Wednesday, May 25, 2011

ACTION Added: Obama Opposed to Being Given Total War Power

Article just in below...Action on top for easy access:

Quick simple ACTION (regardless of the outcome in congress or the WH, YOUR voice counts: PLZ read the helpful background on the current debate in the US House and act accordingly:

ACT NOW: This will take only a few minutes - plz personalize. For example, I noted at top my short indignation and why. I added at the end how the legislator's conscience, Muslim neighbor,children and grand-children(grownup) might vote.

CLICK here

Cut/paste/edit and get out to your contacts the following link/info:
https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3195&s_subsrc=110511_aumf_ac

Helpful commentary (the US - ACLU is highlighted as the FIRST to be aware of the layered and worrisome issues.) http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/05/24/obama-administration-threatens-veto-of-defense-bill-over-redefinition-of-aumf/

Whether too late or not, Obama may pay attention if we contact WH to let him know we like the way he's thinking on this one? And let's remember his words and HOLD him to this. AND, foolproof by calling legislators and getting out the word in whatever way works best for us on several levels (Connie)

For signs Obama may be talking from both sides of his mouth, see the UPDATE on Monday's post for Shannonwatch.com and related see earlier post http://oneheartforpeace.blogspot.com/2011/05/spotlight-on-human-rights-irelandus-may.html or simply go to Shannonwatch.com for May 25th

SEE David Swanson's post today:

Obama Opposed to Being Given Total War Power Wed, 2011-05-25 04:21 — davidswanson
Peace and WarThe White House has put out a statement expressing its disapproval of various bits of H.R.1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. Here's the most interesting, if not the most adamant, objection:

"Detainee Matters: The Administration strongly objects to section 1034 which, in purporting to affirm the conflict, would effectively recharacterize its scope and would risk creating confusion regarding applicable standards. At a minimum, this is an issue that merits more extensive consideration before possible inclusion."

And here's Section 1034:

"Congress affirms that--
(1) the United States is engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces and that those entities continue to pose a threat to the United States and its citizens, both domestically and abroad;
(2) the President has the authority to use all necessary and appropriate force during the current armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note);
(3) the current armed conflict includes nations, organization, and persons who--
(A) are part of, or are substantially supporting, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or
(B) have engaged in hostilities or have directly supported hostilities in aid of a nation, organization, or person described in subparagraph (A); and
(4) the President's authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority to detain belligerents, including persons described in paragraph (3), until the termination of hostilities."

This is language that would allow presidents to make war almost anytime anywhere. Obama's disapproval raises some interesting questions:

Will the Democratic leadership whip hard against this language, and against the bill if it is left in? Has Obama told them to?

Will Obama veto the bill if it is passed including this biggest ever unconstitutional reshaping of government powers, a move he "strongly objects" to?

If he doesn't veto it, will he signing statement it away? And if he does that, what will be the legal status of a piece of legislation that unconstitutionally gives congressional powers to the executive, a piece of unconstitutional legislation that has been unconstitutionally erased by a signing statement?

Will Libya and dozens of other current military operations be legal because signing statements are unconstitutional or illegal because Section 1034 is unconstitutional?

Does it matter, since the wars roll along regardless and impeachment is reserved for sex?

And, last but not least, if a member of the White House Press Corpse ever asks about this during a press conference, what size cell will that lucky person be locked up in?

3 comments:

Connie L. Nash said...

Also see the excelling on commentary, insight and proactive alerts on FireDogLake.com

http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/05/24/obama-administration-threatens-veto-of-defense-bill-over-redefinition-of-aumf/Obama Administration Threatens Veto of Defense Bill Over Redefinition of AUMF

Connie L. Nash said...

Plz watch the US military and WH from many different angles because they don't all fit together at all nor do the statements from the very same leader (in this case the US Prez who has set a new pact for cooperation with Shannon Airport and Irish leaders.)

Connie L. Nash said...

To see the folk we should be listening to who know plenty about the use of Shannon Airport for Renditions:

http://www.examiner.ie/text/ireland/kfojojgbidcw/

http://edwardhorgan.com/about.html

http://www.shannonwatch.org/page/reference-material

http://nomorecrusades.blogspot.com/2010/03/news-flash-handover-of-shannon-airport.html