Current Events > Democrats respond to Trump's strikes

(+) Yeah! (+)

HiddenRoar posted...

>Created in 1999, pledged allegiance to Al-Qaeda in 2004.

Do I really need to spell out how that doesn't fit the criteria. at all.

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.

Joining al-Qaeda makes them apart of that organization, and therefore a valid target for attack. It doesnt matter whether they join al-Qaeda in 2004 or 2040. Are you saying we can't attack an al-Qaeda member who joined the organization on September 12, 2001 because they didnt aid or commit the attacks? That's absurd. What became ISIS joined al-Qaeda which made them a valid target. There is no time limit on this AUMF nor is there any limitation on countries where it applies.

Congress has not taken any action to protest the Presidents application of the AUMF to ISIS or any other terrorist groups.

In Jackson's concurring opinion in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., v. Sawyer (which has become the predominant legal framework for analyzing executive authority), the President has the greatest authorization to act when he had been delegated an expressed or implied power by Congress in an area where they both have some legitimacy over a certain power, ie war-making.

Congress has in no way challenged the President's ability to apply the AUMF against ISIS and several other terrorists groups, which signifies that the President is using this grant of authority as intended. And yes, by funding the war, Congress has implicitly approved it. Taken together with the very broad language of the statute, which sets no limits on time, place, and only broad ones on targets, it is clear that attacking ISIS is legal.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youngstown_Sheet_%26_Tube_Co._v._Sawyer?wprov=sfla1
---

Sanders' statement:
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/850367439833583617
---

Antifar posted...

Sanders' statement:
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/850367439833583617

Why didn't we elect him :/

Saloonist posted...

HiddenRoar posted...

>Created in 1999, pledged allegiance to Al-Qaeda in 2004.

Do I really need to spell out how that doesn't fit the criteria. at all.

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.

Joining al-Qaeda makes them apart of that organization, and therefore a valid target for attack. It doesnt matter whether they join al-Qaeda in 2004 or 2040. Are you saying we can't attack an al-Qaeda member who joined the organization on September 12, 2001 because they didnt aid or commit the attacks? That's absurd. What became ISIS joined al-Qaeda which made them a valid target. There is no time limit on this AUMF nor is there any limitation on countries where it applies.

Congress has not taken any action to protest the Presidents application of the AUMF to ISIS or any other terrorist groups.

In Jackson's concurring opinion in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., v. Sawyer (which has become the predominant legal framework for analyzing executive authority), the President has the greatest authorization to act when he had been delegated an expressed or implied power by Congress in an area where they both have some legitimacy over a certain power, ie war-making.

Congress has in no way challenged the President's ability to apply the AUMF against ISIS and several other terrorists groups, which signifies that the President is using this grant of authority as intended. And yes, by funding the war, Congress has implicitly approved it. Taken together with the very broad language of the statute, which sets no limits on time, place, and only broad ones on targets, it is clear that attacking ISIS is legal.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youngstown_Sheet_%26_Tube_Co._v._Sawyer?wprov=sfla1

Funny, this is my first time seeing anyone use that case as precedent for the Obama administration to combat ISIS using the 9-11 bill.

So how do you explain why Obama tried to seek Congressional approval for formal authorization of force against ISIS, in early 2015, if the AUMF already gave him permission?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/29/politics/congress-isis-war-vote-mattis/
Congress has been reluctant to debate -- let alone vote on -- a war authorization, due to an inability to find consensus as well as political concerns that a vote could be used against them later on, as Hillary Clinton's vote in favor of the Iraq War was.
The 88.4 billion was funding for all overseas combat operations, including security along the Syria/Jordan border, training Afghan security forces, Ukraine, etc.; and was a part of the Fiscal 2016 defense budget that also covered pay and family programs for military personnel. Voting against it would literally be political ammo that reads "Senator _____ votes against the interest of our military and their families".

And to refute your 'Well Congress never acted against it!", lets just ignore the fact that there were bills introduced in both the Senate and House that would have formally authorized war against ISIS in late 2015/early 2016. An action that would seem redundant if the 2001 resolution already gave the president permission.

Finally, a reminder that Democrats are the ones who brought up debates questioning the issue of legitimacy whether the AUMF applied, before the usual liburals start to blame Republicans with "teh obstruction!" like they always do.

TheGleamEyes posted...

Funny, this is my first time seeing anyone use that case as precedent for the Obama administration to combat ISIS using the 9-11 bill.

That's just because you haven't been looking. Here are 5 sources from a quick Google search, (some of them critical):
http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2016/09/06/492857888/when-the-u-s-military-strikes-white-house-points-to-a-2001-measure
https://newrepublic.com/article/121043/obamas-isis-aumf-would-leave-2001-war-powers-place
https://www.lawfareblog.com/isis-taliban-and-2001-aumf
http://www.heritage.org/terrorism/report/framework-authorization-use-military-force-against-isis
https://www.lawfareblog.com/isil-al-qaeda-three-reactions

So how do you explain why Obama tried to seek Congressional approval for formal authorization of force against ISIS, in early 2015, if the AUMF already gave him permission?

Seeking more clear authorization on an issue which is politically controversial, is not the same as admitting that the actions against ISIS were illegal. These are not mutually exclusive tasks. I believe that the war is perfectly legal, and would still support Obama having gotten more authorization to silence critics. It's a political matter, not a legal one.

And to refute your 'Well Congress never acted against it!", lets just ignore the fact that there were bills introduced in both the Senate and House that would have formally authorized war against ISIS in late 2015/early 2016. An action that would seem redundant if the 2001 resolution already gave the president permission.

See above. Introducing more bills is a political matter, not a legal one because Obama already had justification for attacking ISIS as a branch of al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Furthermore, introducing a bill is not Congress "taking action" against Obama. There are 435 Members of Congress. Anyone can introduce a bill saying anything. Unless Congress formally passes a statute or takes some other official legislative action, it is not acting. Factions within Congress introducing a bill is not "Congress" acting.

Congress as a body has so far refused to issue a statement against either Presidents' actions against ISIS, while it has simultaneously funded them.(And to your point about funding, Congress is well aware that that money will be used against ISIS. It could subtract money proportionally based on how much would be necessary for operations in ISIS, or declare that such funds may not be used against ISIS. If the President acted otherwise, he would be in blatant violation of the law. He would then likely be impeached.)

Under Youngstown, given that both Congress and the President have substantial war-making power, the President is acting within his authority as Congress has implicitly authorized the mission.

Finally, a reminder that Democrats are the ones who brought up debates questioning the issue of legitimacy whether the AUMF applied, before the usual liburals start to blame Republicans with "teh obstruction!" like they always do.

This is immaterial to whether the AUMF is legal or not because what you are describing is politics, not legality.
---

Saloonist posted...

That's just because you haven't been looking. Here are 5 sources from a quick Google search, (some of them critical):
http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2016/09/06/492857888/when-the-u-s-military-strikes-white-house-points-to-a-2001-measure
https://newrepublic.com/article/121043/obamas-isis-aumf-would-leave-2001-war-powers-place
https://www.lawfareblog.com/isis-taliban-and-2001-aumf
http://www.heritage.org/terrorism/report/framework-authorization-use-military-force-against-isis
https://www.lawfareblog.com/isil-al-qaeda-three-reactions

I don't think you read my post correctly, nor read your own links.
None of those links mentions or references Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer as a defense for the administration's actions.
In fact, several of those outright agree with my side:
Legal scholars have already pointed out the problems underlying the use of each theory. The 2001 AUMF, broadly written with neither geographical nor temporal limits, and used by the Obama administration to justify its drone campaigns around the world, is widely believed to allow for hostilities against two groups: the Taliban and Al Qaeda. ISIS, after splitting off from Al Qaeda, is neither. Only by stretching the meaning of “associated forces” to include “successor” or “splinter” groups could ISIS be considered a target covered by the 2001 AUMF.

[...]

Despite the fact that the war against ISIS has already been underway for half a year, the administration is just now seeking congressional input. Obama believes he already has had the authority for military action, and sees this as a chance to “engage Congress.”
[...]

Critics of the president’s proposal have pointed out that, like the 2001 AUMF, the language of this new authorization is vague. The White Press Secretary Josh Earnest admitted the the language was “intentionally” fuzzy so as to avoid “burdensome constraints” on the president who needs “flexibility” to prosecute the war. This is troubling to many observers.

Zak Newman of the ACLU says that the text “does not identify the objective for the use of that force.” Besides the intention to “degrade and defeat” ISIS, there is no clear indication of what a successful operation would look like. And while “associated forces” is slightly more narrowly defined in this proposal, the “closely-related successor entities” to ISIS is still rather broad. Newman proposes the inclusion of “a requirement that individuals or organizations should be under the operational command and control of ISIS.”
[...]
The larger problem with Obama’s proposal is that it leaves the 2001 statute untouched. As Stephen Vladeck wrote, this “not only renders an ISIL-specific bill largely beside the point, but it does nothing to end the ‘forever war’ or solve any of the well-established oversight and accountability problems with U.S. war powers today.” Harold Koh, who served as a legal advisor to the State Department in the Obama administration between 2009-2013, is critical of the way the law has been used and is in favor of repealing it, saying Wednesday that the “2001 AUMF has been in existence for many years and is increasingly construed to cover groups that didn’t even exist as of 9/11.”

or in the case of your Lawfareblog (the first one listed in particular), doesn't address or add anything meaningful to this discussion.

Saloonist posted...

See above. Introducing more bills is a political matter, not a legal one because Obama already had justification for attacking ISIS as a branch of al-Qaeda in Iraq.

I'm not sure you understand the purpose of Congress either if you're disregarding the fact that their purpose is to make laws, and claiming that introducing bills that clarifies the scope of the president's powers against a foreign enemy isn't a legal one.

Saloonist posted...

Congress as a body has so far refused to issue a statement against either Presidents' actions against ISIS, while it has simultaneously funded them.(And to your point about funding, Congress is well aware that that money will be used against ISIS. It could subtract money proportionally based on how much would be necessary for operations in ISIS, or declare that such funds may not be used against ISIS. If the President acted otherwise, he would be in blatant violation of the law. He would then likely be impeached.)

https://lawfareblog.com/practical-legal-need-isil-aumf
And demanding that funds not be used against ISIS in Iraq is impractical. As if you can definitively identify ISIS members from those of other terrorist factions while still maintaining effectiveness.

TheGleamEyes posted...

I don't think you read my post correctly, nor read your own links.

Yes I did misread. I thought you were saying you've never seen the 2001 AUMF applied to ISIS.

But the thing is that they don't have to cite Youngstown for it to be at work. That is how we have come to understand how executive power is legally used. It's a legal framework.

But you can still find discussion of it here, both to attack and defend:
http://www.law.fsu.edu/docs/default-source/journals/law-review/fall-2015/(7)-sullivan---final-4_062416.pdf?sfvrsn=2
http://www.constitutionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/2016.08.19-11-Smith-v-Obama-Motion-for-Leave-with-brief.pdf

I know there are some that agree with your opinion, I explicitly said so from the very beginning.
---

TheGleamEyes posted...

I'm not sure you understand the purpose of Congress either if you're disregarding the fact that their purpose is to make laws, and claiming that introducing bills that clarifies the scope of the president's powers against a foreign enemy isn't a legal one.

Bills don't clarify anything because they have no legal force. A bill is not a law. Anyone can introduce a bill, which can be useful for historical purposes, but has very little bearing on what the law is. Congress has not taken any action to stop the President from attacking ISIS, but has acquiesced and funded it.

Saloonist posted...

https://lawfareblog.com/practical-legal-need-isil-aumf
And demanding that funds not be used against ISIS in Iraq is impractical. As if you can definitively identify ISIS members from those of other terrorist factions while still maintaining effectiveness.

ISIS at its height was actually a lot more easy to identify than any member of al-Qaeda ever was. They were a quasi-state which meant they had fixed armaments and supplies. But Congress certainly could have made provisions that the President not use any funding for military action against ISIS in Syria.

All Goldsmith is calling for is an AUMF that doesn't even change any of the authority which Obama has already been using under the 2001 AUMF. That is a clarification in my view for purely political reasons. I welcome it. But I still think the current arrangement is legal.
---

at least my senator, who's spent the last several years trying to force the senate to vote on military action in syria/iraq, had a reasonable response. condemns the chemical attacks, supports military action against syria, pissed off that the president thinks its ok to unilaterally escalate without at least a message to the senate first.

i mean its absolute bullshit he informed russia before the attack but not the legislature.
---