Authorization for Use of Military Force: A Blank Check For War Without End

[Purveyor]

By Michael Shank, The Guardian
Sunday, May 5, 2013 9:20 EDT

A handful of Democratic and Republican senators are considering a rewrite of 60 of the most consequential words to ever pass through Congress. The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), passed after the attacks of 11 September 2001, and provides the legal cornerstone for the so-called US “war on terror”. Only one brave Congress member opposed it. It allows the US government to wage war at anytime, any place and on anyone deemed a threat to national security – with remarkably little evidence needed.

The consequential nature of these words is self-evident: the AUMF opened the doors to the US wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya; attacks on Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Mali; the new drone bases in Niger and Djibouti; and the killing of American citizens, notably Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16-year-old noncombatant son. It is what now emboldens the hawks on the warpath to Syria, Iran and North Korea.

Rather than doubling down on war policy, as some senators are inclined to do, Congress should repeal the 2001 law. This “blank check” approach to warfare has to stop. And while the rewrite is being framed by members of both chambers (Senators John McCain and Bob Corker, Representative Buck McKeon and others) as an act of congressional oversight, it is doubtful that these hawks will curb any military authority. They have only ever called for more wars, not fewer. That means more Libyas, Yemens and al-Awlaki‘s.

It is time for members of Congress who truly care about rule of law, oversight and the financial security of this country to speak up. Why? Because, first and foremost, the AUMF continues to contravene congressional oversight. For example, when the Obama administration sent 100 “military advisors” to Uganda in the name of counterterrorism in 2011, Congress received a simple note from President Obama. No oversight.

More recently, after unilaterally negotiating a “status of forces” agreement with Niger, the administration sent a note to Congress saying that it was sending 100 troops to the country. This week, we sent troops to Mali. Again, no oversight.

MORE...

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/05/authorization-for-use-of-military-force-a-blank-check-for-war-without-end/

[redqueen]

1. K&R

[pscot]

2. It takes 60 Senate votes

plus a majority of the drooling mouth breathers in the People'sHouse.

[msongs]

3. 60 senate votes only because Harry Reid is majority leader nt

[rhett o rick]

5. Please expand. Doesnt the AUMF allow the president to start a war w/o Congress?

For a specified period of time? I forget, like 30 or 60 days?

[pscot]

6. And changing or withdrawing the AUMF

as suggested in th OP, will take 60 Senate votes and a majority of the Republican controlled Hpouse.

[rhett o rick]

7. I understand. Forgive my slowness.

By the way do you think the AUFM is Constitutional?

[pscot]

9. No worries, mate.

I'm pretty sure the men who wrote the constitution would be appalled and disgusted. It seems like the opposite of what they had in mind. The Supremes seem to be OK with it.

[rhett o rick]

4. I think the AUMF is unConstitutional. Congress cant abrogate an authority vested in them

by the fucking Constitution. I am sure dick-head Roberts would disagree with me. The Unitarian Executive and all.

[KoKo]

8. Recommend