Home » Geopolitics » Cure Worse Than Disease: Bill to Restrict Trump’s War Powers Would Actually “Endorse a Worldwide War on Terror”

Cure Worse Than Disease: Bill to Restrict Trump’s War Powers Would Actually “Endorse a Worldwide War on Terror”

RAQQA, SYRIA - AUGUST 18:  Smoke rises from a building believed to be housing ISIS, after being hit by a mortar round fired from a United States military base on August 18, 2017 in western Raqqa.The MFS is a group of Assyrian Christians who fight alongside the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in Raqqa. The SDF was created in 2015 with the specific purpose of fighting ISIL and was armed by former US President Obama. The second Battle of Raqqa was launched in June 2017 and is the fifth and final phase of the Raqqa Campaign by the SDF.  (Photo by Rick Findler/Getty Images)
Photo: Rick Findler/Getty Images

CURE WORSE THAN DISEASE: BILL TO RESTRICT TRUMP’S WAR POWERS WOULD ACTUALLY “ENDORSE A WORLDWIDE WAR ON TERROR”

ON MONDAY, THREE Republican and three Democratic senators, led by Sens. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., and Tim Kaine, D-Va., released a draft of a new “authorization for use of military force,” or AUMF.

This AUMF would repeal the AUMF passed on September 14, 2001, which gave the president the power “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.” It would also nullify the October, 2002, AUMF that authorized the president to use the military to “defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.”

Not surprisingly, Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump have each taken this extremely broad language and run with it. A 2016 Congressional Research Service report found 37 examples in 14 different countries of Bush and Obama using the 2001 AUMF to justify the use of military force. When a U.S. jet shot down a Syrian government bomber in June 2017, the Trump administration explained that it could legally do so because the jet was there as part of the U.S. campaign against the Islamic State — which is somehow an organization that committed the 9/11 attacks, even though it didn’t exist before 9/11.

So, something needs to be done about this. “For too long, Congress has given presidents a blank check,” Kaine recently said. “Our proposal finally repeals those authorizations and makes Congress do its job by weighing in on where, when, and with who we are at war.”

That sounds good. But the actual language of the Corker-Kaine bill appears to do almost the opposite of what its authors claim.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…