Senator Mitch McConnell and four cosponsors proposed an AUMF – Authorization for the Use of Military Force – against ISIS based on the President’s SOTU complaint that Congress has never authorized him to use force against the terror group. But that proposal has some severe problems: It expands the President’s power dramatically, has no expiration, and allows actions on American soil. And McConnell has “fast-tracked” it.
Illegal actions of the last 7 years
The original AUMF from 2001 under Bush had specifics: the use of military force was ONLY to groups involved in the 9-11 attacks, i.e. Al-Qaeda. ISIS did not exist then. Hence, all this force used against ISIS has been illegal from the get-go. Not that the term “illegal” has ever stopped this president anyway.
ISIS is even more of a threat than al-Qaeda, due to its ability to recruit people on American soil via social media and the “dark net.” SJ29 does address that problem.
SJ-29, the AUMF 2016
Defense News reported,
Will this presidential election be the most important in American history?
In June, Kaine and Flake made a proposal that would have authorized action for three years, and it included the use of ground troops only to protect the lives of US citizens under imminent threat.
By contrast, Graham’s authorization has no expiration date or prohibition on US ground troops. It also addresses the Islamic State group’s well documented ability to recruit through social media — with no limits to disrupt the group’s online activities.
Under what is colloquially known as “Rule 14,” McConnell allowed Graham’s AUMF to bypass the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but it has not been assigned a time for a floor debate.
So let’s think about this for a minute. When good men are in power, trusting the government is not much of an issue. When that is not the case…there could be serious consequences.
Is this a Blank Check?
The new war powers resolution admits that when something like this is enacted, the power of the President is “at its maximum.” Do we want that with this President?
We know that ISIS is a threat, and we absolutely need to pound them into the sand and not even leave any pieces. We must destroy them. But to give this particular President that “blank check” is foolhardy. He is NOT pro-American. He does NOT share our values or our hopes. He is blatantly pro-Muslim and has given weapons to the enemy numerous times. His actions caused the rise of ISIS in the first place.
S.J.29 is specific to ISIS, but that is the only restriction it has. Perhaps a little work on this resolution is in order…what do you think?
H/T Uncle Sam’s Misguided Children
Related:
- Mitch McConnell Submarines Kate’s Law and Defunding Planned Parenthood
- FBI, DHS investigating Kent State professor for alleged link to ISIS
- Refugees arrested on terror charges in Houston, Sacramento, said to have ties to ISIS
- Video: Muslim students at Brooklyn College praise Allah for ISIS
- Report: ISIS militants ‘systematically beheading’ Christian children in Mosul
If you haven’t checked out and liked our Facebook page, please go here and do so.
