As
noted by other
Reason
writers, U.S. forces have begun bombing ISIS targets in Syria
on the orders of President Obama—even though the president has no
legitimate power to give such an order, absent authorization from
Congress.
W. James Antle III
explains why the White House’s self-justifications are clearly
illogical:
The Obama administration apparently believes it has the legal
justification to attack ISIS under the resolution that authorized
the war on terror in 2001. But that law quite specifically covers
“those nations, organizations, or persons” that “planned,
authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred
on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or
persons.”“On its face this is an implausible argument because the 2001
AUMF requires a nexus to al Qaeda or associated forces of al Qaeda
fighting the United States,” Robert Chesney, a professor at the
University of Texas School of Law, told The
Daily Beast. “Since ISIS broke up with al Qaeda it’s hard to make
that argument.”Even the Bush administration accepted that it needed a separate
authorization of force to go to war in Iraq, even though some of
its officials and defenders wereasserting
a connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein’s regime.
Meanwhile, President Obama is winding down the war most directly
associated with the 2001 law: Afghanistan.
Antle concludes by insisting that Congress is obligated to do
more to restrain the president—a sentiment shared by Rep. Justin
Amash (R-Mich.). Amash took to Twitter to blast do-nothing
Congressional leadership in the wake of the Syrian
bombings:
It’s irresponsible & immoral that instead of debating &
voting on war, congressional leaders chose to recess Congress for
nearly two months.— Justin Amash (@repjustinamash) September
23, 2014
But,
as I explained previously, most Congressmen seem more concerned
about the political ramifications of casting a potentially toxic
vote on the war than about exercising their governmental
duties.
from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1mGrGJ4
via IFTTT