Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Violating the Constitution: Obama's Illegal War on Afghanistan

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Karmadillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-05-09 12:33 PM
Original message
Violating the Constitution: Obama's Illegal War on Afghanistan
http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff12042009.html

Obama's Illegal War on Afghanistan
The Epicenter of Mendacity
By DAVE LINDORFF

Nobody in the corporate media mentions it, but the war in Afghanistan which President Barack Obama just ramped up by 50% this year, with the dispatch, first of 17,000 troops last spring and now with another 30,000 troops, to begin deployment on Christmas, is being fought on the shaky legal basis of a hastily passed Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) voted by Congress back in October 2001, more than three years before Obama was even elected to the Senate.

That AUMF was the handiwork of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, and it was rammed through House and Senate with almost no debate in the wake of the 9-11 attacks and then used to justify most of the subsequent assaults on the Constitution and Bill of Rights that are still haunting America and the world today.

While Congress saw the 2001 AUMF as an authorization to launch an attack on Al Qaeda in Afghanistan (an attack that quickly toppled the Taliban government, but that famously failed to crush Al Qaeda, thanks to its being called off half a year later so troops could be shifted to a new war in the making against Iraq), Bush and Cheney interpreted it as a “declaration of war” in a “global war on terror,” which they claimed had no border, no end, and which they even tried to claim extended to within the boundaries of the US.

<edit>

The point though, is that the 2001 AUMF was in fact an authorization to use military force to go after terrorism. It was not an authorization to conduct a full-scale war against another nation, or to become enmeshed in a civil war in another nation, which is what is going on in Afghanistan today. That, in fact, is why even Bush felt he needed a second AUMF to authorize his invasion of Iraq.

President Obama is trying to finesse this by falsely claiming, with a straight face, that Afghanistan is part of the “epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda” in the world. He is deliberately trying—and getting full support from the complicit corporate media—to conflate the Taliban with Al Qaeda to justify his absurd claim, too, by also falsely claiming in his speech that several unnamed “extremists” have been apprehended in the US who were sent here recently from some ill-defined terror central inside of Afghanistan.

The truth is that not one act of terrorism outside of Afghanistan has been attributed to the Taliban of Afghanistan. The Afghan Taliban, while admittedly a brutal, reactionary, fundamentalist group of militant Islamists, are not global jihadis bent on wreaking havoc in the Western world or even in the rest of the Islamic world. They are a domestic Afghan military and political movement that is seeking to return to power in Afghanistan.

Al Qaeda, the organization that was the target of the Congressional AUMF resolution in 2001, has long since abandoned Afghanistan for safer, greener pastures.

This being the case, Obama’s war in Afghanistan, and especially his decision to intensify it dramatically, is being conducted illegally, without any actual authorization from Congress, as required by the Constitution.

more...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-05-09 12:46 PM
Response to Original message
1. Hilarious
Eight years spent criticizing Bush for not doing enough in Afghanistan, while insisting it was the "real war" and "the legal war" and "where we need to be". Eight years of that.

Now we have a president who's following up on all that. And suddenly the war is one that DOESN'T need to be handled, abandoning Afghanistan is cool now, the war is suddenly illegal, and not only that, but it's now Obama's war.

I like how it took eight years and a black president for my fellow democrats to grow a fucking pair of balls about a goddamned thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karmadillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-05-09 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Criticism of the war in Afghanistan is based on the color of Obama's skin?
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-05-09 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Criticism of the war, no
However... All of a sudden criticizing the war after eight years of backing it, and not only that but blatantly absolving Bush of all blame for it and attributing it all to Obama?

The term "lynch mob" is seeming awfully appropriate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karmadillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-05-09 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. How is the term "lynch mob" appropriate? I don't see how it applies to Lindorff and those who
have opposed the war long before Obama's escalation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-05-09 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. You denigrate the memory of African-Americans actually lynched by tossing that term around
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 01:40 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. Is that so?
So you're like their official spokesperson? Man, that must be a hard gig to get. Neat. You must be a busy, busy person, given how "lynch mob" is these days a pretty common colloquial part of American English.

Now, at any rate... I's blatantly clear that a large segment of DU very honestly expected Obama to fix eight years of fuckups in as many months. Seeing as how he's human (even if he DOES shit fudgesicles, I'm sure) he failed to live up to this deadline, and so now you're not a hip, cool, progressive sort of person if you have anything remotely positive to say. You're even less hip if you actually give thought to a given situation.

Obama's getting a sort of treatment that hasn't been presented to any other US president. And people can't keep pretending it's all exclusively because of his centrist stance on a given issue, since every fucking president in history has been either center, or right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 02:21 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. You don't have to be an asshole about it. It was my opinion.
Edited on Sun Dec-06-09 02:57 AM by Bluebear
Did I say I spoke for anyone else?

Another acrid "progressive", ain' ya?

/ignore
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
timtom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-07-09 07:08 AM
Response to Reply #13
23. The term "lynch" started around 1782.
Edited on Mon Dec-07-09 07:09 AM by timtom
It refers to ANY mob mentality that calls for extralegal hanging.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-05-09 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Lindorff and many Democrats, and other liberals have
been against both wars all along.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-05-09 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. you can put your own interpretation of the criticism of Bush's diversion
. . . but the criticism has always been about the opportunities Bush had at the beginning of his period of retribution and squandered by playing fast and loose on Iraq. There are also the new revelations which suggest that the Bush administration wanted their military imperialism more than they actually wanted bin-Laden and crew.

Not many folks I hear making this argument were suggesting escalating the thing, just reflections that it was a failure in it's inception and it's most basic goals: the capture or killing of the suspects; and that the totality of the militarism between the dual occupations had the consequence of actually increasing the number of individuals bent on resistant violence against the U.S., our interests, and our allies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-05-09 01:03 PM
Response to Original message
6. Counterpunch: Almost- note I said almost- as batshit crazy and mendacious
as Worldnut daily.

The premise that the war in Afghanistan is illegal is, quite simply, untrue. I hate the war. I hate the escalation, but unlike the fuckwads at CP, I won't lie about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karmadillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-05-09 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. In what way did Lindorff lie?
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karmadillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-05-09 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Kick
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 02:57 AM
Response to Reply #9
14. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karmadillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #9
18. Kick
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karmadillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-07-09 06:46 AM
Response to Reply #9
22. Kick
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karmadillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-07-09 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #9
27. Kick
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karmadillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-08-09 07:05 AM
Response to Reply #9
28. Kick
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karmadillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-08-09 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #9
30. Kick
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karmadillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-09-09 06:54 AM
Response to Reply #9
35. Kick
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karmadillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 06:51 AM
Response to Reply #9
38. Kick
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karmadillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #9
39. Kick
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karmadillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #9
40. Kick
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karmadillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-12-09 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #9
42. Kick
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-08-09 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #8
32. Start with the headline and work downwards from there
To begin with, the US is not at war with the country of Afghanistan, as the headline suggests.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karmadillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-09-09 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #32
34. We didn't go to war with Afghanistan in October, 2001?
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-09-09 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. Stop being disingenuous. You know full well there is a different government there now.
I guess you have some sort of problem with the concept of past and present tense, but I can't help you with that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karmadillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-09-09 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. We won the war in Afghanistan? I thought Mission Accomplished was Iraq. If we won,
what authorization does Obama have to start this second war in Afghanistan?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
timtom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-07-09 07:13 AM
Response to Reply #6
24. "Bat-shit crazy"?
You're better than that. Please quit using that cheap rhetoric.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earth mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-05-09 10:12 PM
Response to Original message
10. I've been saying this is an illegal war for a long time.
Thank you for posting the exact reasons why. :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #10
16. You've been saying lots and lots of factually incorrect things
for a long time, so you're saying that the war is illegal doesn't really count for much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earth mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. That's about the dumbest post I've seen from you yet.
Edited on Sun Dec-06-09 04:30 PM by earth mom
Your tactics are transparent and most people here on DU are on to your crap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Oh. My. God! You're on to me??? You've discovered my real motives???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
timtom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-07-09 07:15 AM
Response to Reply #19
25. Count me as one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ima_sinnic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-08-09 07:31 AM
Response to Reply #19
29. I'm with you on that (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tritsofme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 04:22 AM
Response to Original message
15. President Obama clearly has the authority under the AUMF.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized 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, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.


If this authorization has been sufficient for the past eight years, there is no reason it should be different now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karmadillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. Didn't even GWBush think the first AUMF was not sufficient to justify a war?
Edited on Sun Dec-06-09 11:56 AM by Karmadillo
ON EDIT: Took out the Bushism.

There was a second AUMF to "justify" his war against Iraq, although many have noted it violates our obligations under international law. The argument is the first AUMF is also insufficient to justify this war against Afghanistan. If Obama wants to Get His War On, he needs to go back to Congress for another AUMF. There would still be the question of whether we're violating international law, but I imagine Obama & the MIC wouldn't let that technicality stand in "our" way.

Given there's no evidence the Taliban are planning terrorist attacks against the US and given that we're down to 100 Al-Qaeda (in Pakistan, apparently), it doesn't seem too much to ask Obama to allow a national debate before he starts lifting more money out of our wallets and getting more people killed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
winyanstaz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-08-09 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #15
33. we are not allowed to talk about 9-11 in the main forums..
you gotta go to the conspiricy forums...that's where you'll find the site on 9-11.
I just got a note about that today is the only reason I know that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 05:16 PM
Response to Original message
21. first time I've ever heard this war was "illegal"
talk about moving the bar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
timtom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-07-09 07:28 AM
Response to Reply #21
26. Illegal for the following reasons:
1) Afghanistan neither attacked the United States nor authorized or approved such an attack.

2) The UN did not authorize the US to invade Afghanistan.

3) No declaration of war.

4) The "pre-emptive" argument fell apart when compared to the 1946 Nurenburg decision on the Nazi plea that they felt they were threatened by other countries that they invaded.

Just for example, for example.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-08-09 11:23 PM
Response to Reply #26
31. Counterpoint:
Edited on Tue Dec-08-09 11:24 PM by Cessna Invesco Palin
1) Afghanistan neither attacked the United States nor authorized or approved such an attack.

We went into Afghanistan with the explicit consent of the legal, recognized government of Afghanistan.

2) The UN did not authorize the US to invade Afghanistan.

No, the legal government of Afghanistan did. That doesn't need UN approval.

3) No declaration of war.

We haven't "declared" war since the second world war. Unless you're saying that every military action since then has been illegal, this statement is pointless.

4) The "pre-emptive" argument fell apart when compared to the 1946 Nurenburg decision on the Nazi plea that they felt they were threatened by other countries that they invaded.

The argument for Afghanistan was never preemption. That was an argument used for Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-11-09 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
41. The law clearly gives the President the authority to wage war against the Taliban
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized 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, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_bills&docid=f:sj23enr.txt.pdf

As long as Obama determines that the Taliban harbored those responsible for the 9/11 attacks, the war is legal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 07:41 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC