House Passes Authority for Worldwide War

[JBeukema]

The House just passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), including a provision to authorize worldwide war, which has no expiration date and will allow this president — and any future president — to go to war anywhere in the world, at any time, without further congressional authorization. The new authorization wouldn’t even require the president to show any threat to the national security of the United States. The American military could become the world’s cop, and could be sent into harm’s way almost anywhere and everywhere around the globe.

Before the vote, the House debated an amendment that would have struck the worldwide war provision. That amendment was introduced by a bipartisan group of representatives: Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas). Given the enormity of the proposed law, you’d expect the House to debate the amendment to strike it extensively, but that’s not what happened. The amendment was debated for a total of 20 minutes. That’s right. Twenty minutes to debate whether Congress should hand the executive branch sweeping worldwide war authority.

Activist Post: House Passes Authority for Worldwide War

 

[retiredGOVT]

the new HITLER is getting stronger . . .

 

[retiredGOVT]

... and of course this, like everything else, is not American taxpayer business. Wake up America! obama has lied since day 1 of his first campaign and continues to do so. Our military leaders are retiring because they know what is happening and that their hands are tied. The United States is totally vulnerable to other countries and we have no military here to protect us. obama has done an excellent job of eradicating the "little people" by one way or another (with help from those of money and/or power). Do these people not realize that they'll eventually go, too, when there is no more middle class?

 

[Mad Scientist]

I know the Left will organize plenty of anti-war demonstrations this summer to protest this evil "war monger" in the White House.

 

[percysunshine]

Where is Cindy Shehan when you need her?

 

[Mad Scientist]

Where is Cindy Shehan when you need her?

Actually, Cindy Sheehan has been consistent in her anti-war stance. She hasn't changed her views (as others have) just because the President is a Black Democrat.

 

[JBeukema]

I know the Left will organize plenty of anti-war demonstrations this summer to protest this evil "war monger" in the White House.

March 20 Anti-War Rally in Houston - Houston Communist Party | Houston Communist Party

 

[kiwiman127]

Actually this article is about an amendment that would have struck down the worldwide war provision. This provision was defeated with 187 members voting for the provision (21 GOP & 166 Dems) and 234 members voting against the provision, (214 GOP & 20 Dems and 10 not voting).
So the fact that the Dems were against the the worldwide implications and the GOP wanted it.
But it's all the Dem' fault and they are enabling Obama instead of protesting against executive powers to start a worldwide war. Right?

 

[Trajan]

I am sorry I need to see a break down of the bill, this doesn't cut it *shrugs*

heres the bill,


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.1540:

and to-

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:1:./temp/~c112K7PUUw::

were is the language they refer to please?

 

[Toronado3800]

So the OP is incorrect?

So someone is saying hippies won't protest Democrats in a time of war? LBJ and the Democratic National Convention remember.

Then Democrats get called warmongers even though by and large they voted against the new powers?

Credibility points are being lost left and right in this post.

 

[MaggieMae]

The House just passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), including a provision to authorize worldwide war, which has no expiration date and will allow this president — and any future president — to go to war anywhere in the world, at any time, without further congressional authorization. The new authorization wouldn’t even require the president to show any threat to the national security of the United States. The American military could become the world’s cop, and could be sent into harm’s way almost anywhere and everywhere around the globe.

Before the vote, the House debated an amendment that would have struck the worldwide war provision. That amendment was introduced by a bipartisan group of representatives: Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas). Given the enormity of the proposed law, you’d expect the House to debate the amendment to strike it extensively, but that’s not what happened. The amendment was debated for a total of 20 minutes. That’s right. Twenty minutes to debate whether Congress should hand the executive branch sweeping worldwide war authority.

Activist Post: House Passes Authority for Worldwide War

And yet in the same bill:
House passes $690 billion defense bill - The Washington Post

...the House voted 416 to 5 to prohibit the use of U.S. funds to put ground troops in Libya except to rescue an American, such as a downed pilot or a crew member who had bailed out of an aircraft. The prohibition covered the introduction of even contracted American personnel. This limitation reflected growing concern among some members that Obama has ignored the War Powers Act in failing to seek direct congressional authorization for U.S. participation in the fight against Moammar Gaddafi.

What's wrong with that picture?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I am sorry I need to see a break down of the bill, this doesn't cut it *shrugs*

heres the bill,


Bill Text - 112th Congress (2011-2012) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

and to-

Bill Text - 112th Congress (2011-2012) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

were is the language they refer to please?

Section 1034

Congress affirms that–

*
(1) the United States is engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces and that those entities continue to pose a threat to the United States and its citizens, both domestically and abroad;

*
(2) the President has the authority to use all necessary and appropriate force during the current armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note);

*
(3) the current armed conflict includes nations, organization, and persons who–

*
o
(A) are part of, or are substantially supporting, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or

*
o
(B) have engaged in hostilities or have directly supported hostilities in aid of a nation, organization, or person described in subparagraph (A); and

*
(4) the President’s authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority to detain belligerents, including persons described in paragraph (3), until the termination of hostilities.

 

[MaggieMae]

Actually this article is about an amendment that would have struck down the worldwide war provision. This provision was defeated with 187 members voting for the provision (21 GOP & 166 Dems) and 234 members voting against the provision, (214 GOP & 20 Dems and 10 not voting).
So the fact that the Dems were against the the worldwide implications and the GOP wanted it.
But it's all the Dem' fault and they are enabling Obama instead of protesting against executive powers to start a worldwide war. Right?

It's pretty obvious the neocons still have plenty of lobbying power (John Bolton still lurks the halls), but Obama is against giving that kind of power to the Executive Branch, mainly because he wants less US participation in any foreign wars, if people had been paying attention. That provision makes it easier. I expect the Senate will put the kibosh on it anyway.

 

[Trajan]

Actually this article is about an amendment that would have struck down the worldwide war provision. This provision was defeated with 187 members voting for the provision (21 GOP & 166 Dems) and 234 members voting against the provision, (214 GOP & 20 Dems and 10 not voting).
So the fact that the Dems were against the the worldwide implications and the GOP wanted it.
But it's all the Dem' fault and they are enabling Obama instead of protesting against executive powers to start a worldwide war. Right?

It's pretty obvious the neocons still have plenty of lobbying power (John Bolton still lurks the halls), but Obama is against giving that kind of power to the Executive Branch, mainly because he wants less US participation in any foreign wars, if people had been paying attention. That provision makes it easier. I expect the Senate will put the kibosh on it anyway.

so the neo cons are all for giving obama carte Blanche?

he did send troops to afghan. and he has started an action in Libya.....so he will in accordance with the WPA craft a plan so as to petition congress and gain approval for a set time period etc. ala Libya?...

and the provision makes what clear again? exactly?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

It's pretty obvious the neocons still have plenty of lobbying power (John Bolton still lurks the halls), but Obama is against giving that kind of power to the Executive Branch

Yeah, just look at Libya. He's sure showing us how much he hates that power.

mainly because he wants less US participation in any foreign wars, if people had been paying attention. That provision makes it easier.

This provision allows the president to send our army anywhere in the world without a declaration of war if it's alleged to be enabling the fight on terrorism. It makes it easier for the executive branch to use the military, but you're claiming that it makes it easier for him not to. That's interesting logic you have.

When it comes to military policy, Obama is Bush the Sequel. Wake up already.

 

[MaggieMae]

Actually this article is about an amendment that would have struck down the worldwide war provision. This provision was defeated with 187 members voting for the provision (21 GOP & 166 Dems) and 234 members voting against the provision, (214 GOP & 20 Dems and 10 not voting).
So the fact that the Dems were against the the worldwide implications and the GOP wanted it.
But it's all the Dem' fault and they are enabling Obama instead of protesting against executive powers to start a worldwide war. Right?

It's pretty obvious the neocons still have plenty of lobbying power (John Bolton still lurks the halls), but Obama is against giving that kind of power to the Executive Branch, mainly because he wants less US participation in any foreign wars, if people had been paying attention. That provision makes it easier. I expect the Senate will put the kibosh on it anyway.

so the neo cons are all for giving obama carte Blanche?

he did send troops to afghan. and he has started an action in Libya.....so he will in accordance with the WPA craft a plan so as to petition congress and gain approval for a set time period etc. ala Libya?...

and the provision makes what clear again? exactly?

Presumably, if he intends to send in ground troops to Libya, which would be an act of war, he wouldn't need congressional approval. BUT once war is declared, as Congress has done for both Afghanistan and Iraq, the President, as Commander and Chief of all armed forces, can then send troops however he sees fit, in order to win the war.

I think it's a provision neocons would love. Obama won't be president forever, and The Project for a New American Century isn't a dead plan if you listen to folks like Frank Gaffney.

 

[Trajan]

I am sorry I need to see a break down of the bill, this doesn't cut it *shrugs*

heres the bill,


Bill Text - 112th Congress (2011-2012) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

and to-

Bill Text - 112th Congress (2011-2012) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

were is the language they refer to please?

Section 1034

Congress affirms that–

*
(1) the United States is engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces and that those entities continue to pose a threat to the United States and its citizens, both domestically and abroad;

*
(2) the President has the authority to use all necessary and appropriate force during the current armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note);

*
(3) the current armed conflict includes nations, organization, and persons who–

*
o
(A) are part of, or are substantially supporting, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or

*
o
(B) have engaged in hostilities or have directly supported hostilities in aid of a nation, organization, or person described in subparagraph (A); and

*
(4) the President’s authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority to detain belligerents, including persons described in paragraph (3), until the termination of hostilities.

thx Bro.....


comment on the proposal;


Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 is...taaa dddaa

the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548

sounds like they gave him the authority he needs to do what the he feels he needs to do ala Libya? (?)

 

[Trajan]

It's pretty obvious the neocons still have plenty of lobbying power (John Bolton still lurks the halls), but Obama is against giving that kind of power to the Executive Branch, mainly because he wants less US participation in any foreign wars, if people had been paying attention. That provision makes it easier. I expect the Senate will put the kibosh on it anyway.

so the neo cons are all for giving obama carte Blanche?

he did send troops to afghan. and he has started an action in Libya.....so he will in accordance with the WPA craft a plan so as to petition congress and gain approval for a set time period etc. ala Libya?...

and the provision makes what clear again? exactly?

Presumably, if he intends to send in ground troops to Libya, which would be an act of war, he wouldn't need congressional approval. BUT once war is declared, as Congress has done for both Afghanistan and Iraq, the President, as Commander and Chief of all armed forces, can then send troops however he sees fit, in order to win the war.

I think it's a provision neocons would love. Obama won't be president forever, and The Project for a New American Century isn't a dead plan if you listen to folks like Frank Gaffney.

sooooooo he DOESN'T want permission ala the war powers res. act?

he never ever said he would send in ground troops, he has said exactly the opposite...

so the 'neocons', wish to provide a dem. pres. with 2 years to go and a fairly decent chance of getting reelected with permission to basically do what hes doing in Libya and send in troops if he feels he needs to....and its all a Konspiracy.....

 

[Toronado3800]

Thank you for finding that. My posting style has move to cell based and the wife only tolerates so much....

Look, neither Republicans or Democrats historically have troubke with President kings starting whatever war they feel like.

If a foreign nation bombed not even a US state on December 7th of some year it would be considered an act of war.

So.....by saying it is not you are saying we had no reason to declare war on Japan? An interesting observation this memorial day.

 

[The Gadfly]

I know the Left will organize plenty of anti-war demonstrations this summer to protest this evil "war monger" in the White House.

March 20 Anti-War Rally in Houston - Houston Communist Party | Houston Communist Party

Note the sponsor, everyone: THE COMMUNIST PARTY! Well, I guess some things never change; still traitors, after all these years; still traitors, long after their Soviet sponsor bit the dust; still wanting to destroy America. Enemies then, enemies now. I'll go to my grave, wanting to kill more communists!