SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Obama's Claimed War-Making Authority for Syria and Iraq Called 'Preposterous'
Administration official says War Powers requirement for congressional vote does not apply
Oct 16, 2014
The White House is facing criticism for its declaration on Wednesday that it can continue to escalate war in both Iraq and Syria without approval from Congress because it is granted authority from two pieces of legislation passed 12 and 13 years ago.
"These are illegal underpinnings for what is a new war in the Middle East," Stephen Miles of Win Without War told Common Dreams.
Under the War Powers Resolution, the president is forbidden from unilaterally waging military hostilities for more than 60 days without authorization from Congress. But October 7 marked 60 days since the U.S. began launching air bombardments on Iraq, which have since spread to Syria, and White House and Pentagon officials this week warned that the war is likely to last years.
On Wednesday, over a week after the expiration of the 60-day window, a top administration official declared that the limit does not apply to this current war. "Because the 2001 and 2002 [Authorizations for Use of Military Force] constitute specific authorization within the meaning of the War Powers Resolution, the War Powers Resolution's 60-day limitation on operations does not apply here," said Bernadette Meehan, spokesperson for the National Security Council, as quoted in the Guardian.
The 2001 AUMF was passed by Congress to authorize the president to use military force against those who waged or enabled the 2001 September 11th attacks. The 2002 AUMF authorized the 2003 invasion of Iraq and use of force against Saddam Hussein. Critics say that these pieces of legislation, themselves highly controversial, do not amount to blanket approval for the expanding war against ISIS.
"It's absolutely preposterous to use the 2001 AUMF about September 11th, or the 2002 AUMF to authorize war on Iraq," said Miles,echoing arguments from legal scholars issued before this most recent war began.
Ackerman writes for the Guardian, "Both resolutions long predate the existence of Isis, which al-Qaida has specifically excommunicated and denounced. Before the launch of Operation Inherent Resolve, Barack Obama supported the expiration of both AUMFs."
In a speech issued May of last year, Obama warned that the 2001 AUMF could be interpreted as a green light for endless war. He stated:
The AUMF is now nearly 12 years old. The Afghan war is coming to an end. Core al Qaeda is a shell of its former self. Groups like AQAP must be dealt with, but in the years to come, not every collection of thugs that labels themselves al Qaeda will pose a credible threat to the United States. Unless we discipline our thinking, our definitions, our actions, we may be drawn into more wars we don't need to fight, or continue to grant Presidents unbound powers more suited for traditional armed conflicts between nation states.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Sarah Lazare
Sarah Lazare is the editor of Workday Magazine and a contributing editor for In These Times. She is a former Staff Writer at Common Dreams. She comes from a background in independent journalism for publications including The Intercept, The Nation, and Tom Dispatch.
The White House is facing criticism for its declaration on Wednesday that it can continue to escalate war in both Iraq and Syria without approval from Congress because it is granted authority from two pieces of legislation passed 12 and 13 years ago.
"These are illegal underpinnings for what is a new war in the Middle East," Stephen Miles of Win Without War told Common Dreams.
Under the War Powers Resolution, the president is forbidden from unilaterally waging military hostilities for more than 60 days without authorization from Congress. But October 7 marked 60 days since the U.S. began launching air bombardments on Iraq, which have since spread to Syria, and White House and Pentagon officials this week warned that the war is likely to last years.
On Wednesday, over a week after the expiration of the 60-day window, a top administration official declared that the limit does not apply to this current war. "Because the 2001 and 2002 [Authorizations for Use of Military Force] constitute specific authorization within the meaning of the War Powers Resolution, the War Powers Resolution's 60-day limitation on operations does not apply here," said Bernadette Meehan, spokesperson for the National Security Council, as quoted in the Guardian.
The 2001 AUMF was passed by Congress to authorize the president to use military force against those who waged or enabled the 2001 September 11th attacks. The 2002 AUMF authorized the 2003 invasion of Iraq and use of force against Saddam Hussein. Critics say that these pieces of legislation, themselves highly controversial, do not amount to blanket approval for the expanding war against ISIS.
"It's absolutely preposterous to use the 2001 AUMF about September 11th, or the 2002 AUMF to authorize war on Iraq," said Miles,echoing arguments from legal scholars issued before this most recent war began.
Ackerman writes for the Guardian, "Both resolutions long predate the existence of Isis, which al-Qaida has specifically excommunicated and denounced. Before the launch of Operation Inherent Resolve, Barack Obama supported the expiration of both AUMFs."
In a speech issued May of last year, Obama warned that the 2001 AUMF could be interpreted as a green light for endless war. He stated:
The AUMF is now nearly 12 years old. The Afghan war is coming to an end. Core al Qaeda is a shell of its former self. Groups like AQAP must be dealt with, but in the years to come, not every collection of thugs that labels themselves al Qaeda will pose a credible threat to the United States. Unless we discipline our thinking, our definitions, our actions, we may be drawn into more wars we don't need to fight, or continue to grant Presidents unbound powers more suited for traditional armed conflicts between nation states.
Sarah Lazare
Sarah Lazare is the editor of Workday Magazine and a contributing editor for In These Times. She is a former Staff Writer at Common Dreams. She comes from a background in independent journalism for publications including The Intercept, The Nation, and Tom Dispatch.
The White House is facing criticism for its declaration on Wednesday that it can continue to escalate war in both Iraq and Syria without approval from Congress because it is granted authority from two pieces of legislation passed 12 and 13 years ago.
"These are illegal underpinnings for what is a new war in the Middle East," Stephen Miles of Win Without War told Common Dreams.
Under the War Powers Resolution, the president is forbidden from unilaterally waging military hostilities for more than 60 days without authorization from Congress. But October 7 marked 60 days since the U.S. began launching air bombardments on Iraq, which have since spread to Syria, and White House and Pentagon officials this week warned that the war is likely to last years.
On Wednesday, over a week after the expiration of the 60-day window, a top administration official declared that the limit does not apply to this current war. "Because the 2001 and 2002 [Authorizations for Use of Military Force] constitute specific authorization within the meaning of the War Powers Resolution, the War Powers Resolution's 60-day limitation on operations does not apply here," said Bernadette Meehan, spokesperson for the National Security Council, as quoted in the Guardian.
The 2001 AUMF was passed by Congress to authorize the president to use military force against those who waged or enabled the 2001 September 11th attacks. The 2002 AUMF authorized the 2003 invasion of Iraq and use of force against Saddam Hussein. Critics say that these pieces of legislation, themselves highly controversial, do not amount to blanket approval for the expanding war against ISIS.
"It's absolutely preposterous to use the 2001 AUMF about September 11th, or the 2002 AUMF to authorize war on Iraq," said Miles,echoing arguments from legal scholars issued before this most recent war began.
Ackerman writes for the Guardian, "Both resolutions long predate the existence of Isis, which al-Qaida has specifically excommunicated and denounced. Before the launch of Operation Inherent Resolve, Barack Obama supported the expiration of both AUMFs."
In a speech issued May of last year, Obama warned that the 2001 AUMF could be interpreted as a green light for endless war. He stated:
The AUMF is now nearly 12 years old. The Afghan war is coming to an end. Core al Qaeda is a shell of its former self. Groups like AQAP must be dealt with, but in the years to come, not every collection of thugs that labels themselves al Qaeda will pose a credible threat to the United States. Unless we discipline our thinking, our definitions, our actions, we may be drawn into more wars we don't need to fight, or continue to grant Presidents unbound powers more suited for traditional armed conflicts between nation states.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.