House Appropriations Cmte Votes To Cancel 2001 AUMF, Removing Trumps Ability To Wage War

RootBeerMan

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Jan 3, 2016
1,266
5,003
About time someone decided to cancel the damned AUMF. It was always too broad and insured never ending ending war powers in the hands of the president. Hopefully the amendment will make it through the process and put war powers back in the hands of the Congress, where it belongs. If a president wants to wage war he should go before Congress and ask for a declaration of war, as the Constitution lays out.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/340066-lawmakers-applaud-after-panel-approves-language-revoking-war-authority

The House Appropriations Committee on Thursday approved an amendment that would revoke a 2001 law giving the president authority to undertake war against al Qaeda and its affiliates unless a replacement provision is created.

Lawmakers applauded when the amendment was added by voice vote to the defense spending bill, highlighting the frustration many members of Congress feel about the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which was initially approved to authorize the response to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

It has since been used to justify the Iraq War and the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

Despite the applause, it is unclear whether it will make it past the Senate and be included in a final version of a defense spending bill. The amendment would revoke the 2001 AUMF after 240 days following the passing of the act, forcing Congress to vote on a new AUMF in the interim.
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), the only member of Congress to vote against the initial AUMF, introduced the amendment.

It would repeal “the overly broad 2001 Authorization of Use of Military Force, after a period of 8 months after the enactment of this act, giving the administration and Congress sufficient time to decide what measures should replace it,” according to Lee.

That would give Congress a narrow window to approve a new AUMF, something lawmakers have struggled with for years. Efforts to move forward with a new AUMF have teetered with some members of Congress wanting to constrain the president's actions and others wanting to give the executive branch more leeway.
 

RootBeerMan

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Jan 3, 2016
1,266
5,003
THE last clown instilled confidence? that is one heavy set of partisan glasses there, he bombed more than Bush.
This, too. It's far too much power to vest in one persons hands, especially if that person is unstable (like the current president). All of them should have to go before the Congress for permission to wage war. With the passage of the 2001 AUMF the Congress abrogated their responsibilities under the Constitution, something they should not have done and, it can be argued that they had no power to do.
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Jun 10, 2013
682
38,971
Criminal Mexi Midget
Obama did not invade, he had to deal with the mess Dubya started and left behind. I think you are mostly alone in this forum, in the U.S. and world wide with your typically myopic assertion.
Libya & Syria................all on Obama
[doublepost=1498763442][/doublepost]
https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2017-01-17/obamas-covert-drone-war-in-numbers-ten-times-more-strikes-than-bush
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/us/politics/obama-as-wartime-president-has-wrestled-with-protecting-nation-and-troops.html
 

hulugu

macrumors 68000
Aug 13, 2003
1,819
10,200
quae tangit perit Trump
As I suspected, you're conflating "bombs" with strikes by Predator drones. I haven't found the data, but I suspect that overall use of bombs between the Bush and Obama administrations might be close.

Remember, the operational tempos changed from 2007 to 2009, and the U.S. shifted from using aircraft like the B-52 to B-1s and Predators.

The racetracks over Mazar-i-Sharif and Tora Bora included dozens of coalition aircraft, including B-52s that dropped hundreds of tons of ordinance almost at once. A C-130 dropped the first BLU-82 on the heads of Taliban fighters during that battle.

Obama expanded the war on terror, by ordering operations in Libya and Syria, but the shift in combat likely lowered the total number of bombs, and the total number of strikes.

I could be wrong, but I'd like to see a source that totals out the number of bombs and missiles used during each presidential administration. Not just the number of Predator sorties.


Hmmm... Not my favorite source, but Alternet believes that Obama dropped more bombs than Bush.

....
The U.S. dropped 17,500 bombs during its invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. It conducted 29,200 air strikes during the invasion of Iraq in 2003. U.S. air forces conducted at least another 3,900 air strikes in Iraq over the next eight years, before the Iraqi government finally negotiated the withdrawal of U.S. occupation forces. But that pales next to at least 38,100 U.S. air strikes in Afghanistan since 2002, a country already occupied by U.S. and NATO forces, with a government pledged by its U.S. overlords to bring peace and justice to its people.

The Obama administration is responsible for at least 18,274 air strikes in Afghanistan since 2009, including at least 1,160 by pilotless drones. The U.S. conducted at least 116 air strikes in Iraq in 2009 and about 1,460 of NATO's 7,700 strikes in Libya in 2011. While the U.S. military does not publish figures on "secret" air and drone strikes in other countries, press reports detail a five-fold increase over Bush's second term, with at least 303 strikes in Pakistan, 125 in Yemen and 16 in Somalia.

Aside from the initial bombing of Afghanistan in 2001 and the "shock and awe" bombing of Iraq in March and April 2003, the Obama administration has conducted more air strikes day-in day-out than the Bush administration. Bush's roughly 24,000 air strikes in seven years from 2002 to 2008 amounted to an air strike about every 3 hours, while Obama's 20,130 in four years add up to one every 1-3/4 hours.
 

hulugu

macrumors 68000
Aug 13, 2003
1,819
10,200
quae tangit perit Trump
Yeah. Obama bombing Libya & Syria while arming terrorist had nothing to do with it :rolleyes:
Cart-horse.

By collapsing the regime in Iraq and fumbling the invasion, the Bush administration created an environment for a rush of foreign fighters and Al Qaeda's new offshoots.

Later, the Bush administration sat on their hands when world food prices spiked in 2007-2008 leading to the conditions that launched the Arab Spring in Tunisia.

By the time Obama came in to the White House, most of the conditions were set.
 

rjohnstone

macrumors 68040
Dec 28, 2007
3,483
3,398
PHX, AZ.
ISIS, insurgency in the region, yep. I don't think a different continent has much to do with it as far as Lybia because it's a predominantly Muslim country in the same region.
I think you need a map... Libya is not in the same region as Syria.
North Africa was relatively stable until the Arab Spring which started in Tunisia (North Africa, not ME).
It later spread to the ME, but to attribute it to "Dubya" is patently false.
It was started in Tunisia as an uprising against their own government and spread to Egypt and Algeria.
The ME Arab Spring was later and again... not really based on U.S. involvement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jkcerda

Huntn

macrumors demi-god
May 5, 2008
17,036
16,503
The Misty Mountains
I think you need a map... Libya is not in the same region as Syria.
North Africa was relatively stable until the Arab Spring which started in Tunisia (North Africa, not ME).
It later spread to the ME, but to attribute it to "Dubya" is patently false.
It was started in Tunisia as an uprising against their own government and spread to Egypt and Algeria.
The ME Arab Spring was later and again... not really based on U.S. involvement.
So the populaces of these countries are isolated from one another, don't pay attention what's happening in other predominantly Muslim countries along the South and Eastern side of the Mediterranean Sea? Libya heated up and the U.S. had to make a decision about staying out or supporting rebels. Partially you'd have to suppose what would of happened if the U.S. had stayed out of it, and speculate on the outcome. We were involved but did not deploy ground troops there.

However, I questioned the outcome of helping in Libya without really understanding the end result. But it's not enough for me to characterize Obama as a clown, as one of our esteemed members did, especially not compared to the current Clown in Chief. ;)

I will concede, the sooner we let the locals and regional powers take care of their own business, the better. I'm fatigued with never ending war. I have a son in the USAF who is constantly deploying. I know it's not good for our military to be fighting other people's wars for your entire professional military life.
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Jun 10, 2013
682
38,971
Criminal Mexi Midget

rjohnstone

macrumors 68040
Dec 28, 2007
3,483
3,398
PHX, AZ.
So the populaces of these countries are isolated from one another, don't pay attention what's happening in other predominantly Muslim countries along the South and Eastern side of the Mediterranean Sea? Libya heated up and the U.S. had to make a decision about staying out or supporting rebels. Partially you'd have to suppose what would of happened if the U.S. had stayed out of it, and speculate on the outcome. We were involved but did not deploy ground troops there.

However, I questioned the outcome of helping in Libya without really understanding the end result. But it's not enough for me to characterize Obama as a clown, as one of our esteemed members did, especially not compared to the current Clown in Chief. ;)

I will concede, the sooner we let the locals and regional powers take care of their own business, the better. I'm fatigued with never ending war. I have a son in the USAF who is constantly deploying. I know it's not good for our military to be fighting other people's wars for your entire professional military life.
Again... the whole thing started in Tunisia when the citizens were protesting their own government (link, link), not what ever the hell was going on in the ME. It was unrelated to hostilities in Syria and Iraq.
Egyptians rose up against Mubarak's government (link).
Libya was later, and again, not related to the ME hostilities.

We should have stayed the **** out of all of it. Those were all internal matters that we had no business getting involved in.
 

LizKat

macrumors 603
Aug 5, 2004
5,316
29,781
Catskill Mountains
THE last clown instilled confidence? that is one heavy set of partisan glasses there, he bombed more than Bush.
There would seem with Trump the potential for an algorithmic scale of escalation.

Of course maybe he's just talking trash. It's hard to tell. It's a reason to withdraw the power.
 

LizKat

macrumors 603
Aug 5, 2004
5,316
29,781
Catskill Mountains
HE negotiated a cease fire in Syria, so that IMHO is a good start.
I hope any ceasefire in Syria holds but it's way late for any of them to have been called good starts. The country is rubble and generations have been sent fleeing into the disapora without certainty of ever getting back again, or of being fully accepted wherever they've ended up. Their descent into civil war I will grant you was not initiated by Donald Trump.

As for Trump, everything he does that is even remotely related to a Russian interest is questionable on its face until or unless he explains his reluctance to release tax returns, his encouragement of Russian acquisition of Clinton emails during the campaign, etc., etc. Of course he should take some credit if a ceasefire restores a lasting peace in Syria. That it may be at the expense of the freedoms of the Syrian population who are not Alewite like Assad, that is another matter.