It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by SNAFU211
If we are discussing sources and creditability. Why not look to the obvious, if you check the Library of Congress, you'll see that for April 14, 2011, there was no House Resolution numbered HR 1540 tabled that day, or any day during the 1st Session of the 112th Congress. If someone can find it in the Library of Congress please let me know. But so far I've yet to see the Bill in this source. I know many readers and posters will be somewhat skeptical about any source being from "The Government", but if the Bill was tabled and voted on, then it has to appear in the Library of Congress.
If anyone is interested the link is thomas.loc.gov... this is my first time posting a link so please bare with me.
P.S. If you notice the link I present dose not end in a ".org, .com, or .us" suffix, if you ask any journalist or university teacher, you'll find that those suffix websites tend to be treated as suspect for source material.
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.
Originally posted by CranialSponge
This "bill" has already been passed...
It's called Homeland Security.
Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by MegaMind
Fine. But the question is does Section 1034 give the President brand new widespread unilateral powers that he doesn't already have? I.e., is this really something new? Please explain specifically how this bill gives the president new powers he never had before to start wars.
As far as I knew, the president always has had the power to unilaterally send troops into conflict without the specific consent of a congressional vote. A congressional vote is needed to declare war, but the War Powers Act allows the president to send troops into conflict for 90 days without the specific approval of the congress.
Also, does this bill really mean -- as the OP says -- That Congress WILL declare World War 3? Please connect the dots for me as to how this bill SPECIFICALLY will be used to declare World War 3.
Originally posted by MegaMind
My thinking was correct ..
armedservices.house.gov ... (literally from the "horses" mouth)
Armed Services Committee approved this version of the bill called Chairman's Marks. The link above has link to a pdf with section 1034 as posted already. The Chairman of this committee Buck McKeon is the one who introduced the bill.
Consider this fully sourced/credible now.
Edit: You naysayers really get me. Did any of you even bother really searching for this Now all that is left is the interpretation of this section. The ACLU and many Democrats find the wording troubling and so do I. Now why is this in a "Highly Speculative" section? It exists. I proved it. Many others are concerned by the language - that is proven. What is "highly speculative" about it now? The title is a little over the top - maybe. But this is no longer a speculation of its existence .. so I think .....
This needs to be moved from Skunk Works now!
Originally posted by MegaMind
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
Funny I noticed your thread was posted in the world war 3 forum.
Among the many troubling aspects of the Detainee Security Act are provisions that expand the war against terrorist organizations on a global basis. The Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) of 2001 was widely thought to provide authorization for the war in Afghanistan to root out al Qaeda, the Taliban, and others responsible for the 9/11 attacks. That war has dragged on for almost ten years, and after the demise of Osama Bin Laden, as the United States prepares for withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Detainee Security Act purports to expand the "armed conflict" against the Taliban, al Qaeda, and "associated forces" without limit. 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.
Reps. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), John Dingell (D-Mich.), Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), Bob Filner (D-Calif.), Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Michael Honda (D-Calif.), Jesse Jackson (D-Ill.), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), John Lewis (D-Ga.), Jim McDermott (D-Wash.), James McGovern (D-Mass.), George Miller (D-Calif.), Jim Moran (D-Va.), Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), Donald Payne (D-N.J.), David Price (D-N.C.), Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), Bobby Scott (D-Va.), Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), Fortney “Pete” Stark (D-Calif.), Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) and David Wu (D-Ore.).
Originally posted by MegaMind
I say move it to the World War 3 forum like yours and argue about what the section means not whether it exist.