|
So, a long time ago I subscribed to the ACLU's newsletter. I rarely actually read the emails. But today I clicked on one that looked interesting. This is the contents:
+ Show Spoiler +
Dear Travis,
The time is now to restore respect for the Constitution. Tell Congress that a blank check on war isn't just unnecessary — it's truly dangerous.
They have to be kidding. Congress is about to vote on worldwide war authority. This was long on the Bush administration's wish list. Now, a few top congressional insiders see an opportunity to sneak it in to a "must pass" piece of legislation: the Defense Authorization bill.
This expanded war authority would give the president — any president — the power to use military force, whenever and however he or she sees fit. It would essentially declare a worldwide war without end.
It is shocking that Congress is entertaining such legislation at a time when many are looking to see an end to escalating conflict and abuses of power in the name of fighting terrorism.
Tell your representative to oppose any new and expanded war authority that would give the president unfettered powers to involve the United States in more military conflicts without any checks or balances.
This new legislation could commit the United States to a worldwide war without clear enemies, without any geographical boundaries, and without any boundary relating to time or specific objective to be achieved.
Unlike the legislation that authorized the Afghanistan War and the pursuit of Osama bin Laden, the proposed new and expanded authorization to go to war does not require a specific threat of harm to the United States.
With the bill moving through the House this week and a potential vote later this month, we must make our opposition known today. Tell Congress that a blank check on war isn't just unnecessary — it's truly dangerous.
This greater war authority first surfaced when George Bush was president. With your help, we opposed it then. And we're opposing the more expansive version of it circulating in Congress right now — because no president should have the power to single-handedly commit America to war without any checks or balances.
The time is now to restore respect for the Constitution. We must put an end to the notion that we can't be safe without sacrificing our freedom.
Don't let Congress give the executive branch a virtual blank check when it comes to committing our country to armed conflict. Oppose the new worldwide war authority.
Thank you for standing with us.
Sincerely,
Laura W. Murphy
Director, ACLU Washington Legislative Office
So, this doesn't really talk much about what the bill actually is, but it certainly sounds bad. So I did some research, which was annoying to do, lol
The bill is called the "defense authorization bill", and the main problem is how it's been updated.
There are arguments on both sides... some saying it's a necessary addition.. such as
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/updating-war-authorization---the-left-objects-of-course/2011/03/29/AF7havyG_blog.html
And then there are many more sources saying it basically shits all over the constitution and that it gives the president arbitrary powers to make war.
http://www.benzinga.com/11/05/1079933/constitution-thrashed-us-president-can-now-declare-wars-without-asking-congress
Personally I think this sounds ridiculous. Why does the president need to be able to declare war without approval from congress? And this isn't just for the current president, this would be for all future presidents. It also renews the provision that says that those suspected of being involved in terrorism can be detained indefinitely without trial.
Opinions? I still don't know too much about this, but it really sounds pretty straightforward and terrible to me.
|
They want to pass this bill so that when they have a president that agrees with their rampant war mongering they won't have to go through illegal channels
|
lol could a mod edit my title the missing "l" in bill is really bugging me
|
Yea. Makes their lives easier and ours more miserable when we are suddenly committed to wars the public does not support.
|
Doesn't the president already have a massive amount of pull in regards to initiating war?
|
United States5162 Posts
On May 13 2011 06:23 guN-viCe wrote:
Doesn't the president already have a massive amount of pull in regards to initiating war?
Yes, but checks and balances makes it so that Congress has to approve since they are a more direct representation of the people.
|
Isn't that just basically a Tonkin Gulf Resolution 2.0?
|
Not necessarily related, but funny: the Google ad currently displaying based on the content in this thread is an ad for firearms training.
|
Wasn't the war in Iraq already illegal in international law?
I don't really see how this matters, as the president already basically declares war on anyone at anytime for no specific reason.
This seems like a bad idea, but it's already in place as far as I understand.
|
Doesn't the president already have a massive amount of pull in regards to initiating war?
The 2003 Iraq resolution was basically a massive middle finger to congress and the international community and proved that yes the president can esentially do whatever he wants. This is making it official though. He would'nt even have to break the rules, the rules would support him.
|
Why shouldn't the president have the power make war? Then they wouldn't have to break the law/constitution to do however they pleased.
Its amazing how malleable those documents tend to be...especially in regards to what government cannot do.
|
I don't think the US will ever declare war again on a whim like it did in Iraq. At least I hope not, to quote Bill Maher: "I will never put anything past the stupidity of the American people."
|
a) Congress hates begin given responsibility for wars, especially after Iraq. Look at how silent they are with Libya.
b) I can't say it would make a difference. As someone mentioned, the President always gets the wars he wants. The political process is there to temper that.
c) What do other countries do? Did France's parliament need to approve of its involvement in Libya? If they haven't yet collapsed into a military dictatorship, hard to take seriously fears that the U.S. will.
|
On May 13 2011 06:32 Voltaire wrote:
I don't think the US will ever declare war again on a whim like it did in Iraq. At least I hope not, to quote Bill Maher: "I will never put anything past the stupidity of the American people."
Watching this space ...
|
Doesnt really give the president himself more influence but all those adviser (Generals etc.)who have the real impact on military decisions. and thats really not something you should wish for
I mean this would really only make sense if you would have to declare war really fast, f.e. when mexico and canada unite to invade the states.
and it doesnt seem like that at all at the moment...... or does it Oo *dramatic music*
|
On May 13 2011 06:30 wonderwall wrote:Show nested quote +Doesn't the president already have a massive amount of pull in regards to initiating war? The 2003 Iraq resolution was basically a massive middle finger to congress and the international community and proved that yes the president can esentially do whatever he wants. This is making it official though. He would'nt even have to break the rules, the rules would support him.
Uh, what? The Iraq resolution was passed by a wide, bipartisan majority.
|
"Hague Invasion Act" (American Service Members Protection Act in its official name) was kind of prototype to this.
|
On May 13 2011 06:24 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 06:23 guN-viCe wrote:
Doesn't the president already have a massive amount of pull in regards to initiating war? Yes, but checks and balances makes it so that Congress has to approve since they are a more direct representation of the people.
This bill shits all over that system.
If this passes both houses and Obama signs it, I'll be dumbfounded. Who writes the legislation nowadays? They sure have their priorities completely ass-backwards. I also question the legitimacy of the Republicans caring about the constitution when they pass a bill like this.
No checks and balances? Kind of ironic given that Congress seems to be handing over it's power to the President. This is something that could bite them in the ass if they disagree with the President. It's as if they're preparing for a Republican takeover in 2012 and want to give him a blank check the day he gets in office.
The President should never have the power to declare war, I don't care about the excuse.
|
The warmaking power has long since been transferred to the executive through unofficial means, although the War Powers Act enables Congress to put an end to whatever conflict arises.
I have no objections to this bill, as it is nothing new nor surprising and seems to be an extension of the vaguely defined "war on terror" in principle.
Congress can shut down the President in warmaking whenever it wants.
|
On May 13 2011 06:37 stevarius wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 06:24 Myles wrote:On May 13 2011 06:23 guN-viCe wrote:
Doesn't the president already have a massive amount of pull in regards to initiating war? Yes, but checks and balances makes it so that Congress has to approve since they are a more direct representation of the people. This bill shits all over that system. If this passes both houses and Obama signs it, I'll be dumbfounded. Who writes the legislation nowadays? They sure have their priorities completely ass-backwards. I also question the legitimacy of the Republicans caring about the constitution when they pass a bill like this. No checks and balances? Kind of ironic given that Congress seems to be handing over it's power to the President. This is something that could bite them in the ass if they disagree with the President. It's as if they're preparing for a Republican takeover in 2012 and want to give him a blank check the day he gets in office. The President should never have the power to declare war, I don't care about the excuse.
Republicans haven't cared about the constitution in decades. The Patriot Act and countless other pieces of legislation and typical Republican standpoints are completely contradictory to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
