Thread: The Unlawfulness of Obama's ISIS Plan

The Unlawfulness of Obama's ISIS Plan

Is the White House planning to run this war directly as LBJ did in Vietnam?

Andrew Napolitano | September 18, 2014



White House/InstagramAs the debate rages over whether the president needs congressional authorization for war prior to his deployment of the military to degrade or destroy ISIS, the terrorist organization that none of us had heard about until a few months ago, the nation has lost sight of the more fundamental issue of President Obama's infidelity to the rule of law.

• Matt Welch|9.17.14
  

MORE ARTICLES BY Andrew Napolitano

• Waging War Is a Decision for Congress Alone
  
  9.11.14 7:00 am
  
• An Unhappy Summer for Liberty
  
  9.04.14 7:00 am
  
• Spying, Lying, and Torture
  
  8.07.14 7:00 am
  

On the lawfulness of his proposed war, the president has painted himself into a corner. Last year, he quite properly recognized that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), a statute enacted by Congress in 2002 to permit President George W. Bush to use the military to track down, capture, degrade, or kill all persons or organizations that planned the attacks of 9/11, cannot apply to organizations that did not exist at the time of 9/11, of which ISIS is one.


That leaves the president with two remaining alternatives. One is the War Powers Resolution (WPR), a statute enacted by Congress in 1973 to limit presidentially ordered military invasions absent congressional assent to 180 days or fewer. But the WPR is unconstitutional, as it consists of Congress giving away to the president express authority to declare war, which the Constitution delegates to Congress. The Supreme Court has prohibited such giveaways of core powers and responsibilities from one branch of the federal government to another.


Even if Obama decides to rely on the WPR, and expects that no federal judge will interfere with that decision, his military advisers have told him he cannot achieve his objective in 180 days. They also have told him he cannot achieve his objective by the use of air power alone.
The remaining mechanism for starting a war is to follow the Constitution by seeking a congressional declaration of war. But Obama has not yet asked for such a declaration. Why not? No doubt, he has two fears. One is that Congress will impose restrictions on the location and duration of hostilities, unlike the AUMF, which is open-ended. The other is that he will disaffect his loyal political base by doing what he promised he would never do: bring the country into another offensive war in the Middle East.


In 2008 and in 2012, Obama ran as a candidate and an incumbent determined to end American military involvement in the Middle East, not increase it. Hence his promise, by now made many times, that he will not introduce ground troops into this war. Apparently, just as when he bombed Libya into chaotic instability in 2010, he does not consider bombs an act of offensive warfare.


But he does consider the use of boots to be an act of war. When the president promises no ground troops, note the phrase he uses: "No boots on the ground." This is a term of art that apparently has different meanings to different folks.


There are already more than 1,000 pairs of American military boots on the ground in this effort to destroy ISIS. Yet, because they are not yet directly engaged in the use of violence in pursuit of ISIS fighters (they are training others to do so or finding targets to destroy by air), or because they are Special Forces and thus out of uniform (but no doubt armed and violent and wearing boots), the president feels he has a clear conscience when he says there are no boots on the ground.


When he says that, he means, "There is no one in an American military uniform shooting from the ground at an enemy target"—but there are military personnel in uniform on the ground, and there are military personnel out of uniform shooting ISIS fighters. Is this hair-splitting language consistent with the president's moral obligation to be truthful to us?


In another deceptive move, Obama announced on Monday that the operation against ISIS, whether authorized by Congress or not, will be directed by retired Marine Corps General John Allen. This is a novel use of government assets, as Allen is no longer a part of the Pentagon and thus not subject to the military chain of command. Apparently, the president does not trust his military advisers, whose advice he has repeatedly rejected, to run his war. Is the White House planning to run this war directly as LBJ did in Vietnam? Is the State Department? How can a civilian who is not the president command military troops?


On Monday of last week, the White House announced that in its pursuit of ISIS, the U.S. will go wherever it finds ISIS targets, and if ISIS hides in Syria and the government of Syria does not permit U.S. jets to use its airspace, the U.S. will attack Syria. That sounds like Russian President Vladimir Putin in the Ukraine.


Attacking Syria because its government denied the U.S. airspace would be an unprovoked and unlawful act of war that would probably provoke Putin. Congress rejected declaring war on Syria just a year ago. If it does so now, there would be no lawful or moral basis for such a declaration, as Syria is a sovereign country, lawfully entitled to control its airspace, that poses no present threat to American freedom or security. The U.S. can no more legally commandeer Syrian airspace than Syria can commandeer ours.


Something is amiss here. Last year the president wanted to help ISIS indirectly by degrading the Syrian military. Now he wants to help Syria indirectly by degrading ISIS, but only if Syria stays out of our way. And he is prepared to violate the Constitution, break the law, and lie to the American people to achieve his purposes.


Why all the unlawfulness, when he could and should leave these disputants to their own devices and keep the American military at home for genuine defensive purposes?



http://reason.com/archives/2014/09/18/isis-and-more-of-obamas-unlawful-killing

How Do You Win a War Without Troops on the Ground?

Richard Anthony 55 mins ago

How Do You Win a War Without Troops on the Ground?
http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/09/wi...troops-ground/

There seems to be some confusion as to the situation in Iraq and Syria, at least in Washington D.C.. Barack Obama is (right now, at least) adamant that there will be no American combat troops used in the fight against ISIS. In years past, Obama has ignored the advice from top military advisers and chiefs of staff regarding Iraq. He was so dead set on getting us out of there that he did not listen to anyone about leaving behind a containment force to prevent exactly what has happened right now. Instead of thinking in military and strategic terms, it's always about politics with our president. What we face in Iraq and Syria right now, in regards to ISIS at least, could have been prevented if Obama had listened to his generals. There is a distinct possibility the crisis we now face would not have been created in the first place. But Obama does not feel compelled to listen to the real "professionals" when it comes to matters of foreign policy or military strategy, and the results of that can clearly be seen right now, especially in the Middle East.

From this journalist's viewpoint, I can see that Obama has nothing but contempt for our military and the proof of that can clearly be seen in the way he constantly ignores the advice he has been given in the last six years. He hasn't learned from his mistakes and he continues to do the same things over and over again, all the while expecting different results—and that is the very definition of "stupid." Vladimir Putin called Obama a "monkey with a hand grenade." I disagreed with that statement because most animals (especially primates) tend to learn from their mistakes. But not so in the case of our president, and no matter what kind of spin he (or the mainstream media) puts on things, the situation in Iraq and Syria is at a crisis point that will require direct American combat troops to deal with it. If not right this moment, then definitely in the next few months. And, as I mentioned in my previous article, that would cost more young American men and women service personnel their lives.

I realize that our president truly believes in his own divinity, that by the mere sound of his soothing, educated voice, he can heal all wounds, he can bring together all mankind in a celebration of unity and even heal the sick like Jesus did. But here in the real world, that is sadly just not a reality. Because of his total lack of understanding of foreign policy, he has actually created the firestorm that now engulfs part of the planet. And his so-called "solutions" for dealing with it are, at best, childish in their simplicity and wishful (but not practical) thinking.

This is where I wish the president would just go golfing for an extended period of time and leave military matters to the pros from Dover. But heaven forbid he politicize this entire thing and make it worse than what it is right now. So far, ISIS has publicly beheaded 3 people, and I'm sure there will be many more to come. It's going to take overwhelming military might to crush these barbarian throw-backs to the 7th century and send them to hell where they belong, but with Obama in-charge of the military....I just don't see that happening.

As long as we have an idealistic demagogue for a president who panders to the parasites of society, things aren't likely to get better anytime too soon. I wonder what it does take for this president to grow a pair and act like the leader of the free world.

Hey, Mr. President....don't you think a golfing trip sounds really good about now?

About Richard Anthony
Richard Anthony is a US Army veteran who served from 1975 to 1980. He was stationed in Frankfurt West Germany from 1976 to 1978 with the 3rd Armored Divisions 143rd Signal Battalion as a Tactical Telecommunications Center Specialist and was also with the 1st Cavalry Division 1st/12th Cav as a Combat Medic until discharge in 1980. He has been married for 20 years and has 3 sons. He's also a very involved Tea Party activist. Be sure to follow Richard on Facebook View all posts by Richard Anthony →

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/09/wi...ywsfiuYfj8p.99


Okay now please some one explain this to me....he isn't sending troops to combat ISIS..well okay,
(personally I don't want that anyways) but why is he sending 1000's of troops into the Ebola death zone!! Hey America wake up and smell the roses will ya!! This man is a traitor to our Country and all our Citizens !!!

My thinking is this: I personally feel that he knows we would "clean up ISIS", and I think he doesn't want that!!! But, sending them to Ebola death camps some where, would cause our soldiers irreparable harm, mentally and physically. And very possibly subject our soldiers to getting Ebola, and bringing it to us here at home..Now does that sound about right, well sorry but that is how I feel....And as always this is my opinion of course!!!!


Is It Wise For Obama To Send Thousands Of U.S. Troops Into The Ebola Death …

• 
  
  • 8 comments
  • a day ago
  
  ivdad — Let the UN and their phony group WHO handle this.
• 
  
• When there is a major problem somewhere in the world, Barack Obama loves to show that he is "doing something" by sending a contingent of U.S. troops to the affected area. But is it really wise for Obama to send thousands of young American men and women into the Ebola death zone? What are our troops going to do – shoot the virus? Of course not. The UN already has 6,000 uniformed peacekeepers in the region, and they are not doing much good. The truth is that this is a medical crisis that requires medical personnel. By sending thousands of troops into the heart of the Ebola pandemic, we make it much more likely that Ebola will be brought back to the United States. Obama should keep in mind that hundreds of health workers have become infected even though they wear protective gear and are trained to deal with Ebola patients. Our troops have not been trained to deal with Ebola patients and they probably will not be wearing full protective gear when dealing with the general population. But there are sick people among the general population that could pass Ebola to them.
  
  It is absolutely imperative that we keep Ebola isolated to the areas that it is already affecting. The number of Ebola victims has doubled over the past month, and there are computer models that are projecting that millions of people could soon be sick if the virus continues to spread at this pace.
  Putting medically untrained troops directly into the death zone seems like a very questionable thing to do. If a single one of them gets sick and brings the virus back home, it could turn out to be one of the most foolish things that Obama has ever done.
  On Tuesday, Obama visited the CDC and finally admitted that this Ebola outbreak is "spiraling out of control" and that strong action needed to be taken immediately…
  President Obama stressed his sense of urgency on Tuesday at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, warning that as America scurries to help West African nations grapple with the deadly Ebola epidemic, 'We can't dawdle on this one.'
  Of course this is something that he should have done a month or two ago, but at least he is finally stepping up to the plate.
  However, Obama continues to insist that the chance of an Ebola outbreak happening in the United States is "extremely low"…
  'Our experts here at the CDC and across our government agree that the chances of an Ebola outbreak here in the United States are extremely low,' Obama declared.
  But he described a battery of new biosecurity measures, including toughened airport screening and a growing capacity for lab testing, that will help 'in the unlikely event that someone with Ebola does reach our shores.'
  He better be right about that.
  One thing that Obama has correctly identified is the need to build a lot more treatment facilities for Ebola in the affected regions. Right now, all of the existing facilities are completely full and there are no empty beds left…
  Countless taxis filled with families worried they've become infected with Ebola currently crisscross Monrovia in search of help.
  They scour the Liberian capital, but not one clinic can take them in for treatment.
  "Today, there is not one single bed available for the treatment of an Ebola patient in the entire country of Liberia," said Margaret Chan, the World Health Organization's director-general.
  "As soon as a new Ebola treatment facility is opened, it immediately fills to overflowing with patients," the WHO said.
  Obama's plan calls for building 17 new Ebola treatment facilities with approximately 100 beds each.
  Needless to say, that is not going to get the job done. 1700 beds is going to be kind of like spitting into Niagara Falls if we actually do see hundreds of thousands of cases in Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea by early next year.
  
  But should we give Obama credit for trying to do something about this crisis even though he has waited far too long and his plan is not well thought out?
  I am not so sure.
  Meanwhile, the WHO said this week that the Ebola outbreak continues to grow "exponentially" and that a billion dollars may be needed to bring it under control.
  And one U.S. health official told the U.S. Senate on Tuesday that if Ebola continues to spread like wildfire that we could be "dealing with it for years to come"…
  "If we do not act now to stop Ebola, we could be dealing with it for years to come," said Beth Bell, director of the national center for emerging and zoonotic infectious diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. At a Senate hearing on Ebola, she noted that 100 CDC staff are working in West Africa and hundreds more are assisting from Atlanta. "The best way to protect the U.S. is to stop the outbreak in West Africa."
  Most Americans still do not seem too concerned about this virus.
  But this is not the bird flu. This is a disease that is killing more than half the people that it infects.
  Dr. Kent Brantly, one of the American doctors that contracted the virus but eventually recovered, says that this is a crisis that we need to be taking very seriously…
  "From the time I fell sick, just two months ago, the death toll has tripled," Brantly said, noting World Health Organization estimates of 5,000 cases, with about half of those patients dying from the virus. "In nine months down the road, we are looking at hundreds of thousands, not just in cases, but deaths."
  So what do you think?
  Is Obama responding appropriately to this crisis?
  Is the world handling this outbreak well?
  Source
  Get my new book about the future of America: The Beginning of the End.
  Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.
  
  
  Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/09/wi...ISdZsQPBhJz.99
  
  
  
  Ebola Health Workers and Journalists Murdered In Guinea
• http://b4in.org/f8fT
  
  The BBC is reporting this morning that nine members of a team trying to raise awareness of Ebola have been murdered in Guinea. Some of the bodies were dumped in a septic tank on school grounds in the village of Nzerekore
  
  From the BBC:
  
  The team disappeared after being pelted with stones by residents when they arrived in the village of Wome – in southern Guinea, where the Ebola outbreak was first recorded.
  
  A journalist who managed to escape told reporters that she could hear villagers looking for them while she was hiding.
  
  A government delegation, led by the health minister, had been dispatched to the region but they were unable to reach the village by road because a main bridge had been blocked.
  ‘Killed in cold blood’
  
  On Thursday night, government spokesman Albert Damantang Camara said the victims had been “killed in cold blood by the villagers”.
  
  The bodies showed signs of being attacked with machetes and clubs, officials say.
  
  Seven bodies were found in the septic tank and two more in the bush.
  
  Six people have been arrested and the village is now reportedly deserted.
  
  More http://b4in.org/f8fT
  
  
  
  

Shared publicly - 7:10 AM
He is an unpopular commander in chief pushing for contentious new war powers from a recalcitrant Congress just weeks before high-stakes midterm elections. Yet the 273-156 vote, a rare case of bipartisan cooperation in a Congress practically defined by its partisan discord, gave the president exactly what he wanted.





How Obama won a rare victory
ow.ly
The 273-156 vote to arm Syrian rebels gave the president exactly what he wanted.

How Obama won a rare victory





Greg Nash

By Mike Lillis,Alexander Bolton and Scott Wong - 09/17/14 08:56 PM EDT
President Obama won a major foreign policy victory Wednesday when the House granted him new authority to train and equip Syrian rebels fighting against Islamic militants in the Middle East.


He is an unpopular commander in chief pushing for contentious new war powers from a recalcitrant Congress just weeks before high-stakes midterm elections.



Yet the 273-156 vote, a rare case of bipartisan cooperation in a Congress practically defined by its partisan discord, gave the president exactly what he wanted.

Obama’s request appeared to face enormous hurdles from the start.


Many liberals opposed the measure for fear of getting bogged down in another prolonged conflict overseas; many conservatives rejected the notion of expanding the powers of a president they don’t trust; and the American public has long been weary of war after more than a decade of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.


But in the end, Obama was able to buck some of his strongest allies on the left, rally support from some of his strongest opponents on the right, and cobble together a bipartisan majority that easily granted his request for the authority he’d requested.
How did it happen?


Setting the wheels in motion was a high-stakes Sept. 9 meeting at the White House between Obama and Congress’s top four leaders: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).


A Democratic source familiar with the gathering said getting buy-in from Boehner during that talk — both on the policy and the strategy to attach the measure to the Republicans’ continuing resolution (CR) — was instrumental to setting up Wednesday’s relatively easy House vote.


“Boehner was very cooperative, that was the main thing,” the source said. “The president said, ‘This is what I need in the CR.’ This happened the day before the House was supposed to vote.’”


The source said if Boehner had come out of the meeting and voiced opposition to the president’s plan, it would have set up a very difficult fight in Congress. Instead, Boehner got on board.


“I think that was the key development,” the source said.


Returning to the Capitol, however, Boehner faced immediate resistance from his troops, many of whom wanted separate votes on the CR and the Syria training provision. The issue came to a head during a closed-door GOP conference meeting on Tuesday, when an unwavering Boehner made the case for the package deal.


“That’s the only way to ensure the language that goes to the president is the right language … our language. It’s ball control,” Boehner said, according to a source in the room. “If we pass the Syria amendment as a stand-alone, Harry Reid will ignore it, add his own version of it to the CR and ship the whole thing back to us as they leave town.


“That means the Democrats have the pen on the amendment instead of us. And if they have the pen, it opens the door to trouble,” the Speaker added. “The only way for us to lock out their mischief is for us to control the process.”


Across the aisle, Pelosi was having a similarly difficult time rallying members of her liberal-laden caucus who are wary that the new training authority in Syria is the first step down a slippery slope into the next Iraq war.


At a closed-door meeting of House Democrats in the Capitol on Tuesday afternoon, the second such meeting of the day, Pelosi waited until everyone else had said their piece, then took the podium for 10 minutes to promote Obama’s request.


She began by reminding members of her staunch opposition to the 2002 use-of-force resolution that launched the country into Iraq under President George W. Bush, according to a source in the room. Then she contrasted that vote with Obama’s request, emphasizing Obama’s success in building an international coalition to help the process; the absence of U.S. combat troops; and the fact that the Syrian rebels would be trained outside of the war zone.


“She talked about how this is different. … It was very quiet in the room,” said the source. “I think that sort-of crystallized things for people.”


Both Boehner and Pelosi insisted they weren’t whipping hard for what they considered a vote of conscience. But their informal lobbying couldn’t have hurt: 159 Republicans and 114 Democrats voted in favor of the Syria amendment.


Not that the White House was leaving anything to chance. Obama, Vice President Biden and top administration officials spent much of the past week calling leaders, chairmen and rank-and-file members on both sides of the aisle, trying to whip up support for the proposal.


“This is the biggest White House outreach effort to Republicans since he’s been president,” said one senior GOP leadership aide.


Public sentiment has also played a major factor. While there’s little appetite among voters to enter into another entrenched conflict like those in Iraq and Afghanistan, the recent beheadings of two American journalists at the hands of ISIS, killings broadcast in graphic videos released to the Internet, galvanized Americans in favor of some U.S. response and greased the skids of Wednesday’s vote.


Indeed, a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll found that 94 percent of respondents had heard news of the beheadings.


“Two Americans were beheaded, and that was jarring to people,” said Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.). “And if we have an opportunity to give the people on the ground an opportunity to succeed in pushing back against that horrific kind of behavior while ensuring that we don’t have to do it ourselves? That’s the difference. I’m going to support it for that very reason.”


Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) noted yet another factor that drove support from wary lawmakers: The authority expires along with the CR, in the middle of December.


“This is a short-term goal,” he said. “We’re going to come back to this issue again in December, because we’ve got to come back to the CR, we’ve got to come back to the Syrian situation, and we’ll see. If these folks don’t get on board, we’re out of there. That’s what I’ll vote.”











http://thehill.com/homenews/house/21...a-rare-victory

According to Obama: "ISIL Is Not Islamic" Then what is ISIL?





Obama's Home Boys!!!!

RELATED

http://www.alipac.us/f19/house-unusu...-fight-311108/

The House Vote on Arming Syrian Rebels Against ISIS Will ...

www.thewire.com/politics/2014/09/the-house...isis.../380341/
1 day ago - The House on Wednesday is expected to vote on – and likely pass ... spending bill that Congress must pass before it leaves Washington ... The Senate is expected to vote later this week, assuming the House measure passes...


Senate Probably Approving ISIS Plan, Despite Grumbling ...

www.newsy.com/.../senate-probably-approving-isis-plan-despite-grumbli...
7 hours ago - The Senate is expected to follow the example of the House in voting to authorize the ... DANA BASH, CNN: "The Senate, they're not likely to take this kind of ... Now it'll head to the Senate, where it's expected to pass as well. ... frankly, hide it — in a bill to fund the government before they leave town, Wolf."...

HMMM The American Media at it's best!! NOT!!

Conservative Videos

Shared publicly - 7:06 AM
#RayRice

Send Ray Rice To Fight ISIS
http://ow.ly/2NPK2j

The administration debates various plans to cripple ISIS. via ReasonTV



Send Ray Rice To Fight ISIS...

ow.ly