Discussion
  • Read More
    The Alvin Greene DreamBrendan O'Connor
    5/05/16 10:53am

    Perhaps this guy isn’t the best poster boy for the argument he’s making, but Jesus Christ is it demoralizing to see an entire comments section filled with people who are 100% a-okay with how simple it’s become for presidential administrations to carry out endless wars with minimal input from Congress (which currently does not give a shit either way, but that’s sort of beside the point). This guy is fundamentally right to be skeptical and critical (particularly since he’s got actual skin in the game as a service member), but because it’s Obama, we’ve gotta rally around and defend the status quo, like always. *guzzles bucket of paint*

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Gawquera de Tokers TownThe Alvin Greene Dream
      5/05/16 11:07am

      Here’s the thing. Notwithstanding Congress’s intransigence, the world keeps spinning.

      Perhaps less time should be spent complaining about someone using their feet and teeth when their hands are tied and more time spent untying his hands.

      Executive encroachment is destroyed 15 years ago. Americans didn’t bother to put it back in the bottle.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      The Alvin Greene DreamGawquera de Tokers Town
      5/05/16 11:11am

      Which is just a set of excuses designed to let Obama off the hook over something we (or at least I, along with many others) was screaming at the top of my lungs about 15 years ago.

      This whole “they created the problem, so even if we play right along with it, it’s still nevertheless their fault ... we’re clean” bullshit is not going to fly.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Sid and FinancyBrendan O'Connor
    5/05/16 10:34am

    This guy makes a solid case. For his lucrative Fox News commentator career to come.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      kareemaSid and Financy
      5/05/16 10:37am

      He’ll have to do something about his pimply face first.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      MBCockSid and Financy
      5/05/16 10:38am

      ARMY CAPTAIN THAT SUED THE PRESIDENT NOT OLD ENOUGH TO USE PROACTIV

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    BaggyTrousers3Brendan O'Connor
    5/05/16 10:53am

    Like his fellow soldiers at Camp Arifjan, Captain Smith closely follows the news.

    He reports: “while we were all cheering every airstrike and every setback for ISIS, I was also noticing that people at home were torn about whether President Obama should be carrying out this war without proper authorization from Congress. I began to wonder, ‘Is this the Administration’s war, or is it America’s war?’ The Constitution tells us that Congress is supposed to answer that question, but Congress is AWOL.”

    Then maybe sue Congress?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Jason98BaggyTrousers3
      5/05/16 10:58am

      May be remember that the USA has not been in a declared war since 1945

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      BaggyTrousers3Jason98
      5/05/16 11:08am

      What? Pretty much not the point. That passage is from his lawsuit. He plainly claims Congress is not doing it’s job, so why not sue them?

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    The Noble RenardBrendan O'Connor
    5/05/16 10:41am

    This absolutely isn’t a frivolous lawsuit, but it’s largely been made moot by the inaction of Congress and precedent regarding the AUMF. The entire relevant portion of the AUMF reads as follows, with the relevant issue highlighted:

    (a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized 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, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

    There’s no doubt at all that the War in Afghanistan is justified under the AUMF, since it was targeted at that. Similarly, current drone-strikes against actual Al Qaeda-linked organizations like Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (Yemen), or Taliban remnants in Afghanistan/Pakistan, are clearly covered under the AUMF because both organizations were linked to either planning or aiding 9/11. This is how it’s worked in the past whenever the war on terror has expanded outside of its previous boundaries; the President has cited AQ links and essentially treated the AUMF as saying “If you work with AQ, you are a legal target.”

    But regarding the current fight against ISIS, it’s increasingly unclear whether it qualifies under the AUMF. There’s no good argument that modern ISIS either planned, authorized, committed, or aided the 9/11 attackers, and in fact, ISIS has rejected AQ as an organization and actively kills AQ members. Therefore, strictly speaking, it really is unclear whether the AUMF should cover any anti-ISIS acts. This was brought up by a number of people both on the left and the right when we first started attack ISIS, but it never got any real traction as an issue.

    That said, this guy has no chance at all in winning. The Courts will likely determine that this is a political question and wash their hands of it.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      under196The Noble Renard
      5/05/16 10:44am

      I totally agree with you the links berween the two are far to slight to continue the use of AUMF.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Mike HonchoThe Noble Renard
      5/05/16 10:53am

      They could potentially connect the dots of going into Iraq and therefore creating AQ in Iraq that then became ISIS and is simply an offshoot of the OG.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    It takes a nation of millions to elect the corruptBrendan O'Connor
    5/05/16 10:39am

    A very good reminder of the spinelessness of Congress in the aftermath of 9/11.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      benjaminalloverIt takes a nation of millions to elect the corrupt
      5/05/16 10:43am

      Amen.

      In his lawsuit, Smith argues that this interpretation of the 2001 A.U.M.F. is unconstitutional and reckless.

      Suing over this in 2016 is a little like closing the barn door after all the horses are gone.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      facwbenjaminallover
      5/05/16 10:50am

      Not at all. It’s not that the 2001 authorization that was problematic (though it was), it’s the idea that it authorizes force against anyone even slightly related to Al Qaeda.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    IanBrendan O'Connor
    5/05/16 10:38am

    It’s always the lower-level douchebags...the ones who claim they know the Constitution front and back, and think they’ve found the one tidbit that renders any given action illegal.

    Wonder why generals haven’t done this? Oh yeah, they’re the smart ones.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      BBBBOYIan
      5/05/16 10:40am

      This is the same argument that michael moore has...

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      billy7785Ian
      5/05/16 10:41am

      He actually makes a compelling argument, because no one has ever challenged the parameters of the War Powers Resolution (What happens after 60 days if there is no AUMF?). Also, Generals don’t die in battle, so they have significantly less skin in the game.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    JustActSurprisedBrendan O'Connor
    5/05/16 10:37am

    “It would be a lot better for everyone, including the president, if Congress got more involved.”

    GIF
    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      ArdenBrendan O'Connor
      5/05/16 10:47am

      Soooooo, we’re saying a Bush Era act that allows permanent, perpetual, undeclared war is a *good* thing?

      Is this a case of admitting Bush did something right (lol!) or is this a case of “well, in 2001 I opposed this act by the War Criminal President, but now that Our Guy is making use of it, it’s actually not that bad.”

      Reply
      <
      • Read More
        MacheteArden
        5/05/16 10:49am

        It’s bad. But it’s all congress gave Obama to work with. The lawsuit is political and pointless because the courts won’t touch this question since it is really a matter of the two other branches (one other branch, actually) just need to do their job.

        Reply
        <
      • Read More
        benjaminalloverArden
        5/05/16 10:54am

        No one here is saying that it’s a good thing, but congress did, when they wouldn’t give Obama any other means to address ISIS. I’m sure Clinton is counting on the same.

        Reply
        <
    • Read More
      AnastraceBrendan O'Connor
      5/05/16 11:09am

      Actually, he is completely correct. The AUMF was originally narrowly focused to allow us action in Afghanistan. Then Bush interpreted it to mean he could invade Iraq. Then for drone strikes outside of those two countries. Obama continued the trend, by drone striking every damn thing across 3 continents. Illegal incursion of Pakistan, which unbelievably didn’t start a war.

      If the president wants to fight other countries, the law dictates he must go to congress to get permission to go to war.

      Reply
      <
      • Read More
        MaLaoshiAnastrace
        5/05/16 11:52am

        “Then for drone strikes outside of those two countries...Illegal incursion of Pakistan, which unbelievably didn’t start a war.” My understanding is that drone strikes are authorized by the original AUMF as they target AQ and affiliates like the Taliban. It would also be kind of rich for Pakistan to put up much resistance beyond their usual empty rhetoric, given that they aided and abetted these shitbags for so long, including harboring UBL. So, fuck them.

        Reply
        <
      • Read More
        AnastraceMaLaoshi
        5/05/16 1:08pm

        You also have drone strikes in Yemen, Somalia, and Kenya. They are supporting government forces against terrorists. The horn of africa campaign for example, has been going on for 14 years now. Despite not having a significant ground presence there, we’ve still lost over 2 dozen soldiers. There is more to our wars than just Iraq and Afghanistan. The reason we don’t want to upset Pakistan too much is simple. They are a nuclear power, and are fighting skirmishes along the Pakistani/Indian border. With both countries having nuclear arsenals, keeping both sides from becoming too militant, and starting a regional war with the potential to go nuclear. It’s in our best interests to not rile up Pakistan, so that a reactionary military leader steps up, and decides to take the contested territories, and sets off a war against India. The idea of a small scale nuclear contest is enough to make everyone try to placate both sides.

        Reply
        <
    • Read More
      MattBrendan O'Connor
      5/05/16 10:55am

      Dude, if you want to get out of serving that badly you can always pretend you’re gay and get discharged...

      Oh.

      Wait.

      Never mind, proceed with your pointless lawsuit.

      Reply
      <
      • Read More
        Randy HillMatt
        5/05/16 11:06am

        Since when is it pointless to demand that presidents obey the law? Have we just given up at this point?

        Reply
        <
      • Read More
        MattRandy Hill
        5/05/16 11:12am

        He is obeying the law, seeing as he’s fighting an off-shoot of Al Qaeda. Also, the War Power Resolution has been routinely ignored and abused long before Obama ever took office.

        Reply
        <