EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
We Will Always Be at War against Everyone
As Spencer reported yesterday, the incoming Chair of the House Armed Services Committee Buck McKeon wants to revisit and expand the 2001 AUMF authorizing our war against al Qaeda.
The objective wouldn’t be “drop a new Authorization to Use Military Force, but to reaffirm and strengthen the existing one,” says an aide to McKeon who requested anonymity, “recognizing that the enemy has changed geographically and evolved since 2001.”
I’m thoroughly unsurprised by this. As I pointed out the other day, if we’re going to hold Khalid Sheikh Mohammed solely using the justification of the AUMF, then we’re going to want to make sure that AUMF is designed to last forever; otherwise, KSM would be entitled to get out when–for example–we withdraw from Afghanistan. Frankly, I expect the Administration will be happy to be forced to accept another AUMF, because it’ll get them out of some really terrible arguments they’ve been making as they try to apply the AUMF to detention situations it clearly doesn’t apply to.
But there are two other aspects to a “reaffirmed and strengthened” AUMF. As McKeon’s aide notes, the enemy has changed geographically, moving to Yemen and Somalia. A new AUMF will make it easier to build the new bases in Yemen they’re planning.
The U.S. is preparing for an expanded campaign against al Qaeda in Yemen, mobilizing military and intelligence resources to enable Yemeni and American strikes and drawing up a longer-term proposal to establish Yemeni bases in remote areas where militants operate.
And I would bet that the AUMF is drafted broadly enough to allow drone strikes anywhere the government decides it sees a terrorist.
Which brings us to the most insidious part of a call for a new AUMF: the “homeland.” The AUMF serves or has served as the basis for the government’s expanded powers in the US, to do things like wiretap Americans. Now that the Republicans know all the powers the government might want to use against US persons domestically, do you really think they will resist the opportunity to write those powers into an AUMF (whether through vagueness or specificity), so as to avoid the quadrennial review and debate over the PATRIOT Act (not to mention the oversight currently exercised by DOJ’s Inspector General)? The only matter of suspense, for me, is what role they specify for drones operating domestically…
Remember, John Yoo once wrote an OLC memo claiming that because of the nature of this war the military could operate in the US with no limitations by the Fourth Amendment. That memo remained in effect for seven years. We know where they want to go with this permanent war against terror.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
25 Comments so far
Show AllYou left out the new part about the child soldiers. Not that it matters, right?
Eternal occupation or war equals eternal revenue stream for the military industrial media complex.
If you want answers, follow the money.
I'm sure Xe will have a steady line of Contract Soldiers for the percivible future. Now that their out from under NATO scrutiny in China they can hire from all those lovely developing countries... you knowthe ones that have yet to develop a food supply!
>^^<
Republicans and conservatives are supporters of an invasive, unchecked military big-government...we need to call them out and oppose their shredding of our Constitution.
Don't forget to include, Obama, the Constitutional Scholar!
Uh, you might want to review your American history a bit, and especially that of the Democratic party. Since the Democratic party was founded in 1800 they have eagerly pushed, supported and voted for every single war that the U.S. has been in. Without exception. They have voted for every increase in the military budget since day one. Without exception. They have vigorously engaged in massive abuses, war crimes, torture and all matter of heinous activity, and systematically blocked any and all calls for investigations into any abuses. Without exception. Especially see the history of the Vietnam War, begun by Democrats, and the massive cover-up of the same, also led by Democrats. Since they gained control of Congress in 2006 they have systematically increased the military budget each and every year, and have strongly supported the expansion of US involvement into more and more countries. So, if you are one of the minority of Americans who have aided and abetted their warmongering you should grow up and take some responsibility for your crimes, and stop dishonestly blaming others for your actions. Yes, the Republicans have also committed these crimes, but no more so than the Democrats. And at least a Republican president warned of the dangers of a military-industrial complex. No Democratic president has ever done so, or done anything (that I know of) to oppose it.
"And at least a Republican president warned of the dangers of a military-industrial complex. No Democratic president has ever done so, or done anything (that I know of) to oppose it."
Right, Eisenhower "warned" of the dangers, when he was leaving office, and no longer in any position to do anything. Cheap worthless rhetoric. When he was in office, not only did he do nothing to try to check the military-industrial complex, he was very much an imperialist, fully in bed with the military-industrial complex.
Talk is cheap. Making a meaningless speech is not opposing.
SO your saying Republicans and Democrats?
>^^<
This re-authorization of a war against al Qaeda is just paperwork. The US does paperwork after the fact. First it commits terrorist acts and then it seeks a justification for them. It does not feel obliged to follow international law as it conducts its campaigns against its enemies. Why does the US bother to construct any sort of faux theoretical framework built ostensibly on national or international law? Why go to the trouble?--especially when special ops from the Pentagon will go out to Yemen, Iran, and Pakistan and do whatever they damn well please?
I would say that the article is saying that the government will be justifying the use of military here at home--not because the feel they need to, but because it provides "political" cover. You can bet this country is loaded with idiots who will happily sign onto this, as long as it makes us "safer."
Yea this ain't the W. administration where everything was written in crayon on bar napkins, now we have commitiees that write up long reports that justify these things well in advance!
>^^<
We will only stay at war against everyone when we choose to be at war against everyone. Can you be for peace without raising a war to get there? Progressives need to team up and make the case for peace. Can we do it or must we fail?
I am sick to death of these labels, progressive, conservative, whatever. I would rather say that all of the citizens of America who's heads aren't buried to the neck in their own asses should find common cause in stopping the 1% from destroying the other 99% of us. You don't need a political party, a belief classification, or a hell of a lot of brains to see that this is exactly what is happening. If by some million to one god-damned miracle, the American people ever got together on just one thing that we could all agree on, everyone in D.C. would simultaniously shit their pants. They would remember who they are supposed to work for and what they are sworn to protect.
"I would rather say that all of the citizens of America who's heads aren't buried to the neck in their own asses should find common cause in stopping the 1% from destroying the other 99% of us."
That's a good suggestion too. But then how do we pull their necks out of their "asses" first?
I love it, well said!
SO SAY WE ALL!
>^^<
Heyoka hey!
"November 16, 2010 by Empty Wheel
We Will Always Be at War against Everyone"
No 'you' won't... there will come a time, and not too far away...when everyone will be at war with America...
'You', her innocents, will find yourselves trying to become insurgents - people rebelling in their own land against their own government who caused this attack, and freedom-fighters against the vengeful attackers as well, all with what meagre weapons they possess (relatively : mere pop-guns,) Just as in iraq and Afghanistan.. just like Mandela.
Civil war and the collapse of America.. But, some other 'powerful country' or bloc of countries will arise.
Of course. For so it goes and has, in recorded history, always gone.
Hmm... I guess that is gloomy... Maybe we will one day be able to FORCE 'good and wise men' to rule as a duty to their Society. (Plato, including the 'force' bit). For, as he said : good and wise men do not seek to rule.
~sc
dros....
"Why does the US bother to construct any sort of faux theoretical framework built ostensibly on national or international law? Why go to the trouble?"
I have considered this point also.... I think : Why don't the American leaders (Party doesn't come into it) say : America intends to be a part of the rulers of the World... we intend to have ONE or no formal religion. We will form a government with leaders of ALL other powerful nations (all equally sharing power in that government) and no country, no nation, will have armaments. We shall rule as best we can... Each nation having the power to police their own country, under our eyes. Each nation 'rule' itself, under our eyes.
Some pack of lies (or maybe not) to back their murderous assaults.. But then we have the question :
'Are we entitled to do evil now, in the expectation that good will follow?'
Shadow
"Life is good. What an experience! It's always best to forgive."
Have to mention.. not according to the poem!
~sc
Shadow.... referring in particular to the words : Life is good!
Al Quaeda has won and lost. It won in that it was successful in destroying the World Trade Center; but, it has lost by moving America far to the right thereby greatly strengthening American political will, the military, and ultimately assuring its own destruction. Whether Al Quaeda wins again will ultimately be determined by America's turning away from Democracy and adopting a police state. It seems likely.
I don't see how we can avoid wars, crime, pollution, extinctions and other ills as long as overpopulation grows and wealth and power concentrate.
Well said, Ms Wheeler .
‘Homeland’? The term makes me shiver and “The Department of Homeland Security” sounds like it might have been coined by Josef Göbbels (“Das Amt des Sicherheit des Heimat, aka HSA or Heimat-Sicherheit-Amt”).