Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force Law - NYTimes.com

Posted 1 year ago on March 9, 2013, 9:10 p.m. EST by AndrewCMcCarthy (0)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Repeal AUMF

Three days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Congress approved the Authorization for Use of Military Force. It was enacted with good intentions — to give President George W. Bush the authority to invade Afghanistan and go after Al Qaeda and the Taliban rulers who sheltered and aided the terrorists who had attacked the United States.

But over time, that resolution became warped into something else: the basis for a vast overreaching of power by one president, Mr. Bush, and less outrageous but still dangerous policies by another, Barack Obama.

Mr. Bush used the authorization law as an excuse to kidnap hundreds of people — guilty and blameless people alike — and throw them into secret prisons where many were tortured. He used it as a pretext to open the Guantánamo Bay camp and to eavesdrop on Americans without bothering to obtain a warrant. He claimed it as justification for the invasion of Iraq, twisting intelligence to fabricate a connection between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks.

Unlike Mr. Bush, Mr. Obama does not go as far as to claim that the Constitution gives him the inherent power to do all those things. But he has relied on the 2001 authorization to use drones to kill terrorists far from the Afghan battlefield, and to claim an unconstitutional power to kill American citizens in other countries based only on suspicion that they are or might become terrorist threats, without judicial review.

The concern that many, including this page, expressed about the authorization is coming true: that it could become the basis for a perpetual, ever-expanding war that undermined the traditional constraints on government power. The result is an unintelligible policy without express limits or protective walls.

Last Wednesday, Attorney General Eric Holder said the president would soon shed more light on his “targeted killing” policy. Mr. Obama needs to. In the last few weeks, confusion over these issues has been vividly on display. On one hand, the administration has said it would use lethal force only when capturing a terrorist was impossible, and it did arrest Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, a son-in-law of Osama bin Laden who once served as a spokesman for Al Qaeda, and arraigned him on Friday in federal court in Manhattan. The Washington Post reported last week that counterterrorism officials considered using the authorization law as the basis for the government’s authority to kill Mokhtar Belmokhtar, a militant leader in Algeria and Mali, but decided it did not apply because he was not part of Al Qaeda or an associated group.

But the administration still has not fully disclosed to Congress the legal documents on which the targeted killing program is based. And in that same article, The Post said the administration was debating whether it could stretch the law to make it apply to groups that had no connection, or only slight ones, to Al Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks.

A big part of the problem is that the authorization to use military force is too vague. It gives the president the power to attack “nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

Making the law more specific, however, would only further enshrine the notion of a war without end. And, as Jeh Johnson, then counsel to the defense secretary, said in a speech last November, “War must be regarded as a finite, extraordinary and unnatural state of affairs.”

The right solution is for Congress to repeal the 2001 authorization. It could wait to do that until American soldiers have left Afghanistan, which is scheduled, too slowly, for the end of 2014. Better yet, Congress could repeal it now, effective upon withdrawal.

-30-

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/opinion/sunday/repeal-the-authorization-for-use-of-military-force-law.html

17 Comments

17 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

The repeal of AUMF is key to undoing the rights violations we've been subjected to, and the gratuitous military actions we've subjected the world to.

It's long overdue,

[-] 1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

I agree. But you're on a revolutionary site inclusionman... Think big. Outside the box. Think democracy. Think voting no consent. Think about telling all the politicians to fuck off...

http://occupywallst.org/forum/keep-searching-for-ways-to-screw-the-corrupt-syste/

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

How about if I think how I please motherfucker? And you can do the fuckin off.

[-] 1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

It's hard to lay it out much clearer for ya, inclusionman.

You either support the status quo and thus consent to all the bad acts you claim to hate and detest... or you reject their hate and war and poverty by withdrawing your consent at the polls.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/keep-searching-for-ways-to-screw-the-corrupt-syste/

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Fuck you. I don't need any advice from you. I think for myself. Most of all I KNOW I don't have to prove anything to an insignificant little trollshit like you.

LOL.

Discuss the thread topic and not me moron.

[-] 0 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

I'm not giving advice, simply laying out the facts inclusionman.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

The thread TOPIC you fuckin idiot. No one needs to hear how you lay anything out.

[-] 0 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

I'll leave you alone. I'm not trying to make you an enemy. I'm trying to challenge your assumptions and beliefs. It's a messy process in the best of settings and this forum isn't one of them. Socrates was ordered to take his own life for using this method. The official charge was "corrupting the youth" I believe. Your heart maybe in the right place, but your mind needs to wake up...

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

You're an arrogant, ignorant, offensive piece of shit. You offer nothing of value. Your comments are dishonest, self important, and meant to divide.

My heart & mind is none of your motherfuckin business.

Your the one who needs to wake the fuck up. I've been awake for almost 40 years.

[-] 0 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Yep, that's pretty much what the city fathers said to Socrates. Bye.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Yeah right. You and Socrates. What a fuckin moron you are. You are more like, and about as important as the ant crawlin up socrates ass, you conceited little mental midget.

ROFL.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Hey... I'm workin' here!

[-] 0 points by peacehurricane (293) 1 year ago

Exactly!

[-] 1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Well, how am I doing? What do you think about this?

You either support the status quo and thus consent to all the bad acts you claim to hate and detest... or you reject their hate and war and poverty by withdrawing your consent at the polls.

It's stark, but I think you simply have to be that cut and dried about it to get the point across...

I like peace. I prefer peace. I'd like to avoid a bloodbath...

[-] 0 points by peacehurricane (293) 1 year ago

No such thing as to deliver ultimatum when either/or does not exist. I do not have to a mother fu-ing thing and will bow down to nothing of this of this plane. I would prefer blood not be shed however when delivered that ultimatum after 9/11 knew that I will stand for Peace regardless of price others so choose on their hands my hands are clean, though callous and blistered.

[-] 1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

I can respect that. Why calloused and blistered?

[-] 0 points by peacehurricane (293) 1 year ago

It's called Work! It is not necessary to respect on my behalf for I need it not because will not be returned. I serve ONE that is ALL and with God that is enough I am WE...