We Don't Need More Drone Strikes Around the World
This weekend marks the tenth anniversary of the Authorization for Use of Military Force--the blank check that Congress wrote to George W. Bush in response to the attacks of September 11th. (See the op-ed by Michael Ratner, emeritus president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, on this anniversary)
This weekend marks the tenth anniversary of the Authorization for Use of Military Force--the blank check that Congress wrote to George W. Bush in response to the attacks of September 11th. (See the op-ed by Michael Ratner, emeritus president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, on this anniversary)
It granted the President the authority "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons."
The bill passed the Senate 98-0 and the House 420-1. Democrat Barbara Lee from California, to her eternal credit, was the only person in the entire Congress to vote against it.
Bush then used this sweeping authorization not only to attack Afghanistan but to justify his detention policies in Guantanamo and even his illegal domestic spying.
Now, ten years later, the Pentagon is claiming that the President still has the right to go attack anyone affiliated with Al Qaeda, including foot soldiers of groups with only vague connections. Under this view, the U.S. could use drone strikes anywhere in the world against thousands and thousands of people.
See Charlie Savage's story in The New York Times.
This would greatly broaden the policy of summary execution--yeah, let's call it what it is--that the Obama Administration has been pursuing in Pakistan and Yemen.
Republican members of Congress want to grant the President the statutory authority to do this.
It's as though they've learned nothing from the overreach that the first authorization of military force prompted ten years ago.
The last thing any President needs is more unilateral authority to go kill people.
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 |
This weekend marks the tenth anniversary of the Authorization for Use of Military Force--the blank check that Congress wrote to George W. Bush in response to the attacks of September 11th. (See the op-ed by Michael Ratner, emeritus president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, on this anniversary)
It granted the President the authority "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons."
The bill passed the Senate 98-0 and the House 420-1. Democrat Barbara Lee from California, to her eternal credit, was the only person in the entire Congress to vote against it.
Bush then used this sweeping authorization not only to attack Afghanistan but to justify his detention policies in Guantanamo and even his illegal domestic spying.
Now, ten years later, the Pentagon is claiming that the President still has the right to go attack anyone affiliated with Al Qaeda, including foot soldiers of groups with only vague connections. Under this view, the U.S. could use drone strikes anywhere in the world against thousands and thousands of people.
See Charlie Savage's story in The New York Times.
This would greatly broaden the policy of summary execution--yeah, let's call it what it is--that the Obama Administration has been pursuing in Pakistan and Yemen.
Republican members of Congress want to grant the President the statutory authority to do this.
It's as though they've learned nothing from the overreach that the first authorization of military force prompted ten years ago.
The last thing any President needs is more unilateral authority to go kill people.
This weekend marks the tenth anniversary of the Authorization for Use of Military Force--the blank check that Congress wrote to George W. Bush in response to the attacks of September 11th. (See the op-ed by Michael Ratner, emeritus president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, on this anniversary)
It granted the President the authority "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons."
The bill passed the Senate 98-0 and the House 420-1. Democrat Barbara Lee from California, to her eternal credit, was the only person in the entire Congress to vote against it.
Bush then used this sweeping authorization not only to attack Afghanistan but to justify his detention policies in Guantanamo and even his illegal domestic spying.
Now, ten years later, the Pentagon is claiming that the President still has the right to go attack anyone affiliated with Al Qaeda, including foot soldiers of groups with only vague connections. Under this view, the U.S. could use drone strikes anywhere in the world against thousands and thousands of people.
See Charlie Savage's story in The New York Times.
This would greatly broaden the policy of summary execution--yeah, let's call it what it is--that the Obama Administration has been pursuing in Pakistan and Yemen.
Republican members of Congress want to grant the President the statutory authority to do this.
It's as though they've learned nothing from the overreach that the first authorization of military force prompted ten years ago.
The last thing any President needs is more unilateral authority to go kill people.