PDA

View Full Version : White House sends draft Syria AUMF to Congress




tsai3904
08-31-2013, 05:45 PM
Whereas, on August 21, 2013, the Syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus, Syria, killing more than 1,000 innocent Syrians;

Whereas these flagrant actions were in violation of international norms and the laws of war;

Whereas the United States and 188 other countries comprising 98 percent of the world's population are parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits the development, production, acquisition, stockpiling or use of chemical weapons;

Whereas, in the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003, Congress found that Syria's acquisition of weapons of mass destruction threatens the security of the Middle East and the national security interests of the United States;

Whereas the United Nations Security Council, in Resolution 1540 (2004), affirmed that the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapon constitutes a threat to international peace and security;

Whereas, the objective of the United States' use of military force in connection with this authorization should be to deter, disrupt, prevent, and degrade the potential for, future uses of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction;

Whereas, the conflict in Syria will only be resolved through a negotiated political settlement, and Congress calls on all parties to the conflict in Syria to participate urgently and constructively in the Geneva process; and

Whereas, unified action by the legislative and executive branches will send a clear signal of American resolve.


SEC. _ AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES

(a) Authorization.-The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in connection with the use of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in the conflict in Syria in order to-

(1) prevent or deter the use or proliferation (including the transfer to terrorist groups of other state or non-state actors), within, to or from, Syria, of any weapons of mass destruction, including chemical or biological weapons or components of or materials used in such weapons; or

(2) protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements.-

(1) Specific Statutory Authorization.-Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) Applicability of other requirements.-Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/164538216/AUMF-Resolution-Text

69360
08-31-2013, 05:59 PM
That is never going to pass a Republican congress.

Obama has not made any case as to why US tax dollars need to be spent on a foreign civil war, other than some vague comments about "if Syria does it everyone will"

This thing is dead in the water.

The real question is will he act when congress votes no and what will congress do if he does?

enhanced_deficit
08-31-2013, 06:26 PM
Whereas these flagrant actions were in violation of international norms and the laws of war;

Whereas the United States and 188 other countries comprising 98 percent of the world's population are parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits the development, production, acquisition, stockpiling or use of chemical weapons;

Whereas, years ago the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment recorded Israel as a country with weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, chemical warfare capabilities, and a biological warfare program.

Corrected. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?425648-Do-US-and-Israel-have-chemical-biological-weapons-making-programs&p=5199374&viewfull=1#post5199374)

Brett85
08-31-2013, 07:01 PM
So this authorization doesn't even rule out troops on the ground in Syria?

twomp
08-31-2013, 07:03 PM
So this authorization doesn't even rule out troops on the ground in Syria?

Troops on the ground will be needed once the Syrians hit back so they wouldn't want to limit their options.

kcchiefs6465
08-31-2013, 07:08 PM
Were the bands purple, green, or yellow?

Brett85
08-31-2013, 07:16 PM
Troops on the ground will be needed once the Syrians hit back so they wouldn't want to limit their options.

I guess, but it just makes this authorization much less likely to pass. Obama has said several times that he only wants to strike Syria from the air and doesn't support troops on the ground in Syria.

AngryCanadian
08-31-2013, 07:48 PM
And it mentions no evidence this is heading towards an Defeat.

Brett85
08-31-2013, 07:51 PM
Does everyone here think that only a declaration of war passed by Congress is Constitutional, or do some people here think that an authorization of the use of military force is Constitutional as well? I know that Amash thinks that an AUMF is sufficient, while Ron thinks that the Constitution requires a full declaration of war.

kcchiefs6465
08-31-2013, 08:24 PM
Does everyone here think that only a declaration of war passed by Congress is Constitutional, or do some people here think that an authorization of the use of military force is Constitutional as well? I know that Amash thinks that an AUMF is sufficient, while Ron thinks that the Constitution requires a full declaration of war.
I think that they should legitimately look at what is to be accomplished, what there is to accomplish, how it benefits the American citizens, and the mistakes we've made in the past when trying to pick sides. (though our interests then were just as "humanitarian oriented" as they are today)

I feel bad for those who are dying in Syria the way I feel bad for anyone dying.

We aren't going to make things better. The approach is flawed.

I don't give a fuck if Congress comes back tonight and votes on an immediate authorization of the use of force. What right do they have to devalue my dollar? What I am forced to transact in? To raise my ['unseen'] taxes?

Furthermore who are we helping? Talk about precedent of using chemical weapons and how it cannot be tolerated... well uh, Mr. President, why and the fuck was Sarin sold to Saddam Hussein? And it wasn't just sold. It was known he was planning on using it and it was known we'd eventually be affected by it.

You know, I hear this talk of Obama being impeached or this and that. It's the same. It doesn't change.

The day I support attacking Syrians is the day they roll up on these shores with a rifle in their hand and the intention to harm Americans.

Idgaf what decree comes down that says I'm supposed to agree to this. To send my generation to die? To send my generation to pay? Fuck Rothschild, Cheney, Murdoch, Buffett, and the rest who derive their power through manipulation and fraud. The people will notice. They are noticing. Bought and paid for CON-gress can't defund spying on American citizens. Their opinion was voided the minute they violated natural law. Illegitimate.

Call your Congressmen. No uncertain terms. You vote for this horseshit of a supposed authorization and you'll do everything in your power to make sure they don't get reelected. (it ain't a Declaration of War.. What's the pussyfooting for? If there is imminent danger, let's rally up. It ain't a Just War. Why would anyone support it for?)

ETA: This isn't directed towards you TC.... at all. No offense was intended.

Brett85
08-31-2013, 08:26 PM
I think that they should legitimately look at what is to be accomplished, what there is to accomplish, how it benefits the American citizens, and the mistakes we've made in the past when trying to pick sides. (though our interests then were just as "humanitarian oriented" as they are today)

I feel bad for those who are dying in Syria the way I feel bad for anyone dying.

We aren't going to make things better. The approach is flawed.

I don't give a fuck if Congress comes back tonight and votes on an immediate authorization of the use of force. What right do they have to devalue my dollar? What I am forced to transact in? To raise my ['unseen'] taxes?

Furthermore who are we helping? Talk about precedent of using chemical weapons and how it cannot be tolerated... well uh, Mr. President, why and the fuck was Sarin sold to Saddam Hussein? And it wasn't just sold. It was known he was planning on using it and it was known we'd eventually be affected by it.

You know, I hear this talk of Obama being impeached or this and that. It's the same. It doesn't change.

The day I support attacking Syrians is the day they roll up on these shores with a rifle in their hand and the intention to harm Americans.

Idgaf what decree comes down that says I'm supposed to agree to this. To send my generation to die? To send my generation to pay? Fuck Rothschild, Cheney, Murdoch, Buffett, and the rest who derive their power through manipulation and fraud. The people will notice. They are noticing. Bought and paid for CON-gress can't defund spying on American citizens. Their opinion was voided the minute they violated natural law. Illegitimate.

Call your Congressmen. No uncertain terms. You vote for this horseshit of a supposed authorization and you'll do everything in your power to make sure they don't get reelected. (it ain't a Declaration of War.. What's the pussyfooting for? If there is imminent danger, let's rally up. It ain't a Just War. Why would anyone support it for?)

ETA: This isn't directed towards you TC.... at all. No offense was intended.

I agree, but that's not what I was asking about. I was asking whether an AUMF is Constitutional or whether the exact wording has to be "declaration of war" in order to be Constitutional.

kcchiefs6465
08-31-2013, 08:36 PM
I agree, but that's not what I was asking about. I was asking whether an AUMF is Constitutional or whether the exact wording has to be "declaration of war" in order to be Constitutional.
For it to be Constitutional it has to be a Just War, first and foremost. They say telling you what you can grow in your backyard is Constitutional; the intentions of the Constitution are a hell of a lot different than what the bastards have bastardized them to be. They may say something is Constitutional but is it? Or has it been manipulated through hundreds of years of flawed logic and precedent?

We don't go looking for conflicts, providing welfare to the world, (which in case I'm sounding un-humanitarian, the money comes back here to build bombs and worthless destruction) the piece of paper was founded on Natural Law. Not whatever you can redefine words as. Or convince your friends this means that.

Fuck yeah it's unconstitutional. In the understanding of Founding Intent. It is illegitimate.

Today's justices? obamacare? just another day.

Brett85
08-31-2013, 08:39 PM
For it to be Constitutional it has to be a Just War, first and foremost. They say telling you what you can grow in your backyard is Constitutional; the intentions of the Constitution are a hell of a lot different than what the bastards have bastardized them to be. They may say something is Constitutional but is it? Or has it been manipulated through hundreds of years of flawed logic and precedent?

We don't go looking for conflicts, providing welfare to the world, (which in case I'm sounding un-humanitarian, the money comes back here to build bombs and worthless destruction) the piece of paper was founded on Natural Law. Not whatever you can redefine words as. Or convince your friends this means that.

Fuck yeah it's unconstitutional. In the understanding of Founding Intent. It is illegitimate.

Today's justices? obamacare? just another day.

I disagree. I'm opposed to foreign interventionism, but the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. The U.S Congress has the power under the Constitution to get us involved in a bad, unnecessary war if that's what they vote to do.

thoughtomator
08-31-2013, 08:39 PM
Were the bands purple, green, or yellow?

Perhaps all three, given the resistance that thing is going to produce.

Peace Piper
08-31-2013, 08:43 PM
I guess, but it just makes this authorization much less likely to pass. Obama has said several times that he only wants to strike Syria from the air and doesn't support troops on the ground in Syria.

Obama has repeatedly publicly lied like a GD Rug at the very least since he was a Senator. A liar as accomplished as himself doesn't get that good overnight. He makes Bill Clinton look like a rookie. How anyone could believe a single thing out of his grinning mouth is simply astounding. Like his new policy on Pot. Yeah maybe he's telling the truth THIS time. Except some of us remember what he said when he campaigned, and how that has turned out for thousands of people.


Federal Medical Marijuana Prisoners and Cases since 2011
http://www.canorml.org/costs/federal_medical_marijuana_prisoners_and_cases

^^^Ask any one of those unfortunate believers about Barry's "promises".
And if they think they're going to be pardoned, since he has apparently been enlightened.

There's a word for people that continue to believe bald faced liars. He's not just a liar, he obviously gets off on it.

"You should know better when politicians make promises"
Direct quote from Senator Barack H. Obama
the Amateur, chapter 4
http://www.amazon.com/The-Amateur-Edward-Klein/dp/1596987855/

30 lies in 14 minutes


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJO7ZFcSwkM

Here's an idea: How about not giving a known proven liar the benefit of an effing doubt?

Feeding the Abscess
08-31-2013, 08:44 PM
I disagree. I'm opposed to foreign interventionism, but the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. The U.S Congress has the power under the Constitution to get us involved in a bad, unnecessary war if that's what they vote to do.

If that's the case, the constitution isn't worth the paper it was written on.

Brett85
08-31-2013, 08:48 PM
If that's the case, the constitution isn't worth the paper it was written on.

It's fine to have that opinion, but isn't it pretty clear that Congress has the power to declare war, even if it's a bad and unnecessary war? I mean, the Constitution doesn't say "Congress shall have the power to declare war as long as it's a war that libertarians within the United States agree with."

Brett85
08-31-2013, 08:48 PM
...

kcchiefs6465
08-31-2013, 08:50 PM
Perhaps all three, given the resistance that thing is going to produce.
That's a rep. Took me longer than it should have to get what you were saying.

The color coated bands around our nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons are purple, green, or yellow. (not that specific order, I don't believe) I don't remember off hand which color means which. (drawing a blank)

Khamisiyah, where Saddam's were stored and eventually rigged to blow up, soldiers saw bands that they recognized. Language they recognized. They knew we were who supplied them. Them being detonated produced a cloud of Sarin and the down wind blew it around. It, [un]naturally affected a lot of people.

My comment earlier in the thread was suggesting that we had 'our' hands in this. Definitely wouldn't surprise me at all.

kcchiefs6465
08-31-2013, 08:51 PM
I disagree. I'm opposed to foreign interventionism, but the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. The U.S Congress has the power under the Constitution to get us involved in a bad, unnecessary war if that's what they vote to do.
Would you send your child to that bad, unnecessary war?

kcchiefs6465
08-31-2013, 08:53 PM
It's fine to have that opinion, but isn't it pretty clear that Congress has the power to declare war, even if it's a bad and unnecessary war? I mean, the Constitution doesn't say "Congress shall have the power to declare war as long as it's a war that libertarians within the United States agree with."
Do you know what Original Intent is?

Do you know what Natural Law is?

Do you believe the Constitution was founded based on Natural Law?

Brett85
08-31-2013, 08:57 PM
Would you send your child to that bad, unnecessary war?

Of course not. You seem to not have any idea what I'm saying. I oppose practically all of these foreign interventions and am generally very anti war. I'm opposed to going into Syria. I just don't see anything in the Constitution that says that Congress can only declare war as long as it's a "good war." But, my original question was regarding a declaration of war vs. an authorization of the use of military force, which is a question that still hasn't been answered.

Brett85
08-31-2013, 09:00 PM
Do you know what Original Intent is?

Do you know what Natural Law is?

Do you believe the Constitution was founded based on Natural Law?

The original intent of our founders was to make sure that Congress had the power to take us to war, not the President. The Constitution doesn't say that Congress only has the power to declare "good wars," that it's somehow unconstitutional for Congress to declare a war that KCchiefs6465 happens to disagree with.

kcchiefs6465
08-31-2013, 09:02 PM
Of course not. You seem to not have any idea what I'm saying. I oppose practically all of these foreign interventions and am generally very anti war. I'm opposed to going into Syria. I just don't see anything in the Constitution that says that Congress can only declare war as long as it's a "good war." But, my original question was regarding a declaration of war vs. an authorization of the use of military force, which is a question that still hasn't been answered.
I have answered your question.

You don't understand what I'm saying.

You wouldn't send your child, yet you agree to the supposed legitimacy that other's children should be sent to bad, unnecessary wars?

Or is it blind patriotism that is espoused in Founding Documents?

Brett85
08-31-2013, 09:07 PM
You wouldn't send your child, yet you agree to the supposed legitimacy that other's children should be sent to bad, unnecessary wars?

Should be sent to bad, unnecessary wars? Of course not. Could be sent to bad, unnecessary wars? Of course. The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, regardless of whether it's a "good war" or a "bad war." It's important that all of us contact our members of Congress and urge them to vote against bad, unnecessary wars.

kcchiefs6465
08-31-2013, 09:10 PM
The original intent of our founders was to make sure that Congress had the power to take us to war, not the President. The Constitution doesn't say that Congress only has the power to declare "good wars," that it's somehow unconstitutional for Congress to declare a war that KCchiefs6465 happens to disagree with.
I am trying to be patient with you. However, every time this is how your debates go.

It isn't that I disagree with the war. It's that the war disagrees with Natural Law. It disagrees with the Just War doctrine.

Now we can get to where I disagree. Fundamentally, philosophically, and religiously I am opposed. I've never even met a Syrian. What would possibly possess me to wish them harm? Why is my money, which you like the Constitution so, is limited to gold and silver, and NOT bills of credit, being destroyed on the whims of the supposed majority? (the minority who have interests in this war and the assets to project their interests) Why should one's children be sent to fan a flame that you yourself wouldn't send yours to fan? Through the lottery? [Un]Natural selection? What gives someone the Right (I'm am referring to Natural Law, NOT some man made document) to send another's children to a war they wouldn't have the "heart" to fight for themselves?

kcchiefs6465
08-31-2013, 09:12 PM
Should be sent to bad, unnecessary wars? Of course not. Could be sent to bad, unnecessary wars? Of course. The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, regardless of whether it's a "good war" or a "bad war." It's important that all of us contact our members of Congress and urge them to vote against bad, unnecessary wars.
So you agree that Congress, by way of a piece of paper hundreds of years old, has the Right to send your child to a bad, unnecessary war?

And though the Right to petition government has been steadily pissed upon in recent years, you believe that this is the recourse to avoid your child being lotteried to a life of mental anguish, if not death?

Brett85
08-31-2013, 09:13 PM
I am trying to be patient with you. However, every time this is how your debates go.

I try to be patient with you, but it's virtually impossible, because you simply refuse to respond to the actual questions that I ask. You go off on some stange tangent that has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about or asking about. My original question was simply whether an authorization of use of military force passed by Congress is sufficient under the Constitution, or whether the Constitution requires the exact wording to be "declaration of war." So far, no one has chosen to respond to my actual question.

Brett85
08-31-2013, 09:15 PM
So you agree that Congress, by way of a piece of paper hundreds of years old, has the Right to send your child to a bad, unnecessary war?

And though the Right to petition government has been steadily pissed upon in recent years, you believe that this is the recourse to avoid your child being lotteried to a life of mental anguish, if not death?

Sigh. I really don't know how to even reason with you. Show me the section in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution which says that Congress can't declare "bad wars" or places any kind of limit on the specific wars that Congress can declare. The Constitution is very specific and simply says "Congress has the power to declare war."

kcchiefs6465
08-31-2013, 09:24 PM
I try to be patient with you, but it's virtually impossible, because you simply refuse to respond to the actual questions that I ask. You go off on some stange tangent that has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about or asking about. My original question was simply whether an authorization of use of military force passed by Congress is sufficient under the Constitution, or whether the Constitution requires the exact wording to be "declaration of war." So far, no one has chosen to respond to my actual question.
Okay. I will answer your question. No. They need a Declaration of War. That they bypass that goes to prove the points I've made.


[W]henever any form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends [the protection of our natural rights], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. -Thomas Jefferson, DOI.

When the government decides it has the 'Right' to take your children and put them around the world for their buddies' interests you have the Right [and moral obligation] to alter or abolish it.

I advocate altering. You misconstrue my words, or misrepresent my point; being annoyed would be an understatement.

Brett85
08-31-2013, 09:27 PM
1) Thanks for finally answering my question.
2) It sounds like you simply think that the current Constitution never should've been ratified, since it gives Congress the power to "declare war" and says nothing about "good wars" vs. "bad wars." It simply contains a phrase saying "Congress shall have the power to declare war."

kcchiefs6465
08-31-2013, 09:32 PM
Sigh. I really don't know how to even reason with you. Show me the section in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution which says that Congress can't declare "bad wars" or places any kind of limit on the specific wars that Congress can declare. The Constitution is very specific and simply says "Congress has the power to declare war."
You could try reasoning with me with reason.

Whether or not the Constitution says one thing or not, what?! Do they even follow the Paper's rules? I mean, even the simple ones, though it's all pretty simple. Where is the Fed authorized? Paper bills of credit? Where's your Supreme Court? Or rather, piece of paper to cover yourself up with at night?

I am a little perplexed at what you are either saying or not saying. For it to be truly Constitutional it must follow Original Intent. Regulate must mean to make regular, not prohibit. Do you follow what I am saying? It must adhere to Natural Law - To Self-evident truths.

Brett85
08-31-2013, 09:46 PM
You could try reasoning with me with reason.

Whether or not the Constitution says one thing or not, what?! Do they even follow the Paper's rules? I mean, even the simple ones, though it's all pretty simple. Where is the Fed authorized? Paper bills of credit? Where's your Supreme Court? Or rather, piece of paper to cover yourself up with at night?

I am a little perplexed at what you are either saying or not saying. For it to be truly Constitutional it must follow Original Intent. Regulate must mean to make regular, not prohibit. Do you follow what I am saying? It must adhere to Natural Law - To Self-evident truths.

I don't see your point. Obviously our government doesn't follow the Constitution, and we don't have Constitutionally limited government. I believe in following a very strict interpretation of the Constitution, and under the Constitution, Congress has the power to declare war. The Constitution doesn't specify what kind of war it has to be, it just says "declare war." You haven't made any legitimate argument which shows that the original intent of the Constitution was to only allow certain kinds of wars, or "good wars," or whatever other kind of term you want to use.

kcchiefs6465
08-31-2013, 10:03 PM
I don't see your point. Obviously our government doesn't follow the Constitution, and we don't have Constitutionally limited government. I believe in following a very strict interpretation of the Constitution, and under the Constitution, Congress has the power to declare war. The Constitution doesn't specify what kind of war it has to be, it just says "declare war." You haven't made any legitimate argument which shows that the original intent of the Constitution was to only allow certain kinds of wars, or "good wars," or whatever other kind of term you want to use.
The Constitution was founded on Natural Law.


Congress shall make no law .... abridging the freedom of speech ...

The founders recognized that certain Truths are indeed self-evident. They recognized Natural Law. (their faults and the document's faults aside)

The original intent of the document is something to be considered if the document is to be considered at all. It isn't the start all, end all, of the United States or what the United States was founded on. There are cases throughout history of the Constitution being worth less than its weight in bills of credit. It was fundamentally flawed as well. 3/5ths of a man? And this is the decree you are expected to sacrifice your children? (as long as Congress tells you to)

69360
08-31-2013, 10:33 PM
Does everyone here think that only a declaration of war passed by Congress is Constitutional, or do some people here think that an authorization of the use of military force is Constitutional as well? I know that Amash thinks that an AUMF is sufficient, while Ron thinks that the Constitution requires a full declaration of war.

No, but it's now become acceptable and is better than a president acting unilaterally

Brett85
08-31-2013, 10:35 PM
No, but it's now become acceptable and is better than a president acting unilaterally

That's basically my view as well.

kcchiefs6465
08-31-2013, 10:47 PM
The day We need to attack someone you won't need to trick and pay children to do it. You won't need lies and UN resolutions. The people will naturally fight to protect themselves and their land.

paulbot24
09-01-2013, 12:01 AM
The day We need to attack someone you won't need to trick and pay children to do it. You won't need lies and UN resolutions. The people will naturally fight to protect themselves and their land.

Irony: Psychopaths reminding us of the need to pause our selfish little lives for a moment and remember our humanity, to really reflect on our moral obligations to not just the global community who's crying out for our help right now, but also of the need to leave an honorable "right makes might" example for our children to follow. Priceless.

devil21
09-01-2013, 02:00 AM
I disagree. I'm opposed to foreign interventionism, but the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. The U.S Congress has the power under the Constitution to get us involved in a bad, unnecessary war if that's what they vote to do.

The still are no Declarations of War. That is a powerful term and it's why it's been avoided for so long. Force? Meh. Probably won't affect me. War? Yeah, that's serious. Strict constructionist says that only a bill with the words "Declaration of War" in it somewhere are constitutional. That is what the document says.

AUMFs are just more watering down the document's language to the point that it becomes "open for interpretation." They've wanted a living document for a while and if you ignore the exact words of the document then you are messing with the intent of the document through language games. It eventually becomes a living document open to the whims of those that control the language.

RM918
09-01-2013, 02:36 AM
I personally support a full declaration - as I believe it requires more votes and it's a lot more official. You declare war, that's as unsubtle as it gets. We have far too many proxy and shadow wars going on who were decided upon by far too few people and that needs to stop.