Month: September 2014

When President Barack Obama took the United
States to war against Libya in 2011 without first seeking
congressional authorization as required by the Constitution, he
disappointed more than a few of his liberal followers. But Obama
did earn the grudging respect of conservative law professor John
Yoo, the controversial former George W. Bush administration lawyer,

“torture memo” author, and Andrew Jackson
apologist. In response to Obama’s statement that he did not
need congressional approval to launch military action in Libya
thanks to his “constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign
relations” and his powers “as Commander in Chief and Chief
Executive,”
Yoo declared: “For once, Mr. Obama has the Constitution about
right.”

Fast-forward to the present day and Obama is once more planning
to wage war without first seeking authorization from Congress. And
once again, former Bush lawyer Yoo is standing in Obama’s corner.
“President Obama’s ‘strategy’ for fighting the Islamic state,” Yoo

recently wrote at National Review, “is coming under
fire from conservatives for lacking legal authority. I worry that
they are allowing their short-term political opposition to Obama
and his foreign policy to overcome the longer-term interest in
preserving the powers of the presidency.”

To his credit, Yoo is at least consistent. He wants the
president to enjoy virtually unlimited war powers and he maintains
that position regardless of which political party happens to occupy
the office. But to his discredit, Yoo’s stance is at odds with the
text of the Constitution, which plainly grants Congress—not the
president—the “power…to declare war.”

Back in 2008, when Obama was first seeking the White House, he
was widely seen as an antiwar candidate of “hope” and “change”
whose election would repudiate the foreign policy mistakes of the
Bush years. I think it’s safe to say that the ongoing Obama-Yoo
alliance has finally dispelled that myth.

When President Barack Obama took the United
States to war against Libya in 2011 without first seeking
congressional authorization as required by the Constitution, he
disappointed more than a few of his liberal followers. But Obama
did earn the grudging respect of conservative law professor John
Yoo, the controversial former George W. Bush administration lawyer,

“torture memo” author, and Andrew Jackson
apologist. In response to Obama’s statement that he did not
need congressional approval to launch military action in Libya
thanks to his “constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign
relations” and his powers “as Commander in Chief and Chief
Executive,”
Yoo declared: “For once, Mr. Obama has the Constitution about
right.”

Fast-forward to the present day and Obama is once more planning
to wage war without first seeking authorization from Congress. And
once again, former Bush lawyer Yoo is standing in Obama’s corner.
“President Obama’s ‘strategy’ for fighting the Islamic state,” Yoo

recently wrote at National Review, “is coming under
fire from conservatives for lacking legal authority. I worry that
they are allowing their short-term political opposition to Obama
and his foreign policy to overcome the longer-term interest in
preserving the powers of the presidency.”

To his credit, Yoo is at least consistent. He wants the
president to enjoy virtually unlimited war powers and he maintains
that position regardless of which political party happens to occupy
the office. But to his discredit, Yoo’s stance is at odds with the
text of the Constitution, which plainly grants Congress—not the
president—the “power…to declare war.”

Back in 2008, when Obama was first seeking the White House, he
was widely seen as an antiwar candidate of “hope” and “change”
whose election would repudiate the foreign policy mistakes of the
Bush years. I think it’s safe to say that the ongoing Obama-Yoo
alliance has finally dispelled that myth.

• The House of Representatives voted 273 to
  156 in favor of arming rebels in
  Syria, as part of President Obama’s proposed efforts against
  the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), once just another rebel
  group in Syria but now a self-proclaimed caliphate. The foreign
  minister of
  Iran, meanwhile, says air strikes alone won’t defeat ISIS,
  while Iran’s president,
  Hassan Rouhani, called the American-led coalition “ridiculous.”
  Police in
  Australia say they foiled a plot by ISIS supporters to behead
  people in Australia and video tape the acts.
• Even if it were faced with a search warrant,
  Apple says encryption in its latest mobile operating system,
  iOS 8, won’t allow the company to bypass users’ passwords.
• Police in Phoenix arrested Arizona Cardinals running back
  
  Jonathan Dwyer on aggravated assault charges connected to two
  alleged domestic altercations, involving a 27-year-old woman and an
  18-month-old child.
• Joe Biden becomes at least the third potential Democrat
  presidential candidate to visit
  Iowa this month.
• Toronto Mayor
  Rob Ford has been diagnosed with cancer. Nothing funny about
  that.
• A non-binding decision by the International Whaling Commission
  to extend a moratorium on scientific whaling by
  Japan won’t affect the country’s 2015 culling plans. 

Follow Reason and Reason 24/7 on
Twitter, and like us on Facebook. You
can also get the top stories mailed to you—sign up
here.

As Scotland votes on independence, let’s pause for an
impassioned speech on the plight of a colonized people:

(From Trainspotting. What were you
expecting, Braveheart or something? This is
better.)

On
the lawfulness of Obama’s proposed war with ISIS, the president has
painted himself into a corner, argues Andrew Napolitano. Last year,
he quite properly recognized that the Authorization for Use of
Military Force (AUMF)—a statute enacted by Congress in 2002 to
permit President George W. Bush to use the military to track down,
capture, or kill all persons or organizations that planned the
attacks of 9/11—cannot apply to organizations that did not exist at
the time of 9/11, of which ISIS is one.

That leaves the president with two remaining alternatives,
explains Napolitano. One is the War Powers Resolution—but that only
applies to military invasions of 180 days or fewer. Obama’s
military advisers have told him he cannot achieve his objective in
180 days. They also have told him he cannot achieve his objective
by the use of air power alone. 

The remaining mechanism for starting a war is to follow the
Constitution by seeking a congressional declaration of war. But
Obama has not yet asked for such a declaration. Why not?

View this article.

On
the lawfulness of Obama’s proposed war with ISIS, the president has
painted himself into a corner, argues Andrew Napolitano. Last year,
he quite properly recognized that the Authorization for Use of
Military Force (AUMF)—a statute enacted by Congress in 2002 to
permit President George W. Bush to use the military to track down,
capture, or kill all persons or organizations that planned the
attacks of 9/11—cannot apply to organizations that did not exist at
the time of 9/11, of which ISIS is one.

That leaves the president with two remaining alternatives,
explains Napolitano. One is the War Powers Resolution—but that only
applies to military invasions of 180 days or fewer. Obama’s
military advisers have told him he cannot achieve his objective in
180 days. They also have told him he cannot achieve his objective
by the use of air power alone. 

The remaining mechanism for starting a war is to follow the
Constitution by seeking a congressional declaration of war. But
Obama has not yet asked for such a declaration. Why not?

View this article.

Ghoncheh Ghavami has
spent more than two months in an Iranian jail after being arrested
for trying to enter a stadium to watch a men’s
volleyball match. Iran bars women from watching men’s
sporting events.

The House Committee on Homeland Security heard testimony today
from intelligence apparatchiks Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh
Johnson, FBI Director James Comey, and Director of the National
Counterterrorism Center Matthew Olson concerning potential “threats
to the homeland”—with ISIS, naturally, at the center of
attention.

The witnesses reminded the committee several times during the
proceedings that, in the words of Olson, the intelligence community
has “no information that ISIL is plotting an attack against the
United States.” Nor, once again, does the intelligence community
have any specific evidence that ISIS is trying to ooze through the
“porous southern border.” Cue Johnson:

We see no specific intelligence or evidence to suggest that ISIL
is attempting to infiltrate this country through our southern
border.

Olson concurred, stating that, while there has been a “very
small number of sympathizers of ISIL posting messages on social
media about this,” evidence remains scarce that “there’s an
operational plot to infiltrate or move operatives into the United
States from the south.”

Meanwhile, ISIS may be working to help America grow our very own
terrorists here at home. Olson, while admitting that “it remains to
be seen what the impact of that information on potential recruits
is,” warned that “there’s obviously a concern that the [ISIS]
propaganda is having an impact on recruiting,” evidenced by the
number of foreigners traveling to fight in Syria.

And all three witnesses agreed that declaring homegrown
terrorism a problem is far easier than doing anything about it. As
Comey dryly noted, “in a country this big and this free…it’s a big
challenge for us.”

A challenge that keeps getting bigger, as Rep. Michael McCaul
(R-Tex.) pointed out:

There have been more than 70 homegrown violent jihadist plots or
attacks in the United States since 9/11, according to the
Congressional Research Service. More than two-thirds of them have
been uncovered or have taken place in only the past five years.

Given the dearth of terrorist attacks actually carried out, has
the intelligence community has been doing a relatively decent job
despite the bigness and the freeness of the nation?

Well, perhaps. But the FBI has developed a rather worrisome
habit of manufacturing terrorist plots that it can then foil in
heroic fashion. According to a report from
Human Rights Watch:

All of the high-profile domestic terrorism plots of the last
decade, with four exceptions, were actually FBI sting
operations—plots conducted with the direct involvement of law
enforcement informants or agents, including plots that were
proposed or led by informants.

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) was therefore unintentionally
right when he said “we need to remain vigilant and improve
awareness and vigilance at home.” We should certainly be keeping an
eye on our public servants, at the very least.