HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Here's Obama's ISIL joint...

Fri Feb 13, 2015, 10:28 PM

Here's Obama's ISIL joint resolution. What do you think?


Hey, it repeals the 2002 Iraq war thing Hillary voted for!

And runs out after 3 years!

Chance of passing as is? 0%


JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the limited use of the United States Armed Forces against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.
***
Whereas the terrorist organization that has referred to itself as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and various other names (in this resolution referred to as ‘‘ISIL’’) poses a grave threat to the people and territorial integrity of Iraq and Syria, regional stability, and the national security interests of the United States and its allies and partners;
Whereas ISIL holds significant territory in Iraq and Syria and has stated its intention to seize more territory and demonstrated the capability to do so;
Whereas ISIL leaders have stated that they intend to conduct terrorist attacks internationally, including against the United States, its citizens, and interests;
Whereas ISIL has committed despicable acts of violence and mass executions against Muslims, regardless of sect, who do not subscribe to ISIL’s depraved, violent, and oppressive ideology;
Whereas ISIL has threatened genocide and committed vicious acts of violence against religious and ethnic minority groups, including Iraqi Christian, Yezidi, and Turkmen populations;
Whereas ISIL has targeted innocent women and girls with horrific acts of violence, including abduction, enslavement, torture, rape, and forced marriage;
Whereas ISIL is responsible for the deaths of innocent United States citizens, including James Foley, Steven Sotloff, Abdul-Rahman Peter Kassig, and Kayla Mueller;
Whereas the United States is working with regional and global allies and partners to degrade and defeat ISIL, to cut off its funding, to stop the flow of foreign fighters to its ranks, and to support local communities as they reject ISIL;
Whereas the announcement of the anti-ISIL Coalition on September 5, 2014, during the NATO Summit in Wales, stated that ISIL poses a serious threat and should be countered by a broad international coalition;
Whereas the United States calls on its allies and partners, particularly in the Middle East and North Africa, that have not already done so to join and participate in the anti-ISIL Coalition;
Whereas the United States has taken military action against ISIL in accordance with its inherent right of individual and collective self-defense;
2
Whereas President Obama has repeatedly expressed his commitment to working with Congress to pass a bipartisan authorization for the use of military force for the anti-ISIL military campaign; and
Whereas President Obama has made clear that in this campaign it is more effective to use our unique capabilities in support of partners on the ground instead of large-scale deployments of U.S. ground forces: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the “Authorization for Use of Military Force against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.”
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized, subject to the limitations in subsection (c), to use the Armed Forces of the United States as the President determines to be necessary and appropriate against ISIL or associated persons or forces as defined in section 5.
(b) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.—
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.—Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1547(a)(1)), Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544(b)).
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.—Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1541 et seq.).
(c) LIMITATIONS.—
The authority granted in subsection (a) does not authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces in enduring offensive ground combat operations.
SEC. 3. DURATION OF THIS AUTHORIZATION.
This authorization for the use of military force shall terminate three years after the date of the enactment of this joint resolution, unless reauthorized.
SEC. 4. REPORTS.
3
The President shall report to Congress at least once every six months on specific actions taken pursuant to this authorization.
SEC. 5. ASSOCIATED PERSONS OR FORCES DEFINED.
In this joint resolution, the term ‘‘associated persons or forces’’ means individuals and organizations fighting for, on behalf of, or alongside ISIL or any closely-related successor entity in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.
SEC. 6. REPEAL OF AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ.
The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107–243; 116 Stat. 1498; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) is hereby repealed.

8 replies, 1036 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Fri Feb 13, 2015, 10:40 PM

1. It is very clear action will need to be taken, having many countries joining in the coordinated

Action would be great. This group of barbarians will probably need to be annihilated to halt their attacks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Fri Feb 13, 2015, 10:40 PM

2. Here's the PDF from the White House. It's a little more readable in the original format -

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinto (Reply #2)

Fri Feb 13, 2015, 10:56 PM

6. Thanks, pinto!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Fri Feb 13, 2015, 10:42 PM

3. I support section 6.

 

Not terribly keen on the rest of it. Wrong approach, in my opinion. We should provide military support to kurdish and shiiite forces in the region instead of directly fighting isis. That would of course mean bringing to an end our misadventure in syria.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Fri Feb 13, 2015, 10:45 PM

4. What does "enduring offensive ground combat operations" mean?

Enduring means more than a few days? A few weeks? A few months?


It doesn't really matter though. This all seems like a political play to get the Repubs to shit or get off the pot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #4)

Fri Feb 13, 2015, 11:09 PM

7. That is why the Constitution gave the right to declare war to Congress - so that a President (one

person) would not have to take the blame. And it is also why this Congress wants to give him more powers than he wants. So that they can say "well we handed it over to him and it is his fault that it did not go right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Fri Feb 13, 2015, 10:55 PM

5. What could possibly go wrong? And what could possibly go right? I like Section 6, though.

Last edited Fri Feb 13, 2015, 11:50 PM - Edit history (1)

ETA: I look forward to the day when this AUMF is finally allowed to expire without renewal--though I don't know if that will happen in 3 years or 13--and I look forward to the day when, as a nation and a species, we finally reject all violence and murder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Fri Feb 13, 2015, 11:54 PM

8. it sucks

 

We don't need more war. Every time we get into one it turns into a massive clusterfuck.

Obama hasn't even wrapped up Afghanistan, a war which was already way too long in the tooth when he took over. Doesn't look like he's going to, either.

Libya is an indescribably huge mess, which we invaded and destroyed why exactly? Because chaos and civil war is better for us than Gadafi was?

So today we're all asking why the fuck are we in Afghanistan, why the fuck did we go into Libya, wtf is going on in Iraq and Yemen, and so on and so forth down the line of the failures of the "Global War on Terror", and we really should be asking what positive outcome, if any, can reasonably be expected from handing open-ended global war authorization to the next President who is at this time more likely than not to be a warmonger on behalf of the 1%ers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread