Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The war against ISIS began with airstrikes a year ago this week and lawmakers have spent significant time in the last 12 months debating the strategy and, in many cases, criticizing the way the Obama administration is conducting the fight. But one thing members of Congress have yet to do is have a vote – or even a substantive debate – over authorizing the military campaign.
Instead, President Obama has relied on past authorizations for the use of military force (AUMFs) against al-Qaeda in 2001 and in Iraq in 2002 as the legal justification for the current campaign against the terrorist organization operating mostly in Iraq and Syria. Despite the White House’s insistence, lawmakers are split on whether they agree. Some believe the president is operating within a legitimate legal framework. Others don’t.
That's the Gnu Right's way: "Whatever Obama is doing, we're against it."Bitch that the president isn't doing enough. Bitch that the president is doing too much.
Textbook symptoms of Obama Derangement Syndrome.
The President has the authority to use military power for a certain length of time according to the War Powers Act; however, after that certain amount of time is up the Constitution makes it clear the President must go before Congress and officially request permission to continue to use the military in a campaign....As CiC the President doesn't need Congress to launch a military strike anywhere in the world.
See, again, it's stupid 'generalized' comments, with little intelligent thought behind it, that prevents from having a serious intelligent conversation. I am all for striking terrorists, for example. Good on him! I do think, however, that a more comprehensive foreign policy is needed than just 'drone strike ISIS'...and I believe we should be doing more than just striking them with drones.That's the Gnu Right's way: "Whatever Obama is doing, we're against it.".
Please provide the link to the document in which they gave him authority to carry on an entire military campaign against ISIS.... thank you.Congress has already authorized the President to use Military force. They could revoke that authorization if they choose.....but it would be better if they were to reaffirm their commitment, but with the GOP in the majority that would be too much like giving President Obama a victory wouldn't it?
Once again, learn how to use the fricking quote function. It isn't that difficult.Funny how the Right didn't seem troubled by that under Bush, eh? They had to invent the term "detainee" and not use "POW" so they could violate the Geneva conventions and torture them.
Terrorists are not a part of any formal military. International law did not recognize terrorists as 'POW's. They were considered 'Unlawful Combatants' . The terms 'Unprivileged Combatant' and 'Unprivileged Belligerent' (under Obama) has been used to avoid using the term for which they are - 'Terrorists'.
See post 61.Please provide the link to the document in which they gave him authority to carry on an entire military campaign against ISIS.... thank you.Congress has already authorized the President to use Military force. They could revoke that authorization if they choose.....but it would be better if they were to reaffirm their commitment, but with the GOP in the majority that would be too much like giving President Obama a victory wouldn't it?
Try finding the GOP policy on this.See, again, it's stupid 'generalized' comments, with little intelligent thought behind it, that prevents from having a serious intelligent conversation. I am all for striking terrorists, for example. Good on him! I do think, however, that a more comprehensive foreign policy is needed than just 'drone strike ISIS'...and I believe we should be doing more than just striking them with drones.That's the Gnu Right's way: "Whatever Obama is doing, we're against it.".
WHO THE HELL cares about 'credit', other than F*ed up politicians?!Obama is having to move forward in an environment where if he succeeds, the Right won't give him credit, but if he fails they will howl for years and years.
It takes a lot of guts to work in that kind of political environment, surrounded by gutless enemies who would rather see America fail than see Obama succeed.
Please provide the link to the document in which they gave him authority to carry on an entire military campaign against ISIS.... thank you.Congress has already authorized the President to use Military force. They could revoke that authorization if they choose.....but it would be better if they were to reaffirm their commitment, but with the GOP in the majority that would be too much like giving President Obama a victory wouldn't it?
See post 61. You're welcome.
Killing terrorists by whatever means necessary is OK.Should terrorists have their 'due process', as Obama says...or be killed, as Obama says?
Is killing terrorists through drone strikes ok?
Is killing American citizens via drone strikes OK based solely on Obama's say-so?
Is it 'Self-Defense'?
The President is given authority to go after any organization that is planning a terrorist act against the US. ISIS has publically stated their intent to attack the US with terrorist attacks. Congress and America have given the President permission to fuck them up before they get the chance.See post 61. You're welcome.
Thank you for proving my point - OBAMA IS WAGING HIS OWN WAR AGAINST (ASSAD) ISIS WITHOUT SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATION FROM CONGRESS TO DO SO.
It says it right in the link you gave me:
"But one thing members of Congress have yet to do is have a vote – or even a substantive debate – over authorizing the military campaign.
Instead, President Obama has relied on past authorizations for the use of military force (AUMFs) against al-Qaeda in 2001 and in Iraq in 2002 as the legal justification for the current campaign against the terrorist organization operating mostly in Iraq and Syria. Despite the White House’s insistence, lawmakers are split on whether they agree. Some believe the president is operating within a legitimate legal framework. Others don’t."
You just gave e the passage that states OBAMA DOES NOT HAVE THE CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY TO WAGE WAR AGAINST ISIS, AND HE IS DOING SO ANYWAY- UN-CONSTITUTIONALLY - BY JUSTIFYUNIG HIS ACTIONS BASED ON AUTHORIZATIONS GIVEN TO HIM FOR PAST OPERATIONS...NOT THE CURRENT ONE!
Thank you for that awesome link and data!
Try finding the GOP policy on this.
Good luck with that.
And I'm sorry, but you have to be stone blind not to notice the "Whatever Obama is doing we are against it" single-minded herd mentality of the Gnu Right on this forum.
The President is given authority to go after any organization that is planning a terrorist act against the US. ISIS has publically stated their intent to attack the US with terrorist attacks. Congress and America have given the President permission to fuck them up before they get the chance.
Obama never said the war on terror was over. You are just making crap up. The war on terror has continued and the allegations of our focusing on the rebel overthrow of Syria is unsubstantiated bullshit.Try finding the GOP policy on this.
Good luck with that.
And I'm sorry, but you have to be stone blind not to notice the "Whatever Obama is doing we are against it" single-minded herd mentality of the Gnu Right on this forum.
That is part of my point...THERE IS NO POLICY...FROM ANYONE.
Obama began LYING about his 'successes' against ISIS in 2012 to make himself / things look good for the up-coming election. He declared 'the war on Terror is over' and 'Al Qaeda is on the run'. It was all B$! Obama didn't care about fighting / defeating terrorists - he wanted to 'look good in the shower' for the election.
Since then we have been focused on SYRIA and getting Assad out of office. WHO the HELL cares about Assad. HE is not a threat to us. So he's gassing his own people - Hussein did that and libs said we should stay the hell out of that...where are they out now with regards to Syria?! Putin and Iran are now in Syria, deeper than a Louisiana tick on a blood hound....'Taking Down Assad' is OVER!
ISIS is killing Christians and beheading / burning men, women and children. ISIS is threatening our allies. ISIS is vowing to send terrorists here. SO WHY THE HELL ARE WE TAP DANCING WITH ISIS? Drone Strikes? seriously? THAT is what the US military might has been reduced to?
Like I said - if we are going to fight ISIS, let's commit to doing it. kick their ass strongly and quickly then get out of 'Dodge'. If you aren't going to do that, pull our guys back, get out of the way, and let someone else do it.
The attacks are lawful acts of defense in the confines of the military situation. If bad guys put themselves where our troops can't get to them, and if they are a threat to America's defense, then, yeppers, they are lawful targets.
Can't wait for the far right wing to raise up in revolt in America.
