White House Explores How to Make 'War on Terror' Policies 'Permanent'

[jsr]

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/03/07-8

White House Explores How to Make 'War on Terror' Policies 'Permanent'
- Jon Queally, staff writer

Though the Authorization for Use of Military Force—a joint resolution passed in the days following the 9/11 attacks—has been repeatedly reauthorized by Congress, officials inside the White House reveal that the Obama administration is having specific conversations about how to both expand the law's authority and make certain aspects of the US "global war on terror" permanent.

Known as the AUMF and considered the piece of legislation most responsible for the ongoing and seemingly endless use of military force abroad, new reporting by the Washington Post examines how even government insiders supportive of the ongoing military operations say the law is being "stretched to its legal limits."

Motivated by those concerns—and perhaps due to the mounting public and congressional opposition to Obama's use of predator drones and claims of executive authority—the administration is now debating how to "turn counterterrorism policies adopted as emergency measures after the 2001 attacks into more permanent procedures" that can sustain its desire to continue the military "campaign against al-Qaeda and its affiliates" and, as the Post vaguely reports, "other current and future threats."

Despite the passage of time and an increasingly war-weary public, however, the 'War on Terror' endures precisely because of the open-ended nature of the hastily written law. As the Post explains: ...

[Catherina]

1. How positively Orwellian

Take a deep breath and enjoy that fresh smell of hope and change.

[choie]

2. oh, but some on this board

say that "Common Dreams" is an anti-Obama conspiratorialist website...so this must not be (please note sarcasm)

[ProSense]

3. Actually,

"White House Explores How to Make 'War on Terror' Policies 'Permanent' "

...it seems the WaPo is trying to push a perspective with its frame, but buried at the end of the article:

<...>

Some options beyond the 2001 authorization are problematic for Obama. For instance, he has been reluctant to rely on his constitutional authority to use military force to protect the country, which bypasses Congress and might expose him to criticism for abuse of executive power.

Working with Congress to update the AUMF is another option. The Senate Intelligence Committee has already begun considering ways to accomplish that. But Obama, who has claimed credit for winding down two wars, is seen as reluctant to have the legislative expansion of another be added to his legacy.

“This is an ongoing discussion, which we’ll probably continue to engage on the Hill,” the senior administration official said. “But I don’t know that there’s a giant desire to have ‘Son of AUMF’ now.”

People who want to believe the frame will push the MSM spin and ignore that part of the article.

[markpkessinger]

4. "Keeping Fear Alive" . . .

. . . what an utterly depressing concept.