Osama bin Laden had been dead only a few days when House Republicans began their efforts to expand, rather than contract, the war on terror. Not content with the president’s wide-ranging powers to pursue the archcriminals of Sept. 11, 2001, Republicans want to authorize the military to pursue virtually anyone suspected of terrorism, anywhere on earth, from now to the end of time.Read the rest here.
This wildly expansive authorization would, in essence, make the war on terror a permanent and limitless aspect of life on earth, along with its huge potential for abuse.
The Authorization for Use of Military Force, approved by Congress a week after Sept. 11, 2001, gives the president the power to go after anyone who committed or aided in the 9/11 attacks, or who harbored such people, to prevent acts of terrorism. It was this document that authorized the war in Afghanistan and the raid on Bin Laden’s compound.
A new bill, approved last week by the House Armed Services Committee and heading for the floor this month, would go much further. It would allow military attacks against not just Al Qaeda and the Taliban but also any “associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States.” That deliberately vague phrase could include anyone who doesn’t like America, even if they are not connected in any way with the 2001 attacks. It could even apply to domestic threats.
This is nuts. Worse, the Times is right in calling it dangerous. It is a blank check without even a "cash by" date. It is also a legally and constitutionally dubious proposition that Congress can pass what amounts to a declaration of war against people who may not even have done anything yet, merely on the affirmation of the President on some future date that they have become our enemy. This bill needs to die an ignominious death in some congressional hopper next to the proposed legislation to spend a hundred million dollars studying porcine fecal matter.
3 comments:
Creepy stuff I say.
And who'd think that its nuts like these that make the Times and its own version of selective reporting look responsible by comparison.
Fairly, having done comparative research in grad school, the Times is THE best written and edited paper in the US. The premise of balanced or objective reporting is simply hogwash, but the disappearance of ANY journalism anywhere else (ok... few execptions here and there) make "advocacy" reporting far less of an offense than those who disagree with an author's perspective might otherwise contend.
I really tire of democracy. Long dead kings are surely turning in their graves thinking of the power they could have wielded as members of democratic government.
Post a Comment