Obama Wants No Turf Limits????

[mother earth]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2015/02/11/obama-asks-congress-for-war-go-ahead.ht

Obama Wants No Turf Limit on ISIS War

President Obama has sent Congress draft legislation for authorizing the use of military force against ISIS. He has asked for it to be limited to three years, but with no geographic restriction on where the threat may be pursued. The legislation mentioned the deaths of James Foley, Steven Sotloff, and Kayla Mueller. In a letter accompanying the draft, Obama wrote, “Local forces, rather than U.S. military forces, should be deployed to conduct such operations.” His letter also states, “The authorization I propose would provide the flexibility to conduct ground combat operations in other, more limited circumstances, such as rescue operations involving U.S. or coalition personnel or the use of special-operations forces to take military action against ISIL leadership.”

---------------------

As if we all haven't had enough of the MIC machine, do we really need another war with no restrictions, no turf restrictions, and it will not be fought by US military forces? But by "local forces"....who exactly will the US be paying to fight, are the local forces middle easterners or mercernaries? More "war time" authority...terrorism...churning out billions to the MIC, and the mercenaries...neverending war...neverending war time authority for unprecedented powers that began with 9/11/2001.

Who is the enemy? Who is IS-IL? And how do we tell who is who these days when mercenaries are fighting wars and stirring up trouble to incite wars, psy-ops and terrorism...huge paychecks for mercenaries with no allegiance to country.

[dilby]

1. Must be nice to be able to drop bombs from Drones in any country we want. n/t

[mother earth]

4. Though I doubt only drones will be in on this one, which seems an incredible request to declare

war with no boundary? It boggles the mind, and with a GOP majority, he may just get it...
leaving the bigger question...when do we the people actually come into the equation when everyone and everything
has been bought & paid for by a l% who shape the world and opinion to deal with issues at taxpayer expense.

With a corporate welfare state, we the people, are footing the bill for this farce of fighting terrorism with a faceless enemy, and we are
using faceless entities to fight it....talk about getting scammed.

I urge everyone to find VICE's episode on mercenaries and the new face of war for the age of terrorism.
We foot the bill while profits are made, but who is really the enemy?

[hughee99]

2. This actually works out pretty well for him. He'd have 2 years to get us into a war and leave his

successor only 1 year to get us out. Either that or his successor must go for a re-authorization in which case it will become his successor's war, not "Obama's war".

[Avalux]

3. We just keep going further down the rabbit hole....Oceana, Eurasia and Eastasia anyone? n/t

[leveymg]

5. US knows exactly who signs "huge paychecks for mercenaries," and who ISIS is. We could cutoff

funding for ISIS tomorrow, if we took action to arrest the powerful Saudi, Emirate and Qatari royals who have been writing checks for "wars, psy-ops and terrorism" going back to the mid-1970s.

For the history of the origins of the CIA's peculiar relationship with Saudi intelligence and the creation of modern Jihadi militias goes back to a 1976 arrangement -- actually a package of covert agreements -- made by then CIA Director G.H.W. Bush and then Co-Director of Saudi GID, Prince Turki al Faisal. BCCI was created as the funding vehicle for this joint intelligence operation, called the Safari Club. In addition to bank takeovers, BCCI funded A.Q. Khan's nuclear proliferation program to build the Islamic atomic bomb and the develpment of a global Jihadist paramilitary, programs managed by Pakistani ISI intelligence. http://journals.democraticunderground.com/leveymg/280

[mother earth]

14. You bet, it's all corruption under the cover of secrecy via nat'l security for sure. nt

[HereSince1628]

6. So, could such a thing authorize US/coalition or Special Ops activities within the US?

Supposedly ISIS/ISIL/IS recruits within the US. Would suspicions of that be enough to authorize surveillance and could that surveillance be acted upon with military force?

What's the potential reach of such an authorization?

Is this the final gambit in the War to End All Boundaries on War?

[leveymg]

7. Hasn't that already happened with universal surveillance and militarization of policing?

Rarely does the government declare it's going to move such boundaries before the mechanisms and procedures are already in place, and the public conditioned to accept them as normal and necessary.

It's 1984 plus 31.

[mother earth]

9. Yes, right before our very eyes, FEAR, FEAR, FEAR, and the great transition of what once was...

[HereSince1628]

10. We haven't seen special ops troops in our hoods, AFAIK

But couldn't this allow prisoners taken to be handled by military rules rather than civil law?

As you say there's a lot of equipment present. That makes clear ID sort of rhetorical.

But if we are authorizing the federal government to operate outside civil law within US borders, I think we could be turning a corner.

[leveymg]

12. Militarized police with SpecOps armoured vehicles and automatic weapons. No real difference.

We just saw it in Ferguson and during the 2013 lockdown of the Watertown suburb of Boston. This has already become the "new normal."

[HereSince1628]

13. Subjecting detainees to rules of war or military justice would make a difference

at least I think it kinda, sorta could, at least in Wisconsin.

[mother earth]

8. If there are no turf boundaries it leaves it open ended, doesn't it? No doubt more info is

needed, but why even attempt such carte blanche? It's too much, a Pandora's box of unprecedented power that should not be granted under the best info available. We have been lied to and manipulated into war before...that lesson should answer all doubts.

[HereSince1628]

11. Unfortunately, truth has been stretched enough to make me very leery

It's one thing to have a trusted leader have such power. It's another thing to be authorizing it into a future with an unknown POTUS.

Imagine a lame brain like Scott Walker with that power and a military leader like a James Matton Scott?

It could be a real...who are you betting on in the Preakness?