So what if some bombs fall on innocent Arab civilians? Wrong.
One of the most terrifying aspects of this whole war push if Obama is able to pull it off, is that the reasoning (or lack thereof) could ultimately be applied to the detention of U.S. citizens indefinitely without a trial.
Yes, what I am referring to is the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, which allows for the indefinite detention of American citizens without a trial. I covered this frequently several years ago when Chris Hedges and others were suing the Obama Administration regarding the constitutionality of this law. In fact, one of my most popular posts ever was, NDAA: The Most Important Lawsuit in American History that No One is Talking About.
One of the ways in which the U.S. government has defended the NDAA is by saying it can only be used against “a person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.” Glenn Greenwald noted in Salon in his, Three Myths About the Detention Bill, that:
Section 1021 of the NDAA governs, as its title says, “Authority of the Armed Forces to Detain Covered Persons Pursuant to the AUMF.” The first provision — section (a) — explicitly “affirms that the authority of the President” under the AUMF ”includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons.” The next section, (b), defines “covered persons” — i.e., those who can be detained by the U.S. military — as “a person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.”
Notice that the above says “pursuant to the AUMF,” which is the exact law the Obama Administration is using to justify his latest war. If he is able to start a war with ISIS based on the AUMF, despite the fact that ISIS and al-Qaeda are not allies at all, he or a future President could similarly use the AUMF and the NDAA to imprison anyone, anywhere for an indefinite amount of time based on the same absurd non-claim.
Let this all sink in for a second. Do you still support these ISIS strikes?
»
- 33333 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Spooge- If obuttfuck is a natural born citizen then why does he need to forge his own natural birth certificate. Unless he's not a real person, Obuttfucks own words, which means that anything and everything he has done as president has been illegal meaning non-compliance. it would officially and legally give the rest of the country to tell this cunt to go fuck himself, which he probably has tried to do.
erm...because he doesn't? Forged birth certificate is another crazy theory. I'll stick with Snopes, so skip the ad hom about them, since thats alll you've got.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/birthcertificate.asp
Barrys' mom easily could've just claimed that she was knocked up and he could have been barry dunham right????? She and her family just picked up and went to Hawaii and why?
If you were a 17 year old girl in the 1960's and you got knocked up by an older black man who happened to be a raging communist, then how do you not become a town outcast?
You don't so you move to Hawaii. BTW the mother was taking russian language a class. Oh and the parents were also communists but what would that matter. Barry is a "constitutional scholar".
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/the_case_against_barack_obama_sr....
anudder nutter. Gotta love how unmoderated ZH allows the crazy conspiracy theories to fly, whether they have any substance of not. Your link is a lot of unsubstantiated leaps and assumptions with little or no facts.
p.s. As I've said before, there are plenty of things to condemn Obama for. Repeating your birther nonsense over and over instead of pointing out his real deceptions and crimes shows laziness in thinking. Perhaps you have delegated the thinking to some propagandist with an agenda whose word you take as gospel.
p.p.s. I apologize for that assumption if the real reason for your obsessive thoughts has to do with PTSD trauma from your experience in Iraq. I have nothing but sympathy for the poor souls that are still being sacrificed in the name of the MIC.
Let us not forget the eternal truth that will always exist.
"All war is deception"
Sun Tzu
...okay...
Yes because snopes is so trustworthy. Show me a press conference that debunks everything stated in the joe arpaio evidence findings. Let me know when you find some.
For an avatar as "The Brain" you sure have none. now go blow pinky or is he too smart for that.
So here comes the ad hominem. Since you can't refute anything Snopes says, you question their "trustworthiness". That only works on those without critical thinking skills.
Here is what Wikipedia (which has standards for reputable sources) says about the "joe arpaio evidence findings".
"[Arpaio's] claims were presented at that press conference, and at a second press conference held on March 31, 2012. The allegations regarding the birth certificate were repeated at a July 17, 2012, news conference, where Arpaio stated that his investigators are certain that Obamas' long-form birth certificate is fraudulent. Some of the major claims presented by Arpaio at the July 17 news conference were subsequently shown to be false; specifically, the 1961 Vital Statistics Instruction Manual that Arpaio and his team claimed to possess contradicted what they claimed it said, and images shown by them, purportedly from that manual, were instead from computer specifications dated 1968 and 1969."
More on this sketchy character, Sheriff Arpaio, whose integrity apparently doesn't matter to you as long as he provides you with "evidence"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio#Investigation_of_Federal_Judge_a...
This clown is just looking for his fifteen minutes of fame, and boy does he ever get the propaganda hungry dogs to eat his shit.
Let's get a grip here. The US has been at war for decades....the war on poverty, the war on drugs, the war on terror, etc. All of these are REAL "wars" that have been declared and approved by Congress and have kept the president (whoever he was) in the position of "perpetual" Commander in Chief instead of the temporary position it was meant to be. Therefore, all wars that ANY US president wants to wage are "legal" and until the sheeple wake-up and demand an end to all this BS, the whinning about the president not having the power to wage war is simply a large steaming pile of bullshit to keep the sheeple occupied with more nonsense.
Pardon me if I consider an undeclared War and bombing of another sovereign nation as something different from the propaganda used to pretend the government is getting tough on domestic issues.
sorry i didn't get back to you sooner. i was taking a spooz and it took a long time to get that putrid shit out. it just bubbles and festers like a steaming pile of shit. that's why its called spooz
and this snopes, rumor has it , shows that some idiot say is obamas birth certificate a forgery and all that comes up is FALSE. no evidence just some idiot that says false. what a fucking douche bag fuck nut you are to post a website that is as full of shit as your are.
shit i have to go extricate this spooz from my ass again. vile stuff this spooz is.
Gee whiz, gramps, ya gotta scroll down the page to see the evidence. Remember how to do that?
By the way, who are you talking to here? The voices in your head?
your link not mine snowball.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/birthcertificate.asp
a link that refutes everything you say without explanation? You are losing it.
Are you not able to scroll down to see the evidence?
emergency ward i gave you a down vote for being as big a douche as spoogizzakum.
And im refered to as not being able to think crtically. too hilarious if it weren't so dangerous
Get a grip.
I hate it when I am provoked into snark. Its not really my style.
still waiting for that evidence cocksucker
A link that says FALSE. there is no link to anything else other than the word FALSE. How could i have been so blind to see your logic.
Is Barack Obama behaving outside the constitution? FALSE.
OK. Let's go fucking bomb ISIS.
Now I really see your logic.
too many words to describe your kind and i don't wish to waste the time.
So now you're reduced to complaining about how you can't use a fucking computer? Did you read the lengthy post underneath FALSE that starts like this?
"Origins: In April 2011, President Barack Obama sought to put end to rumors claiming that he was not a natural-born citizen of the United States by obtaining and releasing a copy of his long form birth certificate issued by the state of Hawaii. Officials from that state certified that the copy of the certificate they provided to President Obama was authentic:
The Hawaii State Health Department recently complied with a request by President Barack Obama for certified copies of his original Certificate of Live Birth, which is sometimes referred to in the media as a "long form" birth certificate."We hope that issuing certified copies of the original Certificate of Live Birth to President Obama will end the numerous inquiries related to his birth in Hawaii," Hawaii Health Director Loretta Fuddy said. "I have seen the original records filed at the Department of Health and attest to the authenticity of the certified copies the department provided to the President that further prove the fact that he was born in Hawaii."
On April 25, 2011, pursuant to President Obama's request, Director Fuddy personally witnessed the copying of the original Certificate of Live Birth and attested to the authenticity of the two copies. Dr. Alvin Onaka, the State Registrar, certified the copies."
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/birthcertificate.asp#31mms...
This is supposed to be evidence? How much does it cost to buy/threaten a few bureaucrats, that is if they're not already in bed with you?
Did you read the rest of the evidence on the Snopes link? Its good enough for everybody but a few conspiracy kooks with no critical thinking skills and lots of confirmation bias or an agenda, armed with nothing but allegations.
Kooks who are too lazy to get up to speed on the real reasons Obama should be impeached.
http://time.com/3328080/isis-syria-aumf-obama-law/?utm_source=feedburner...(TIME%3A+Top+Stories)
The ones that aren't kooks are propagandists playing the lesser of two evils game on the unsuspecting dupes that still think the duopoly has any legitimacy.
you still have no evidence about the forgery which was my point. say he was born in hawaii, but still under false pretenses. nothing you show debunks the findings of the press conference which concludes that the bc that obama gave is a fake/forgery. he could have been born in hawaii as barry dunham but he didn't. why???
remember the premise of my arguement regarding his bc in the first place.
So now the backpeddling. YOU are the one who has nothing. NO reputable sources, only crazy conjecture and ad hominems. There is no evidence. Only a guy who wants to get some press (and the propagandists oblige him) talking about his investigation that will be releasing evidence soon, two years after the press conference which served up evidence since proven to be false.
By the way, you've been a member of this forum for awhile. How is it you haven't learned how to use the reply button? Why do your responses not get nested in earlier comments on the same topic?
Not back peddling at all. My point was about the forgery aspect. the computer guy is just some one writing a book about the rumor. He wrote that in august of 2011. this was before the arpaio press conference and nothing since has disproved their finding.
The arpaio presser was in 2012. Nothing since has refuted anything that they have found. that's what i'm talking about. His bc is a fake/forgery meaning anything he has done since then is illegal, unconstiutional, and which means us pleebs can tell that cunt to go fuck himself.
and for the record i apologize for the first comments about just false showing up on snopes. the page said it was done loading but nothing came up after that. I waited to see if there was a delay and nothing. the four time i went back your "evidence" was finally showing up. I just question your evidence that your site and or don't.
so i'm the cocksucker. fair. actually i'm a tuna man for the record
Arpaio is a piece of work, a future brownshirt for the police state, imo. I responded to the presser business below. He is not a reputable source, and his evidence has been refuted.
Find some new material to condemn Obama. There is a ton if you bother to look for it. He's a wolf in sheeps clothing.
i do use reply but it doesn't go straight to the person i was replying to anymore. don't know why that is. haven't changed settings so what gives? dunno. but after reading more of your brilliant commentary i was right the first time that youre a cocksucker.
Ya got me. Thank you for your intelligent response.
Maybe one of the kids can help you out with your computer issue.
can you add. your link is from 2011. BEFORE Joe Arpaio's presser in 2012. thats after your link and nothing you show since has refuted it. the fact that you say he's is a brown shirt iyo is more evidence that you are a cocksucker and a hack/paid troll hack.
Here, your links quote:
"Origins: In April 2011, President Barack Obama sought to put end to rumors claiming that he was not a natural-born citizen of the United States by obtaining and releasing a copy of his long form birth certificate issued by the state of Hawaii. Officials from that state certified that the copy of the certificate they provided to President Obama was authentic:
The Hawaii State Health Department recently complied with a request by President Barack Obama for certified copies of his original Certificate of Live Birth, which is sometimes referred to in the media as a "long form" birth certificate.
"We hope that issuing certified copies of the original Certificate of Live Birth to President Obama will end the numerous inquiries related to his birth in Hawaii," Hawaii Health Director Loretta Fuddy said. "I have seen the original records filed at the Department of Health and attest to the authenticity of the certified copies the department provided to the President that further prove the fact that he was born in Hawaii."
On April 25, 2011, pursuant to President Obama's request, Director Fuddy personally witnessed the copying of the original Certificate of Live Birth and attested to the authenticity of the two copies. Dr. Alvin Onaka, the State Registrar, certified the copies."
Read more athttp://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/birthcertificate.asp#31mms...
I bet the boys spooz all over you big boy! And you talk about ad hominem attacks.
Ummm....wrong link. I specifically addressed sleazy Arpaio's presser in another comment. Try again. Or not. Stop me before I snark again.
If, by ad hom, you mean the aspersions I cast on this character Arpaio, since he hasn't presented any evidence yet (coming soon, folks!) there is nothing else to discuss or refute. Only the impression I get that he's a publicity whore.
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2014/04/joe_arpaio_obama_bi...
Sheesh. The trouble I go through to educate the misinformed. Here is a link to a 2009 Daily Paul post (from around the time I realized Obama was a liar and there would be no change as long as the only choices were duopoly candidates) on impeaching Obama:
http://www.dailypaul.com/139422/msnbc-on-assassination-of-americans-impe...
Thank you for letting the forum see that you have no response and therefore you are conceding my point. His bc is a fake/forgery which means we should tell him to go fuck himself.
Oh and that you are a cocksucker
Enjoy the weekend
Thank you for letting the forum see that you have a screw loose and are still learning how to use a computer. Maybe the senior center has classes.
Enjoy yours too.
didn't say it was the only reason. so go enjoy your kids because that is the most important thing is spending time with your kids. teaching them how to build, create, and think for themselves. giving them the tools for life to dodge those pitfalls that we all talk about here.
hopefully they unlearn some of the kooky things that you tell them. peace and love
Oh, baby, you better believe my "kids" have developed their critical thinking skills. I teach them about propaganda so they can learn to find truth amongst all the noise, and I'm very proud of their instincts. They know about facts versus allegations. I hope they can spread their knowledge to their friends and give me some hope for the brainwashed masses.
One last bit of advice, don't know if it will help: Never post in that box at the bottom under "Post A New Comment" when you want to respond to a comment. See if that helps. Not meaning to be condescending, but it does help keep threads more logical when you use the little reply button on the bottom of the comment. If that doesn't work, try a new browser, or reinstall your old one. Thats all I've got.
its all good. and for a good laugh i give you this. such a great movie. they don't make them like this anymore.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8olTfKZnFiM
Looks like someone forgot we're always at war with Oceania.