Is Obama authorized to wage war in Afghanistan?

[Vattel]

The 2001 AUMF says (in part):

"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

Obama is authorized to hunt down the few members of Al Qaeda that are in Afghanistan, but most of our fighting is against insurgents who were in no way involved in the 911 attacks and who, although they may in some sense belong to the "Taliban," are not members of the former government of Afghanistan and so did not participate in that government's harboring of Al Qaeda.

Obama needs a new authorization of force. Congress should be debating whether to provide that authorization.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

1. We are a nation of laws, not men......when convenient and politically expedient. k&r

[sandnsea]

2. "against those nations" "prevent any future acts"

Yes, he's authorized.

[Vattel]

3. We're not waging war against any nation. n/t

[sandnsea]

9. nation, organization, person

Yes. He's authorized.

[ixion]

4. ah so you support the Bush Doctrine

well, isn't that special. :eyes:

[bigtree]

6. but, but this is a new and different mission

. . . isn't it?

[ixion]

18. nope, it isn't

sorry.

[sandnsea]

7. That's what the authorization says

How do you conclude that interpreting the authorization is the equivalent of supporting it.

[ixion]

17. the idea of preemptive attack is the core concept of the Bush Doctrine

Saying that there is authorization because of this tenant is saying that the tenant is credible, which is passive support by proxy.

[sandnsea]

19. Dennis Kucinich voted for this authorization

Bernie Sanders voted for it. Barbara Lee is the only one who voted against it. The Afghanistan vote had nothing to do with the Bush Doctrine. There was no Bush Doctrine at that time.

[ixion]

29. actually, there was... it was used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine

The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe various related foreign policy principles of former United States president George W. Bush. The phrase initially described the policy that the United States had the right to secure itself from countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups, which was used to justify the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan.<1>

Kucinich and Sanders may have voted for it, but that doesn't make it any more moral and/or ethical.

[bigtree]

5. I'm not convinced his nation-building defense of the government in Kabul is part of that

He'll need to demonstrate how he believes the occupation of Afghanistan is integral to the definition in the authorization . . . or not.

The president is 'authorized' by loopholes in the WPA, and by the slippery way Congress allows him to fold his ambitions under the original resolution. They'll all be looking for cover when the casualties begin to mount. Demonstrating progress against' al-Qaeda' and their cohorts is going to be a nebulous as its always been with this whack-a-mole aggression against the resistance to NATO's opportunistic advance.

[jpak]

8. Yoo Hoo! There was a war being waged in Afghanistan when Obama was sworn in - FYI

and the Taliban aided and abetted AQ and OBL prior to 9/11.

They are the same dudes leading AQ and the Taliban today - the Mullah Omar and OBL and their minions - that fled to northern Pakistan in 2001.

Sorry to inform you.

[bigtree]

12. now, most of it is waged against resistance to our occupation

Those 'dudes' don't lead everyone who identifies themselves in Afghanistan as 'Taliban'. I'm sorry to inform you that there is a substantive difference between Pak Taliban and Afghan Taliban. It's an old tactic to conflate everyone there resisting our occupation as the enemy al-Qaeda. It's been a costly deception, especially in the past few months we've been pushing Taliban in Afghanistan around.

[Vattel]

15. The existence of war when Obama was sworn in is irrelevant.

And I would have to see evidence that the Taliban aided and abetted the 911 attacks. But insofar as the current leadership of the Taliban includes those who, as members of the Taliban regime in 2001, harbored Al Qaeda, the war against the Taliban insurgency is covered by the original AUMF. I stand corrected.

[Blue-Jay]

10. Is your question a constitutional one?

I wish we were the fuck outta there, BUT I've yet to see a convincing legal argument against his authority as CIC.

[optimator]

11. A Just Cause would seek a Declaration of War

and there is no chance in hell of getting one.

[yodoobo]

13. authortization from Congress is nice to have

And is politically good.

But is not a requirement to use force.

Obama, by virtue of being our elected President and Commander in Chief has the authorization he needs.

[Vattel]

16. Yes and no.

To repel an attack, the CIC can wage war without the authorization of Congress. But only the Congress has the authority to put the nation in a state of war.

[madrchsod]

14. no, but it does`t matter

he can do just about anything he wants with the military as long as the congress funds him. check teddy roosevelt and the great white fleet.

[Hippo_Tron]

20. If you read the language, it's pretty clear he does

One "All organizations that... aided the terrorists attacks on September 11th" which the Taliban is included. Of course you could get more detailed and say that the Taliban that we overthrew years ago is not really the same thing as the Taliban today which is really just a bunch of rebel groups that we call "Taliban". But alas when such a dispute might arise remember that the resolution says "persons he determines" meaning that the President can attack pretty much anybody he determines was connected to 9/11.

[sandnsea]

22. The Taliban is a clear group of people

You could say al qaeda is just a bunch of rebel groups that we decide to call al qaeda - but the same isn't true of the Taliban. They are as organized as the Baptists or any other religious outfit.

[Hippo_Tron]

23. Probably organized as the Baptists, not sure as organized as the Catholics

We only think Mullah Omar is somewhere in Pakistan and actually leading the Taliban from the top down. We don't know that for certain. If the Taliban did come to power it could be the same government we overthrew in 2001 or it could be a completely different one.

[sandnsea]

25. I'm speaking of philosophy and organization

The individual players will change, but the underlying belief system won't. One reason waging only a military battle won't be effective. I just think it's a mistake to characterize them as a gang of misfits because they developed into a lot more than that, even though that's what they seemed to be back in the 90s.

[Hippo_Tron]

27. The underlying belief system doesn't include harboring Osama Bin Laden

Which is the reason we invaded in the first place. Those are decisions made by people. If the people were are fighting aren't the same people then technically our mission is complete because we eliminated those who were complicit in 9/11. Their successors were not directly complicit in 9/11 and thus we are not fighting the same "Taliban" anymore.

But the language of the resolution is so broad that it gives the President far more power than just to use force against those directly complicit in 9/11.

[sandnsea]

28. Ah, I see your point

Yes, I suppose another leader could make a different decision about al qaeda terrorist types. I guess that's what the recommendation to talk to the Taliban was all about. Maybe that will be part of the strategy, to get the Taliban to reject al qaeda and start identifying them. Somehow I don't think that's going to happen, but you never know.

[RedCloud]

21. Let's declare war. Then we can call it a war.Otherwise resource protection adventures.

[undeterred]

24. The precedent was set during the reign of The Little Emperor-

the President can apparently do anything he wants.

[L. Coyote]

26. Details, details??

Since when do details like this matter when Americans go to war?

[Freddie Stubbs]

30. Yes.

As long as he determines that the Taliban, under their current or present form, harbored those responsible for the attacks, the war is legal.

Congress gave broad authority to the President in this matter. It can certainly could take it away, but as of yet there has been no movement to do so.

[hayu_lol]

31. The President can add or subtract troops in an ongoing fight...

without having to go to the snake's nest that is the Congress.

This Congress(both houses)could not agree on a brand of toothpaste that was to be donated to them as a perk.

[Freddie Stubbs]

32. Congress could use the power of the purse to make it more difficult for the President to

wage the war in Afghanistan. But so far it has declined to do so.

[AngryOldDem]

33. Does it matter anymore?

I mean, really.

[Orsino]

34. Hey, when Congress declares war, it's his job to prosecute it.

So, no.