WH's Proposed Authorization for the Use of Military Force: way too broad.

page: 1
9

log in

join

posted on Sep, 2 2013 @ 04:26 AM
link   
Here is the Whitehouse's proposed Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF):


(a) Authorization. — The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in connection with the use of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in the conflict in Syria in order to –

(1) prevent or deter the use or proliferation (including the transfer to terrorist groups or other state or non-state actors), within, to or from Syria, of any weapons of mass destruction, including chemical or biological weapons or components of or materials used in such weapons; or

(2) protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons.


(This can also be found in the link below)



As Senator Leahy and other members of Congress have already said, it is too broad. It is essentially a redux of the carte blanch that Congress gave to Bush to deal with Iraq.

Here is a portion of an analysis of just how broad this proposed AUMF is:


There is much more here than at first meets the eye. The proposed AUMF focuses on Syrian WMD but is otherwise very broad. It authorizes the President to use any element of the U.S. Armed Forces and any method of force. It does not contain specific limits on targets – either in terms of the identity of the targets (e.g. the Syrian government, Syrian rebels, Hezbollah, Iran) or the geography of the targets. Its main limit comes on the purposes for which force can be used. Four points are worth making about these purposes. First, the proposed AUMF authorizes the President to use force “in connection with” the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war. (It does not limit the President’s use force to the territory of Syria, but rather says that the use of force must have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian conflict. Activities outside Syria can and certainly do have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war.). Second, the use of force must be designed to “prevent or deter the use or proliferation” of WMDs “within, to or from Syria” or (broader yet) to “protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons.” Third, the proposed AUMF gives the President final interpretive authority to determine when these criteria are satisfied (“as he determines to be necessary and appropriate”). Fourth, the proposed AUMF contemplates no procedural restrictions on the President’s powers (such as a time limit).


Lawfare - The Administration’s Proposed Syria AUMF Is Very Broad

I recommend you check out the link and see the rest this person has to say on it. Here are a few of my thoughts on the matter, some o which coincide with the author of this piece.

With the authority this AUMF would provide, the president could choose to take up sides in the Syrian civil war and even attempt regime change because, after all, it is related to Syrian chemical weapon use. Note how the AUMF doesn't even say the Syrian government is responsible for these chemical weapons attacks; Obama could use the twisted logic that even if the rebels are using the chemical weapons, overthrowing the Assad regime would lead to the end of the use of chemical weapons.

Then there is the aspect of the AUMF discussing keeping chemical weapons from leaving or coming into Syria and keeping them from terrorists. What would then stop the US from attacking all shipments of anything in or out of Syria under the pretext that they were convoys of chemical weapons? What would stop the US from attacking Hezbollah or Hamas, claiming that these were pre-emptive strikes to keep terrorists from getting the Syrian chemical weapons?

Perhaps he worst aspect of this is that there is no geographical delineation of the zone of conflict. Since Russia and Iran are supporting Syria, could the US then say that attacks on these two countries are fair game because they are supporting a country supposedly using chemical weapons?

Another very important item is not mentioned in the AUMF, and that is whether US ground forces could also be involved. Given that the AUMF says the President can use US military force as he sees fit, it is implied that he could send ground troops in.

This is an incredibly expansive set of powers Obama wants. No way should Congress give him this blank check to wage war on Syria as it fool-heartedly gave Bush to deal with Iraq. This AUMF needs to be circumscribed. It's gobsmacking that this is what the president has presented Congress with. As the good lady in the video of this thread says:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

##snipped##
edit on 2-9-2013 by MrInquisitive because: (no reason given)

edit on Mon Sep 2 2013 by DontTreadOnMe because: 15e.) Recruitment/Solicitation:i) You will not use your membership in the Websites for any type of recruitment to any causes whatsoever. You will not Post. use the chat feature, use videos, or use the private message system to disseminate advertisements, chain letters, petitions, pyramid schemes, or any kind of solicitation for political action, social action, letter campaigns, or related online and/or offline coordinated actions of any kind.




posted on Sep, 2 2013 @ 04:56 AM
link   
So this is basically a license to go to war with Iran...

I love it that they haven't even presented any evidence whatsoever and still have the nerve to ask the world to just trust them. I love it even more that the world is essentially smartening up to the agenda and insidious tactics used to try and rule everyone and everything on this planet.

It is obviously another false flag this whole thing and I hope the world tells Obama to shove it.



posted on Sep, 2 2013 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrInquisitive
Here is the Whitehouse's proposed Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF):


(a) Authorization. — The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines.
So there.





The short version is clearer.



posted on Sep, 2 2013 @ 05:45 AM
link   
reply to post by MrInquisitive
 


@sir_slide and @alfa1,

You're both spot on.



posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 02:42 AM
link   
To the OP great find,man! S&F!
I've been wanting to read their resolution.Your right it's broad alright this is how they will try to get into Iran and Lebanon.Republican or Democrat it makes no difference who's in office after Obama this resolution will reappear since the folks down in DC are convince that the American public does not pay attention.



posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 02:57 AM
link   
reply to post by mike dangerously
 


This is the defining moment of US history - If the american public has not learned from the last two decades of maiming and killing our american soldiers to allow the Fed, World Bank, and IMF to continue to pollute the world with their money schemes - schemes that steal from everyone and give to them - We, the US population deserve the collapse, the enslavement, and poverty that we would not stand against.

This is so incredibly stupid that I believe obama was set up to be the fall guy - the harbinger of WW3, the mabus of the NWO of tyranny.

I'm sure obama has no clue, he's probably in the oval office doing illicit drugs - and some one wakes him up from his stupor and gives him a script to read.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 01:31 AM
link   
reply to post by mike dangerously
 


Now, supposedly, this AUMF is being circumscribed but SoS Kerry said there was still the possibility of boots being put on the ground, although he later waffled on that.

Yes, the congressional leadership of both parties seems to be backing some form of a AUMF resolution. One can only hope that the majority of congress are more sensible and/or fear losing in the next election, and hence will vote against it. And I'll be happy if the Republicans vote against it purely on political grounds, i.e. to make Obamination look bad/weak.

No one pushing for this attack have provided a legal basis for it or an explanation of how it will achieve its purported goals.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by MrInquisitive
 


I just wish the UN would take the lead whenever a massacre by any gov't takes place regardless of the kind of weapon used.

It happens. Usually the administration says it had no knowledge of it.





new topics
top topics
 
9

log in

join