Obama calls on Congress to repeal the Bush-Cheney AUMF (military authorization)

[ucrdem]

Source: TPM

From today's Counterterrorism speech:

And that is why I intend to engage Congress about the existing Authorization to Use Military Force, or AUMF, to determine how we can continue to fight terrorists without keeping America on a perpetual war-time footing.

The AUMF is now nearly twelve years old. The Afghan War is coming to an end. Core al Qaeda is a shell of its former self. Groups like AQAP must be dealt with, but in the years to come, not every collection of thugs that labels themselves al Qaeda will pose a credible threat to the United States. Unless we discipline our thinking and our actions, we may be drawn into more wars we don’t need to fight, or continue to grant Presidents unbound powers more suited for traditional armed conflicts between nation states.

So I look forward to engaging Congress and the American people in efforts to refine, and ultimately repeal, the AUMF’s mandate. And I will not sign laws designed to expand this mandate further. Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue. But this war, like all wars, must end. That’s what history advises. That’s what our democracy demands.

Read more: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/read-transcript-of-obamas-speech-on-counterterrorism-policy

---

Pretty damn good news

[The Magistrate]

1. This Line, Sir, Made Me Give A Small Cheer...

[ucrdem]

5. Well, there's nothing particularly to stop him from trying

that I can see anyway, and with this Congress who knows what's going on their FOX-filled heads. They might be glad to take it away from him.

But I think Gitmo is where we're really going to see some action.

[snappyturtle]

14. I was thrilled to hear this. So thrilled that I called the WH and told them so! nt

John Nichols has urged this for a long time. Now, if we could get
habeas corpus????? Like to see the undoing of some of the harm
brought to the nation via bush/cheney.

[Cha]

18. thanks for calling the WH, snappy! n/m

[darkangel218]

2. The Congress wont pass it.

Repukes are too blood thirsty.

[ucrdem]

3. We'll see I guess.

How many of their constituents are still crazy after all these years? Hopefully not that many.

[Iliyah]

4. Making Congress work for

their tax payers salary and benefits, unheard of. Hell they rather vote to repeal Obamacare, take Keystone decision away from the President of the United States, fight over Americans don't deserve monetary help after a disaster b/c its was Pres O's fault anywho or the gays, BENGHAZIIIIIIIIIIIIII, IRS, effing over our precious corporate news media ya the ones who don't report the news.

[Sunlei]

6. such a great longgspeech, we have to see if congress will act. watch again at this link

even a heckler a womans voice for a longtime,, couldn't hear what she said but President Obama did.

link to all the Presidents remarks, past and present- http://www.whitehouse.gov/live http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room

[ucrdem]

8. Yeah what was up with that?

I'm hoping it turns out to have been a certain Minnesota teabagger

[BadtotheboneBob]

10. Ask Medea Benjamin...

seems that she had something that she wanted the POTUS to hear.

[grantcart]

15. link to story on the hecker

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/23/obama-guantanamo-bay-prison-counterterrorism-speech/2355395/

[rhett o rick]

7. This is good news. I know the conservatives wont go for it but it warms my heart

that he is at least trying.

[ucrdem]

9. I think it is.

I think these are projects he felt he couldn't push too hard on last term because he had to worry about 2012. Dunno if he was right but I suspect he was. But now's he got a little more leverage although he's still got to think about 2014, and he is, from the dates I heard him mention today.

[OnyxCollie]

11. And yet...

"Astoundingly Disturbing": Obama Administration Claims Power to Wage Endless War Across the Globe
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/5/17/astoundingly_disturbing_obama_administration_claims_power

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: A Pentagon official predicted Thursday the war against al-Qaeda and its affiliates could last up to 20 more years. The comment came during a Senate hearing revisiting the Authorization for Use of Military Force, or AUMF, enacted by Congress days after the [ 2001 ] attacks. At the hearing, Pentagon officials claimed the AUMF gives the president power to wage endless war anywhere on the globe. Senator Angus King, an independent from Maine, described the hearing as the most, quote, "astoundingly disturbing" one he had been to since taking office earlier this year. King accused Obama administration of rewriting the Constitution.

~snip~

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: Do you agree with me, the war against radical Islam, or terror, whatever description you like to provide, will go on after the second term of President Obama?

MICHAEL SHEEHAN: Senator, in my judgment, this is going to go on for quite a while, and, yes, beyond the second term of the president.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: And beyond this term of Congress?

MICHAEL SHEEHAN: Yes, sir. I think it’s at least 10 to 20 years.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: So, from your point of view, you have all of the authorization and legal authorities necessary to conduct a drone strike against terrorist organizations in Yemen without changing the AUMF.

MICHAEL SHEEHAN: Yes, sir, I do believe that.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: You agree with that, General?

BRIG. GEN. RICHARD GROSS: I do, sir.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: General, do you agree with that?

GEN. MICHAEL NAGATA: I do, sir.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: OK. Could we send military members into Yemen to strike against one of these organizations? Does the president have that authority to put boots on the ground in Yemen?

ROBERT TAYLOR: As I mentioned before, there’s domestic authority and international law authority. At the moment, the basis for putting boots on the ground in Yemen, we respect the sovereignty of Yemen, and it would—

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about: Does he have the legal authority under our law to do that?

ROBERT TAYLOR: Under domestic authority, he would have that authority.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: I hope that Congress is OK with that. I’m OK with that. Does he have authority to put boots on the ground in the Congo?

MICHAEL SHEEHAN: Yes, sir, he does.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: OK. Do you agree with me that when it comes to international terrorism, we’re talking about a worldwide struggle?

MICHAEL SHEEHAN: Absolutely, sir. [inaudible]

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: Would you agree with me the battlefield is wherever the enemy chooses to make it?

MICHAEL SHEEHAN: Yes, sir, from Boston to the FATA.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: I couldn’t agree with you more. We’re in a—do you agree with that, General?

BRIG. GEN. RICHARD GROSS: Yes, sir. I agree that the enemy decides where the battlefield is.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: And it could be anyplace on the planet, and we have to be aware and able to act. And do you have the ability to act, and are you aware of the threats?

MICHAEL SHEEHAN: Yes, sir. We do have the ability to react, and we are tracking threats globally.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: From my point of view, I think your analysis is correct, and I appreciate all of your service to our country.


Power We Didn't Grant
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/22/AR2005122201101.html

On the evening of Sept. 12, 2001, the White House proposed that Congress authorize the use of military force to "deter and pre-empt any future acts of terrorism or aggression against the United States." Believing the scope of this language was too broad and ill defined, Congress chose instead, on Sept. 14, to authorize "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons [the president] determines planned, authorized, committed or aided" the attacks of Sept. 11. With this language, Congress denied the president the more expansive authority he sought and insisted that his authority be used specifically against Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.

Just before the Senate acted on this compromise resolution, the White House sought one last change. Literally minutes before the Senate cast its vote, the administration sought to add the words "in the United States and" after "appropriate force" in the agreed-upon text. This last-minute change would have given the president broad authority to exercise expansive powers not just overseas -- where we all understood he wanted authority to act -- but right here in the United States, potentially against American citizens. I could see no justification for Congress to accede to this extraordinary request for additional authority. I refused.

[ucrdem]

13. That's the point of repealing it.

And you left out the best part of that clip, which is the smack-down from Angus King that follows:

SEN. ANGUS KING: Gentlemen, I’ve only been here five months, but this is the most astounding and most astoundingly disturbing hearing that I’ve been to since I’ve been here. You guys have essentially rewritten the Constitution here today. The Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, clearly says that the Congress has the power to declare war.

This—this authorization, the AUMF, is very limited. And you keep using the term "associated forces." You use it 13 times in your statement. That is not in the AUMF. And you said at one point, "It suits us very well." I assume it does suit you very well, because you’re reading it to cover everything and anything.

And then you said, at another point, "So, even if the AUMF doesn’t apply, the general law of war applies, and we can take these actions." So, my question is: How do you possibly square this with the requirement of the Constitution that the Congress has the power to declare war?

This is one of the most fundamental divisions in our constitutional scheme, that the Congress has the power to declare war; the president is the commander-in-chief and prosecutes the war. But you’re reading this AUMF in such a way as to apply clearly outside of what it says. . . .

[primavera]

23. I confess, I'm a bit puzzled here

I'm happy to hear him calling for repeal of the AUMF, it's about fucking time. At the same time, his own administration has utilized the blank check it gives them to violate the sovereignty of other nations, to use drone aircraft to kill US citizens without due process, to keep open a facility that indefinitely detains without charge or trial persons suspected of terror... so why is he all of a sudden calling for the repeal of the very authority he himself has used without hesitation? Could this just be a token gesture to the base because he knows that Congress will never approve of ending the war on terror?

[ucrdem]

25. I'm not sure "blank check" is entirely accurate .

It's a characterization we hear often I suppose but that doesn't make it true. Holdover policies like Gitmo and drone strikes are only part of the picture and don't acknowledge the secret prisons that were closed or the practices that were ended like renditions and torture, not to mention two wars if we count Afghanistan. Gitmo was a failure but he did what he promised and introduced legislation, which was defeated. And he made an attempt to rationalize the drone policy by personally stepping in, but thanks to the NYT that was a p.r. fiasco. Now he's rolling out a complete redo to once and for all bring an end to the Bush legacy of permanent emergency.

[woo me with science]

31. +1000 Not only used without hesitation.....FOUGHT for.

This administration not only *signed* NDAA. They waged a legal battle to *defend* it after a federal judge rejected it.

And OnyxCollie's post: As recently as this Thursday, we hear not suggestions of peace on the horizon, but promises of *decades* more war.

Skepticism is earned. In this case, we have well over four years of pretty words by this administration, with actions consistently working 180 degrees in the opposite direction.

Given this history, it is certainly reasonable that some may choose to hold the cheering and focus instead on foot-holding-to-the-fire.

[woo me with science]

24. "The Democratic Party's Deceitful Game": They are willing to bravely support any progressive action

Last edited Tue Oct 15, 2013, 07:52 AM - Edit history (1)

as long as there's no chance it can pass.

Wanna take bets on what happens with these pretty words from today?

http://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/democrats_34/

Tuesday, Feb 23, 2010 11:24 AM UTC
The Democratic Party’s deceitful game
They are willing to bravely support any progressive bill as long as there's no chance it can pass
By Glenn Greenwald

Democrats perpetrate the same scam over and over on their own supporters, and this illustrates perfectly how it’s played:

.... Rockefeller was willing to be a righteous champion for the public option as long as it had no chance of passing...But now that Democrats are strongly considering the reconciliation process — which will allow passage with only 50 rather than 60 votes and thus enable them to enact a public option — Rockefeller is suddenly “inclined to oppose it” because he doesn’t “think the timing of it is very good” and it’s “too partisan.” What strange excuses for someone to make with regard to a provision that he claimed, a mere five months ago (when he knew it couldn’t pass), was such a moral and policy imperative that he “would not relent” in ensuring its enactment.

The Obama White House did the same thing. As I wrote back in August, the evidence was clear that while the President was publicly claiming that he supported the public option, the White House, in private, was doing everything possible to ensure its exclusion from the final bill (in order not to alienate the health insurance industry by providing competition for it). Yesterday, Obama — while having his aides signal that they would use reconciliation if necessary — finally unveiled his first-ever health care plan as President, and guess what it did not include? The public option, which he spent all year insisting that he favored oh-so-much but sadly could not get enacted: Gosh, I really want the public option, but we just don’t have 60 votes for it; what can I do?. As I documented in my contribution to the NYT forum yesterday, now that there’s a 50-vote mechanism to pass it, his own proposed bill suddenly excludes it.

This is what the Democratic Party does...They’re willing to feign support for anything their voters want just as long as there’s no chance that they can pass it. They won control of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections by pretending they wanted to compel an end to the Iraq War and Bush surveillance and interrogation abuses because they knew they would not actually do so; and indeed, once they were given the majority, the Democratic-controlled Congress continued to fund the war without conditions, to legalize Bush’s eavesdropping program, and to do nothing to stop Bush’s habeas and interrogation abuses (“Gosh, what can we do? We just don’t have 60 votes).

The primary tactic in this game is Villain Rotation. They always have a handful of Democratic Senators announce that they will be the ones to deviate this time from the ostensible party position and impede success, but the designated Villain constantly shifts, so the Party itself can claim it supports these measures while an always-changing handful of their members invariably prevent it. One minute, it’s Jay Rockefeller as the Prime Villain leading the way in protecting Bush surveillance programs and demanding telecom immunity; the next minute, it’s Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer joining hands and “breaking with their party” to ensure Michael Mukasey’s confirmation as Attorney General; then it’s Big Bad Joe Lieberman single-handedly blocking Medicare expansion; then it’s Blanche Lincoln and Jim Webb joining with Lindsey Graham to support the de-funding of civilian trials for Terrorists; and now that they can’t blame Lieberman or Ben Nelson any longer on health care (since they don’t need 60 votes), Jay Rockefeller voluntarily returns to the Villain Role, stepping up to put an end to the pretend-movement among Senate Democrats to enact the public option via reconciliation.

[ucrdem]

26. People believe the darndest things.

[woo me with science]

27. If the warmongering is ever going to end,

it will end because people join together regardless of party and demand that the purchased politicians in both parties stop it.

This is why I support Kucinich when he reaches across the aisle to try to end the damned warmongering and looting of this country.

Republicans are being impoverished, too. They are losing their civil rights, too. They are having family members blown to bits and disabled for life, too. And they defend the indefensible corporate, warmongering agenda when their guy is in office, too, because they are being propagandized just like we are to hate *us* more than they hate the wrongs being perpetrated on them.

I am fucking sick of the endless, cynical, partisan corporate game of circling the wagons around corporate thieves and warmongers of both parties, just because they have a convenient letter after their names, or of attempting to discredit principled commentators because....gasp...they try to speak to the other side. This is exactly how the oligarchs win: by dividing us into our teams and pushing the garbage meme that it is more offensive to stand next to someone of the other team than to stand for our most fundamental values and principles. I am sick of purchased politicians and their mouthpieces who bait Americans to defend the indefensible "because it's our guy."

America is getting sick of the lies and constant betrayals, too, and we are waking up to the game.

[ucrdem]

29. Okay I hear ya and that's well put but . . .

Kucinich is no longer in office and the Greenwald column is from 2010. BO gave a great speech today, with just the kind of policies Dennis argues for:

1 - release Gitmo detainees;

2 - repeal the AUMF;

3 - new media shield law;

4 - new rules for drone strikes.

And the administration is already taking action on them. So what's not to like?

[woo me with science]

32. Stay tuned. nt

[pscot]

37. "Watch what we do, not what we say."

Good advice from RMN, a master of deception.

[merrily]

34. An "authorization" does not require him to use force.

This sounds like his claim that he wants a media shield law passed. He was the one who blocked it the first time around. And this time around, in response to the AP scandal, he claims he wants it--but he wants the Executive Branch to be able to ignore the shield at will.

[Laelth]

12. I fully support repeal of the AUMF.

Good for the President!

-Laelth

[Comrade Grumpy]

16. That's what I want to hear. Now, let's make it so.

[sheshe2]

17. It is good news urcbem

Lethal yet less capable al Qaeda affiliates. Threats to diplomatic facilities and businesses abroad. Homegrown extremists. This is the future of terrorism. We must take these threats seriously, and do all that we can to confront them. But as we shape our response, we have to recognize that the scale of this threat closely resembles the types of attacks we faced before 9/11. In the 1980s, we lost Americans to terrorism at our Embassy in Beirut; at our Marine Barracks in Lebanon; on a cruise ship at sea; at a disco in Berlin; and on Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie. In the 1990s, we lost Americans to terrorism at the World Trade Center; at our military facilities in Saudi Arabia; and at our Embassy in Kenya. These attacks were all deadly, and we learned that left unchecked, these threats can grow. But if dealt with smartly and proportionally, these threats need not rise to the level that we saw on the eve of 9/11.

[Cha]

19. That's the part that kpete pointed out in her OP, she..

Obama places a brilliantly phrased dagger to the heart of the Bush administration in speech today

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022893201

Thank you, she

[Cha]

20. Excellent news..and thank you for it, ucrdem

[ucrdem]

28. Thanks, Cha, it was a terrific speech.

He rolled out least 4 new policies:

1 - release Gitmo detainees;

2 - repeal AUMF;

3 - media shield law;

4 - new rules for drone strikes.

Lots of great quotes too. Here's one I hope will be prophetic, on the GWOT:

"But this war, like all wars, must end," he added. "That's what history advises. That's what our democracy demands."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/05/23/obama-counter-terrorism-speech-drones-guantanamo-bay/2354001/

Makes me want to stand up and all over again!

have a great weekend Cha!

[Cha]

30. It was brilliant, ucrdem.

Michael Cohen @speechboy71

Don't think it's an exaggeration to suggest that this speech will be seen by history as the rhetorical end of the War on Terror

I hope so.

http://theobamadiary.com/2013/05/23/keep-chatting-away-3/#comments

I like your..

Same to you, ucr!

[IDemo]

21. Exclusive: Congressman Preps Bill to End Terror War Authority

Wired.com
By Spencer Ackerman
05.23.13 5:35 PM

In the wake of President Obama’s big speech about restraining the war on terrorism, a member of the House intelligence committee is working on a bill to undo the basic authorities to wage it.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) is preparing a piece of legislation that would “sunset” the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), a foundational law passed in the days after the 9/11. “The current AUMF is outdated and straining at the edges to justify the use of force outside the war theater,” Schiff tells Danger Room.

Repealing the AUMF would be the boldest restriction of presidential war powers since 9/11. Both the Bush and Obama administrations have relied on the document to authorize everything from the warrantless electronic surveillance of American citizens to drone strikes against al-Qaida offshoots that did not exist on 9/11. Getting rid of it is certain to invite fierce opposition from more bellicose members of Congress, who have repeatedly demagogued efforts to roll back any post-9/11 wartime authority, let alone the most important one.

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), the only legislator to vote against the authorization in 2001, has long fought unsuccessfully to repeal the AUMF. But Schiff is a moderate, not a firebreathing liberal, and while sunsetting the AUMF is sure to be a big legislative challenge, even conservative legislators like Rand Paul (R-Ky.) are raising fundamental questions about the merits of a never-ending war.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/05/schiff-aumf/

[ucrdem]

22. So the wheels are a-turning already.

It sounded from the speech like they were already moving on this. Now we know. Thanks for posting that!

[malthaussen]

33. We already know that Mr Obama gives great speech.

Talk is cheap. Whisky costs money.

It's funny that when the President suggest something like "Linked COL," everyone goes on about how he isn't serious, and is only playing multi-dimensional chess to make the GOP look bad. But when he says something we want to hear, we assume he is being honest. I reckon that must be because Democrats are optimists.

-- Mal

[blkmusclmachine]

35. Obama reading a script written by an unknown entity.

So convincing.

[ucrdem]

41. Did you watch or listen?

Whether or not he actually did, it sounded like he'd thought long and hard about every word. I hope he has a speechwriter or two to help polish it up because it was a long speech. No shame in that, if he did, but frankly I think he wrote the whole damn thing himself. I know that's not what you're thinking but that's the strong impression I got.

[4bucksagallon]

36. Tell Congress to repeal it or.....

link it to a draft. If they don't repeal it we start drafting again. You want to fight a war Congress, let your children be on the front lines........ Yeah I know it won't happen but one can hope.

[Pragdem]

38. Even when Obama does something his haters claim they want him to do...

We still see them find ways to criticize.

Because they aren't really haters at all. And they sure as fuck aren't Democrats. They pose as both to push their agenda.

I don't know what agenda they're trying to push or if they're just goddamn ignorant, but it's painfully obvious something is off.

[grahamhgreen]

39. "Refine" or repeal?

[ucrdem]

40. "refine, and ultimately repeal"

I'm interpreting that to mean it will be repealed after Nov. 2014.