Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)
 

grahamhgreen

(15,741 posts)
Sun Sep 14, 2014, 07:11 AM Sep 2014

Obama Sees Iraq Resolution as a Legal Basis for Airstrikes, Official Says [View all]

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 Even so, our position on the 2002 A.U.M.F. hasn’t changed and we’d like to see it repealed.”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...
21 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Obama buys into John Yoo's stupid view Vattel Sep 2014 #1
Does Obama really buy into John Yoo's view? (Or Bybee's?) merrily Sep 2014 #3
He may not accept Yoo's views on detention and interrogation. But he agrees Vattel Sep 2014 #4
He cited the AUMF, not authority inherent in the Presidency. merrily Sep 2014 #5
Recently he has cited his inherent authority. Now he is also citing AUMF. Vattel Sep 2014 #6
Link? (Context and exact wording would be critical.) merrily Sep 2014 #7
He and his advisers are just throwing stuff against the wall to see what will stick. amandabeech Sep 2014 #17
I agree Vattel Sep 2014 #20
I googled for the full text and look where I found it first. merrily Sep 2014 #2
Still not sure how these apply to Syria.... grahamhgreen Sep 2014 #9
Are you trying to think like a politician? merrily Sep 2014 #12
Like a lawyer. grahamhgreen Sep 2014 #13
You mean, actual words with actual meanings? merrily Sep 2014 #14
Senator Obama in 2007: woo me with science Sep 2014 #8
Obviously, that Obama guy was a Fringe Leftist who hated America. Tierra_y_Libertad Sep 2014 #10
I am actually worried what'll happen to the Premies on this board come Jan. 2017 MisterP Sep 2014 #15
I'd really like to know where in the Constitution he sees the ability of the merrily Sep 2014 #11
Both the 2001 and 2003 AUMFs remain the law of the land tritsofme Sep 2014 #16
Could you be so kind as to send me the quote or section that authorizes it? grahamhgreen Sep 2014 #18
Interesting tritsofme Sep 2014 #19
So, if the action turns into a disaster, a Republican Congress could potentially lay the whole grahamhgreen Sep 2014 #21
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Obama Sees Iraq Resolutio...