The post-9/11 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) against
al-Qaeda offered American presidents broad war-making powers. 17 years
and umpteen wars later, it’s safe to say the presidents have been using
that. The incoming Democratic House of Representatives is looking at
changing that.
Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) says one of his biggest concerns is the blank
check war-making power presidents have had since the AUMF. He said that
when he voted for it “I never would’ve imagined that the president could use it as a sort of a get-out-of-jail-free card.”
Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-WI) concurred, saying it is “constitutionally
absurd” that US wars are still operating on the 9/“ AUMF, saying that
the Constitution gives presidents wide latitude, but that “it is long
past time” for Congress to revisit the issue.
Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) was quick to note he’d been trying to offer
amendments to limit the wars for years, and that the
Republican-dominated Rules Committee “has routinely denied” them.
McGovern is going to be the new chair of the Rules Committee in January,
and says he expects there will be efforts to force a new AUMF with more
constraints and well-defined authorizations.
That’s an issue many in Congress have talked about for years. The 2001
AUMF is incredibly vague, and when President Obama proposed a
replacement late in his second term, he bragged the replacement was
itself so vague that it would leave him unconstrained. That admission
killed the Obama proposal, but Congress never got around to an
alternative, real AUMF.
Any AUMF would be a highly contentious issue, as presidents have
consistently resisted anything limiting them at all, and there have
historically been enough hawks in the leadership to kill the issue.
This may be an optimum time, with the Democrat leadership eager to
contest Trump, and the 2020 election far enough away now that there will
be fewer calls to defer the issue until after the next vote, something
that’s killed previous proposals throughout the decade.
1. Unless and until the “Dems” stop taking money from the military-industrial complex ~ along with the petro-financial web, the techno-infotainment matrix, the guns n drugs cartel, and the surveillance/secrecy/security/safety panopticon ~ this is all just more of the same old meaningless noise.
2. Isn’t it interesting that none of these folks [or any of their predecessors] thought about this when their boy Obama was at the helm, and they were at the front of the line at the trough?
My thought also on obomber
“when their boy Obama was at the helm”
The AUMF was authorized under DUBYA’s administration.
My gut tells me this is all about Zionism!!!
Since when do we assume that Republicans will always be thrilled about every opportunity to send other Americans to war, and that it’s up to the Dems who seem somewhat less inclined to warmongering to fight the elephants in the room while wearing straitjackets? What we really need is to nix the partisan shell games… no gerrymandering, no unlimited political donations, and no “partial government shutdowns.”
If we ever need a government at all, every second it should either be fully operating or entirely shuttered. If we truly must go to war, they must be declared and subject to checks-and-balances. Where is the outrage that US troops in Syria were violating US law (War Powers Act), international law (no UN resolution) and Syria law (no permission to operate in the country)? I guess the rules only exist to bludgeon the weak with.
“Since when do we assume that Republicans will always be thrilled about every opportunity to send other Americans to war?”….because, that is precisely what they have done since McGovern. If Republicans voted like dems, there would have been no gulf war 1, or 2. With no gulf war 1, likely, there would have been no 9/11, and no war on terror. Check the congressional arithmetic.
What does the congressional vote have to do with anything? The AUMF is trying to make the congressional vote relevant.
“have to do with anything”..well, that is what some members of congress are trying to do here, reaffirm their responsibility for war authorization. The authorization for air strikes in Libya was indeed corrupt, a stew of war on terror, NATO, and UN “human rights” bs. In as much as trump supporters hang on to any of his random thoughts concerning ending wars, tho nothing happens, Obama did say in early 2016 that he wished to close out the war on terror authorization, and again, nothing.
Trump is trying to survive the efforts to topple him by the warmongering media/political establishment.
“Trying to survive” how ? By giving them everything they want since day one ? The troops trump “says” he is withdrawing from Syria and Afghanistan are troops he personally ordered in upon inauguration. If you lend me $10, then 2 years later, I pay you back, gonna call me generous ? Trump as victim is a dodge, and distraction.
Don’t recall a congressional vote on Libya or Ukraine approving of Cankles’ State Department getting us involved in both initially.
Makes sense. Surely there’s some possible way that could change. What on earth is the threat and reward the GOP uses to maintain that party unity?
My theory, the US has historically been a militant society, those voters that embrace this militancy will go with the party that delivers. The failure and devastation wrought by US wars in the ME since Carter is getting harder for even the most militant in the US to ignore. A good example of the horrible nature of US militancy is the post Iraq war 1 rhetoric that the “stigma of Vietnam” is over. Cripes, I can’t figure out what that even means.
I think what they mean is that if we attack decisively, especially with a broad coalition, we can win quickly with very few casualties. To them, Iraqi and civilian casualties, environmental destruction, and routine but tremendous military spending aren’t important to take seriously. And even if they were right, we’ve had enough quagmires since then to restore some kind of stigma, although a draft and real media coverage was the biggest factor in Vietnam.
Of course you describe exactly, Gulf War 1, even to Bush 1s “end of the stigma of Vietnam” rhetoric. Kinda left out the war crimes tho.
Here is a look at how the United States is putting a mechanism in place that will increase its ability to sell arms around the world:
https://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2018/11/american-international-arms-sales-and.html
The hawks in Washington need not worry, there will be plenty of war to go around.
Are they kidding? This AUMF is handy for everyone – Dems can go along with a Rep military action without getting their skirts dirty and vice versa. Does anybody expect the Dems (or Reps) to actually vote against some killing of Muslims that the Israelis want, and having someone from AIPAC taking notes? In DC, money talks and integrity walks.
Yeah they love to throw that “warmonger” football around, meanwhile, people get blown up regardless of who is president. My Cousin Vinny captured it nicely: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pp2XgymiTG8
And besides, people equating pulling the “Combat Troops” out with “pulling out of Syria” is like Comcast saying they’re pulling out of DC by closing a call center.
Funny how Congress sits up and takes notice only AFTER the President wants to pull out of Syria. Why now?
Actually, it’s the other way around. The Senate brought AUMF to a successful discussion challenge ahead of trumps announcement. Likewise, the GOP leadership had to do some procedural nonsense to silence the bill temporarily in the house. So, no, trump is not leading this change but following.
The AUMF would have done not one thing on getting our troops out of Syria – just look at the criticism of it by the naysayers.
Until Congress reaffirms war powers, saying it wont work is not tenable. What do you see as an alternative? Federal courts wash their hands, presidents use the power ceded by congress, antiwar voters are a minority.
It’s probably a tool to make sure a President can’t withdraw military forces from areas the warmongering Congress put them in.
Exactly. It’s bizarro world: Congress limiting the war power act in order to pursue war.
Those in Congress whose party isn’t in the White House always masquerade themselves as peace-makers. Most Presidential CANDIDATES do too, until they get in office/power.
When, exactly, has the GOP ever “masqueraded as peacemakers” ?
This is a joke, right? We finally have a president who, so far, has not started any new wars and, in fact, is winding down two — and now the Dems, who have voted for every war, are going to limit the president’s war power? We already have a Constitution for that — maybe the delusional Dems ought to read it.
Where could trump start a new war, if he wanted one ? Trump escalated US involvement in Syria, and has only committed to removing troops he put there. The end of air strikes remains to be seen. I am afraid your knowledge of congressional war votes, is just plain wrong.
“Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-WI) concurred, saying it is “constitutionally
absurd” that US wars are still operating on the 9/“ AUMF, saying that
the Constitution gives presidents wide latitude, but that “it is long
past time” for Congress to revisit the issue.”
This statement is as absurd as its maker. The Constitution provides no “wide powers” for the president to engage in wars no matter what bills have been passed. In fact, all of these bills are unconstitutional themselves since none of them have amended the Constitution to allow for the passage of such bills.
The president can only engage in war if authorized by Congress and the Congress has abdicated such powers for the benefit of violence prone presidents ever since the Korean War. This doesn’t make any such act Constitutional. In fact all such acts have been the work of treasonous persons who have worked to continually violate the US Constitution in such a manner since there is a lot of money involved..
Here is a link that discusses the ability of a president to initiate hostilities, which as a reader will find, is limited to only repelling actual invasions.
>>>
https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/49/declare-war
<<< Politicians should actually read the Constitution before making such statements on it...
Yes, and they should read the Aumf’s they are voting on also. In both the war on terror, and gulf war 2 authorizations, congress outlined the case for war, yet gave the trigger to the president. No, the only trigger the executive gets, is the ability to defend when attacked. Giving the “determination” to the president, is illegal.
Don’t worry if any Prsident wants war on trumped up or outright lies, they’ll get it from Congress. See: Gulf of Tonkin, the Maine, and “in the form of a mushroom cloud”./
Great.
Too bad they did not do this to Dubya, when he actually did what they fear Trump might do.
Too bad they let Hillary do Libya, Syria, and Ukraine the same ways, all in the name of Obama (who was never the hawk she is).
Belated. Also projecting onto Trump things he has not done (yet anyway) from things that were actually done to awful and repeated effect by both establishment parties that are so outraged at him.
and then in the next complaining statement, they utter the disbelief when Trump says “Wouldn’t getting along with Russia be better.”
We should all hope they not only limit the presidents public powers of war-making but that of all the covert agency type that is done off the record as well.
I don’t care if you Support Trump or not, the same lessons apply. If you don’t limit Trump then the next guy has the power. No matter who your president is or why you support them or don’t support them or whatever, it’s always a good time to limit their power.
One more time.
There is NEVER a bad time to limit the presidents power, just like there is never a bad time for a president to end an unconstitutional war.
And sure we can point out that it’s hypocritical but to me that’s just an added bonus. I like it when their hypocrisy is open to see, It’s not like they are really fooling anyone who doesn’t want to be fooled with this one. And besides who cares if they need to safe face to do the right thing, that’s pretty much always the case, all the time, for every politician, throughout all of history.
I have actually been complaining for some time now that all congress has done is tied Trump’s hands when it comes to making peace and that is a FACT. They continue to demand that they can force him to impose sanctions.
Now they want to tie his hands when it comes to making war and tie the hands of future presidents? That’s a step up from tying him to endless war so it’s cool With me.
Agreed, the war on terror resolution is a totalitarian nightmare. It essentially means this, if a president wakes up and gets the notion some people rented a room to some “al Qaeda” in London, he can nuke it. No oversight, no evidence required. That congress reasserts its responsibility in war powers, is only an improvement over what exists now.