Obama Sees Iraq Resolution as a Legal Basis for Airstrikes, Official Says

[grahamhgreen]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/13/world/americas/obama-sees-iraq-resolution-as-a-legal-basis-for-airstrikes-official-says.html?_r=1

“The president may rely on the 2001 A.U.M.F. as statutory authority for the military airstrike operations he is directing” against I.S.I.S., the administration said in a written statement provided to The New York Times and attributed to a senior administration official. “As we have explained, the 2002 Iraq A.U.M.F. would serve as an alternative statutory authority basis on which the president may rely for military action in Iraq. Even so, our position on the 2002 A.U.M.F. hasn’t changed and we’d like to see it repealed.”

Congress based its authorization of the Iraq war on the government of Saddam Hussein’s supposed possession of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. The war evolved into a grinding battle against insurgents before American forces withdrew in 2011, and one of those insurgent groups was Al Qaeda in Iraq, which later renamed itself ISIS.

Legal specialists said the validity of the claim that the Iraq authorization covers ISIS will depend on whether the bombing is a resumption of the old war or the start of a new one. In June, the White House said the Iraq authorization “is no longer used for any U.S. government activities.”

Ryan Goodman, a New York University law professor, called the theory “a stretch” and “politically awkward” because, he said, it amounted to a concession that Mr. Obama “was unsuccessful in closing out the conflict.”

Not sure how that works for bombing Syria...

[Vattel]

1. Obama buys into John Yoo's stupid view

that as CIC he doesn't need the authorization of Congress here. The appeals to AUMFs are supposed to shut up those who disagree with Yoo.

[merrily]

3. Does Obama really buy into John Yoo's view? (Or Bybee's?)

In 2009, two days after taking office, President Barack Obama in Executive Order 13491 repudiated and revoked all legal guidance on interrogation authored by Yoo and his successors in the Office of Legal Counsel between September 11, 2001, and January 20, 2009.[5][6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo

[Vattel]

4. He may not accept Yoo's views on detention and interrogation. But he agrees

with Yoo that the president has the authority to create a state of war.

[merrily]

5. He cited the AUMF, not authority inherent in the Presidency.

I am not a mind reader, so I don't know what Obama believes or doesn't believe. I am just saying that I don't see any evidence that Obama agrees with Yoo.

[Vattel]

6. Recently he has cited his inherent authority. Now he is also citing AUMF.

[merrily]

7. Link? (Context and exact wording would be critical.)

If he simply said the President has the authority to take the nation to war, no one can know which source of authority he is referrring to, an AUMF, general war powers legislation, or authority inherent in the office of the Presidency, which I do not believe the Constitution confers.

If he got more specific about inherent authority to declare war, I'd be very interested to see it. I'd probably contact my Congressional Rep and my Senators about that.

As it is, I think it's unconstitutional for Congress to purport to delegate war powers to the President.

[amandabeech]

17. He and his advisers are just throwing stuff against the wall to see what will stick.

This indicates to me that they know that their case is extremely weak.

[Vattel]

20. I agree

[merrily]

2. I googled for the full text and look where I found it first.

Gotta love DU

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2017065

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

Hell, at the time, Biden claimed that it had not even authorized Dimson's invasion of Iraq because Dimson had not fulfilled all the conditions or some such. I even posted that on another board at the time; and a Republican lawyer, who hated Bush, but not as much as he hated Democrats, I guess, posted the full text of the resolution, without additional comment.

But, the AUMF against Iraq is not the only authorization to use military force of that fateful era.

Authorization for Use of Military Force may refer to:

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 1991 authorizing the Persian Gulf War, also known as Operation Desert Storm: H.R.J. Res. 77

Authorization for Use of Military Force I, also known as "Public Law No: 107–40", authorizes the use of military force against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001

Authorization for Use of Military Force II, also known as "Iraq Resolution", "Iraq War Resolution" and "Public Law No: 107-243"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force

"What was the middle one, again?"

Full text of "the middle one" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists

[grahamhgreen]

9. Still not sure how these apply to Syria....

[merrily]

12. Are you trying to think like a politician?

[grahamhgreen]

13. Like a lawyer.

[merrily]

14. You mean, actual words with actual meanings?

How unpatriotic of you. Just imagine where this country would be if everyone took words seriously.

(j/k)

[woo me with science]

8. Senator Obama in 2007:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5521719

bvar22 (34,779 posts)
20. Senator Obama, 12-20-2007

“The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” ---Senator Obama, 12-20-2007

President Obama in June 2014:

I believe that a world of greater freedom and tolerance is not only a moral imperative; it also helps keep us safe. But to say that we have an interest in pursuing peace and freedom beyond our borders is not to say that every problem has a military solution. Since World War II, some of our most costly mistakes came not from our restraint but from our willingness to rush into military adventures without thinking through the consequences, without building international support and legitimacy for our action, without leveling with the American people about the sacrifices required. Tough talk often draws headlines, but war rarely conforms to slogans.

Additionally, the president promised the West Point grads that he would not send them "into harm’s way simply because I saw a problem somewhere in the world that needed to be fixed, or because I was worried about critics who think military intervention is the only way for America to avoid looking weak. ... America must always lead on the world stage ... but U.S. military action cannot be the only—or even primary—component of our leadership in every instance. Just because we have the best hammer does not mean that every problem is a nail."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/01/1302900/-Obama-Doctrine-Just-because-we-have-the-best-hammer-does-not-mean-that-every-problem-is-a-nail

It was even called the "Obama Doctrine" by some pundits, to distinguish it from the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war. And yet here we are again.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. Obviously, that Obama guy was a Fringe Leftist who hated America.

Or, the current Obama's evil twin.

[MisterP]

15. I am actually worried what'll happen to the Premies on this board come Jan. 2017

if He ever breathes one word against President Jane Harman--just one word

[merrily]

11. I'd really like to know where in the Constitution he sees the ability of the

President to start any war without a Congressional vote.

This is 2014. They don't need to ride a horse from Maine to Washington D.C. to vote. They can use the internet.

But when they did have to ride a horse, the Constitution still said they needed to vote.

I guess "imminent" is subject to interpretation. Isn't everything?

[tritsofme]

16. Both the 2001 and 2003 AUMFs remain the law of the land

And they give Obama sufficient authority to take action against ISIL.

The 2001 resolution is very broad, and does empower the president to act in Syria.

[grahamhgreen]

18. Could you be so kind as to send me the quote or section that authorizes it?

[tritsofme]

19. Interesting

You drove me to do some research. I was not aware of the Al-Qeada/ISIL split and the implications it has for the 2001 AUMF, and I see now the administration stands on pretty shaky ground for prolonged conflict in Syria.

For what it's worth, here is the administration's argument: "Based on ISIL’s longstanding relationship with al-Qa’ida (AQ) and Usama bin Laden; its long history of conducting, and continued desire to conduct, attacks against U.S. persons and interests, the extensive history of U.S. combat operations against Isil dating back to the time the group first affiliated with AQ in 2004; and Isil’s position - supported by some individual members and factions of AQ-aligned groups - that it is the true inheritor of Usama bin Laden’s legacy, the President may rely on the 2001 AUMF as statutory authority for the use of force against Isil, notwithstanding the recent public split between AQ’s senior leadership and Isil."

[grahamhgreen]

21. So, if the action turns into a disaster, a Republican Congress could potentially lay the whole

thing on Obama, and hang him out to dry.....?