Senators Make Another Bid to Authorize War Against ISIS

[DonViejo]

Source: Roll Call



Flake and Kaine have tried before

Posted May 25, 2017 11:30 AM
Niels Lesniewski

“When I voted in 2001 to authorize military force against the perpetrators of the September 11th attacks, I had no idea I would be authorizing armed conflict for more than fifteen years, and counting.”

That’s what Sen. Jeff Flake said Thursday. The Arizona Republican was announcing yet another effort with Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., to get Congress to actually go on record to authorize the use of military force against ISIS and other terror groups.

“It is past time for Congress to voice its support for the war against ISIS, something many military officers and diplomats working to defeat ISIS have advocated for, and for Congress to reassert some of the authority it has abdicated over the years,” Flake said in a statement.

Kaine, the Democratic nominee for vice president in 2016, has been working with Flake on authorizations for several years. He had said President Barack Obama needed congressional approval to combat ISIS.




Read more: http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/senators-make-another-bid-authorize-war-isis

---

[They_Live]

1. Pretty sure we're already at war with "terror"

got some brilliant new strategy? maybe helping people?

[Bradical79]

7. True, though this is more about Congressional authority

It really should be debated among our elected representatives with each going on the record in a vote. They've basically given away their biggest check on the executive branch when it comes to war.

[FairWinds]

2. For years Obama asked Congress to do its job . .

in authorizing the use of force.

The GOP Congress refused to even hold hearings . .

And now we have set the extremely bad precedent of
allowing the president to wage war completely on
his/her own.

The Drumph will certainly make use of this.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. I don't think a President or Congress can

declare war against a belief, concept, or a derivative of a religion/philosophy.

Correct me but this country can only declare war against a sovereign nation. And I don't mean a theoretical nation like an Islamic Caliphet.

[mpcamb]

5. I suspect it'll work as well as the War on Drugs.

[Initech]

4. All another war on terror is going to do is make more terrorists.

Think ISIS and Boko Haram are bad now? If we get rid of ISIS and Boko Haram, there's going to be other groups coming who will be a million times worse. We have to get rid of these inhuman monsters, don't get me wrong, but fighting terror with terror isn't going to be the way to do it.

[BumRushDaShow]

6. I think that they are doing this

to get rid of what has morphed into an "open-ended" authorization (AUMF) from 2001 (originally targeting Al Qaeda but now suddenly being used for justification in other dalliances) and either "officially" create a "new" authorization for current threats (specified) or none at all.

In any case, what we are doing now is way out of scope from that original authorization, it is obsolete, and needs to be revoked.