Endless War: Top Obama Lawyers Tell Congress the President Can Do Anything In War On Terrorists

[xchrom]

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/endless-war-top-obama-lawyers-tell-congress-president-can-do-anything-war-terrorists




President Obama has all the authority he needs to fight terrorists overseas, top lawyers for the Pentagon and State Department told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Wednesday, in a contentious hearing over whether Congress’ authorization to use force after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks was still needed—or even relevant.

AUMF—the Authorization To Use Military Force passed by Congress three days after the 9/11 attacks—gave then-President George W. Bush unlimited authority to go after foreign terrorists. Candidate Obama criticized that power as excessive in 2008, and has frequently said during his tenure that it was time to move on from that wartime footing. But when top lawyers at the Departments of Defense and State were asked about AUMF and the president’s war-making authorities on Wednesday, they did not budge, refusing to declare that AUMF should be repealed.

Moreover, under pointed questioning by Democrats and Republicans, they said even if AUMF were repealed the president still had legal authority to go after anyone he deems to be a terrorist threat. It might be that other laws would be cited to justify that operation, said Department of Defense General Counsel Stephen Preston and State Department Deputy Legal Advisor Mary McLeod. Both left no doubt that the president could do whatever he wants.

“Are there groups today that the administration cannot go against because the AUMF does not allow you?” asked a flustered Sen. Bob Corker, R-TN, the ranking Republican.

“I am not aware of any foreign terrorist group that presents the threat of violent attack against this country that the president lacks the authority to use military force to defend against, as necessary, simply because they have not been determined to be an associated force within the AUMF,” Preston replied. “The president does have the authority.”

[jberryhill]

1. Headline is backwards

Congress passed the AUMF, and Congress can reign it in

We are way overdue for a rethink of the War Powers Act as well. Given that significant military engagement overseas does not require the exposure of troops to "hostilities", the WPA should be given a good looking at.

This is a great dynamic because it is a perfect illustration of excessive power that was granted to one administration, without thinking of the long term use of it by an administration which is less trusted by those who supported the previous one.

In other words, if Republicans can FINALLY be concerned about excessive grants of presidential authority, that's not a bad thing.

[msanthrope]

6. True--an overhaul of the WPA would be a great thing. nt

[malaise]

2. And that is why the use of that amorphous word 'terror'

has always scored the 'shite' out of me.
What exactly is terrorism - anything America says????

[Adrahil]

3. The headline is misleading.

I followed this pretty closely. The admin is arguing that there is no need for the AUMF and the corresponding official full-time war footing, because the President has the Constitutional authority to act when the United States is threatened (which he does). But getting off this permanent ear footing is a GOOD. Thing.

[liberal N proud]

4. It really boils down to republicans figured out, power they gave bu$h now rest in a Democrats hands

And the Obama administration is telling them to take it back.

So the faux outrage by the republicans is once again over nothing! Nothing they don't have the power to resolve, but it much better to have the outrage.

[msanthrope]

5. Congress can repeal the AUMF today. Why don't they? nt