GOP's plans for permanent war against terror?

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   
So, according to the Dems, the Republicans are trying to sneak in some wording to make the war on terror 'permanent. In a letter many House Dems addressed to the GOP, they claim:




By declaring a global war against nameless individuals, organizations, and nations "associated" with the Taliban and al Qaeda, as well as those playing a supporting role in their efforts, the Detainee Security Act would appear to grant the President near unfettered authority to initiate military action around the world without further congressional approval. Such authority must not be ceded to the President without careful deliberation from Congress.



The specific language in the bill is found in section 1034 of H.R. 1540, which affirms that the U.S. is "engaged in an armed conflict with al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces." It also affirms that the president has the authority to detain "certain belligerents" until the armed conflict is over.

"Al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces still pose a grave threat to U.S. national security," the bill says. "The Authorization for Use of Military Force necessarily includes the authority to address the continuing and evolving threat posed by these groups." Democrats wrote to House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) and asked him to hold hearings on these proposals before including them in the NDAA, particularly given the recent killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan.

But Republicans are not expected to consider that request. Instead, McKeon is expected to hold a markup Wednesday morning to grant committee approval of the bill.



thehill.com...

thehill.com...


I'm not really sure about the interpretation of the wording by the Dems.

What say you all?




posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   
It just absolutely baffles me how a political party can claim to support the US Constitution, then turn around and do everything they can to undermine its principles.

If it hasn't become blatantly obvious to everyone that these military campaigns are being opted to increase profits to the politicians who hold shares in overseas contractors, then it's time for a serious wake-up call. This should be it.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by drwizardphd
 


Oh, I agree. The GOP are hypocrites. But I'm not sure I agree with the interpretation of the legislation, according to the Dems.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 09:50 PM
link   
So, NOONE can help clarify the wording of this bill for me?



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Related thread:

Congress Will Vote To Declare World War 3
www.abovetopsecret.com...
by alexhiggins732
started on 5/15/2011 @ 09:48 PM



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by this_is_who_we_are
Related thread:

Congress Will Vote To Declare World War 3
www.abovetopsecret.com...
by alexhiggins732
started on 5/15/2011 @ 09:48 PM


yeh, i question your interpretation of that bill. Can you explain HOW you are coming to that conclusion?


Section 1034—Affirmation of Armed Conflict with Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and Associated Forces This section would affirm that the United States is engaged in an 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). This section would also affirm that the President’s authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force includes the authority to detain certain belligerents until the termination of hostilities. The committee notes that as the United States nears the tenth anniversary of the attacks on September 11, 2001, the terrorist threat has evolved as a result of intense military and diplomatic pressure from the United States and its coalition partners. However, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces still pose a grave threat to U.S. national security. The Authorization for Use of Military Force necessarily includes the authority to address the continuing and evolving threat posed by these groups. The committee supports the Executive Branch’s interpretation of the Authorization for Use of Military Force, as it was described in a March 13, 2009, filing before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. While this affirmation is not intended to limit or alter the President’s existing authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force, the Executive Branch’s March 13, 2009, interpretation remains consistent with the scope of the authorities provided by Congress. Section 1035—Requirement


thehill.com...



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 


The wording of the bill HR 1540 section 1034 ....


SEC. 1034 [Log #215]. AFFIRMATION OF ARMED CONFLICT WITH AL-QAEDA, THE TALIBAN, AND ASSOCIATED FORCES. 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.


found here ... armedservices.house.gov ...

concerns me ...

as posted in another thread on the subject I said ...

I would argue that the above "affirmation" allows the president to use military force with any nation that is said to be providing aid to Al Qaeda and to detain people indefinitely "until the termination of hostilities" or IMO forever. That by passing this law the President may pursue the war with any nation the President says is aiding Al Qaeda with no further approval from congress. Hell we just attacked Lybia with no approval from congress either so I don't know that it changes business as usual but it certainly gives approval to pursue the "war on terror" as the president sees fit even if that means attacking other nations.

Pakistan would now be considered such a nation would it not? Harboring Osama? Attacking Pakistan could set off WW3 could it not?

edit on 17-5-2011 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Yeah, like the other party isnt all for perpetual war?

Wake me up when the PA is shredded, the bases are closed, the TSA is disbanded, the troops ALL come home, Libya ceases to be "open ended" etc...

Every suit in that swamp loves war.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Yeah, like the other party isnt all for perpetual war?

Wake me up when the PA is shredded, the bases are closed, the TSA is disbanded, the troops ALL come home, Libya ceases to be "open ended" etc...

Every suit in that swamp loves war.


Yeah, that was my question, too. Kinda funny that they are blaming the GOP for this.

Still, I dont really agree that it is doing much more than affirming the same things they alla greed on under the Bush Admin-that the war on terror has nor borders.





new topics
top topics
 
3

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum