Some video of Russian bombings ISIS

[Igrok_]

 

[Igrok_]

From the Caspian sea

 

[waltky]

Suin' to stop American involvement in the war against ISIS...

Soldier May Sue to End ISIS War
Oct. 6, 2015 | A scholar who calls the war illegal says he's getting 'confidential expressions of interest' for a potentially groundbreaking lawsuit.

Last October, the Obama administration blew past the 60-day deadline for an armed conflict to be authorized by Congress or ended and continued bombing the Islamic State group. Many scholars say the air war has since then been illegal. Now, a lawsuit seeking to prove the war is unlawful may be on its way. The lawsuit, still a hypothetical, would be brought by an active-duty member of the U.S. military challenging an order related to the campaign against the jihadi group in Iraq and Syria. Such a lawsuit could conceivably break new legal ground and result in either an end to the U.S. military campaign or, perhaps more likely, prompt Congress to authorize it.

Yale University law professor Bruce Ackerman floated the idea in July and received a warm response from the group Iraq Veterans Against the War, whose co-director, Matt Howard, said they would be happy to help interested troops. So did anyone bite? Yes, Ackerman says. “I’ve received some confidential expressions of interest, but I can’t go public on anything at this time,” he tells U.S. News. The potential lawsuit, he says, remains “a big if, at present.” But if it happens, the challenge may put to the test President Barack Obama's controversial claim that dated war authorizations allow for the conflict.

Obama announced airstrikes against the Islamic State group in Iraq on Aug. 7, 2014, as the jihadis approached Irbil, the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan, and besieged members of the Yazidi religious minority on a mountaintop. The airstrikes expanded to Syria in September, after the group beheaded two U.S. journalists. The Obama administration claims it has legal authority to conduct the strikes through a 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) issued against the perpetrators of 9/11 and a 2002 AUMF passed to topple Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. The White House supports repeal of the 2002 AUMF and primarily leans on the anti-al-Qaida authorization, citing historical post-9/11 associations between the extremist groups. Al-Qaida and its Syrian affiliate, however, are involved in a bitter rivalry and on-the-ground fighting against the Islamic State group. Administration officials say they would welcome a new authorization from Congress specifically for the current war, but that it’s legally unnecessary. Many scholars strongly disagree, particularly regarding strikes inside Syria.

MORE

See also:

Scholars Doubt Obama's Authority to Wage War on the Islamic State
Sept. 11, 2014 | Legal experts call the administration's claims 'quite a stretch,' 'particularly bizarre.'

President Barack Obama promised Wednesday a sustained U.S. military campaign against Islamic State militants in both Iraq and Syria, but some scholars doubt he can legally order an open-ended bombing campaign – particularly in Syria – without fresh congressional authorization. The Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war, and the War Powers Resolution of 1973 – enacted in response to the secret presidential expansion of the Vietnam War – limits the president's ability to use force abroad to 60 days without congressional authorization. The White House says Obama already has congressional authorization to attack jihadists in Syria and Iraq, pointing primarily to Congress’ 2001 authorization of military force against al-Qaida days after the 9/11 attacks.

That resolution authorizes action against “those nations, organizations, or persons [the president] determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.” It was invoked to topple the Taliban in Afghanistan and has been used to justify strikes against al-Qaida affiliates elsewhere. The administration further cites the 2002 resolution that authorized then-President George W. Bush to topple Saddam Hussein as an alternative source of legal authority for strikes within Iraq. That resolution allows military action to address the "continuing threat posed by Iraq." “The president has authority to continue these operations beyond 60 days consistent with the War Powers Resolution because the operations are authorized by statute,” a senior administration official says. “The president does not need a new authorization in order to continue to take action” against the Islamic State, the official says, because of the group’s historical connection with al-Qaida.

The Islamic State, however, is in a public feud with al-Qaida’s leadership and is engaged in on-the-ground fighting with al-Qaida’s official affiliate in Syria, Jabhat al-Nusra, or the Nusra Front. Though the Islamic State emerged from al-Qaida in Iraq, the global terror network’s leader, Ayman al-Zawahri, said in February it “is not a branch of al-Qaida [and] has no links to it.” But the senior administration official says the Islamic State’s opinion “that it is the true inheritor of [Osama] bin Laden’s legacy” means “the president may rely on the 2001 [resolution] as statutory authority for the use of force … notwithstanding the recent public split.” Many legal experts are skeptical of that claim.

MORE

Related:

The Obama Doctrine Explained
Sept. 11, 2014 | The president's speech on dealing with the Islamic State illuminated his overall foreign policy.

Last night, President Obama did what he does best: He gave a speech, perhaps the best he has given as president. There were some quibbles, of course. Not many people think that Yemen and Somalia are the models for which we should aim. Perhaps the declaration of a stable new Iraqi government was a bit overstated. And David Gergen and Newt Gingrich opined immediately afterward that the concluding paean to American exceptionalism might strike most as tone-deaf in a still-underperforming economy.

But this misses the point on two scores: First, Obama’s recitation of America’s current geopolitical position – the strongest economy, most advanced technology, impending energy independence, dominant role in global higher education, and oft-cited ability to reinvent itself and overcome obstacles (or, simply, “grit,” as Obama put it) – was spot on.

Second, Obama’s peroration about American exceptionalism wasn’t really about America. It was about Obama. That portion of the speech is best read by substituting for “America” everywhere it appears the first-person pronoun: Abroad, [my] leadership is the one constant in an uncertain world. It is [I who] has the capacity and the will to mobilize the world against terrorists. It is [I who] has rallied the world against Russian aggression, and in support of the Ukrainian peoples' right to determine their own destiny. … It is [I who] helped remove and destroy Syria's declared chemical weapons so they cannot pose a threat to the Syrian people – or the world – again. And it is [I who] is helping Muslim communities around the world not just in the fight against terrorism, but in the fight for opportunity, tolerance, and a more hopeful future.

MORE