Home | About | Donate

In Attempt to Dodge Suit, White House Argues Funding War Makes War Legal


In Attempt to Dodge Suit, White House Argues Funding War Makes War Legal

Nika Knight, staff writer

A lawsuit filed earlier this year charging President Barack Obama with waging an illegal war against the Islamic State (or ISIS) was met on Tuesday with a motion from the Obama administration asking the court to dismiss it.

In its motion to dismiss (pdf), the administration argues that Congressional funding for the war amounts to Congressional approval for it.


Obama's right, that's why Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution reads:

The Congress shall have Power... To Not declare War but instead Cede Authority to the Executive to Wage Endless War, and to Fund such endless Undeclared Wars in Mendacity and Cowardice...


Ain't it great having a constitutional law expert in the Oval Office ?


It shows the corruption of the American judiciary and its capitulation to the Deep State that
it has never declared all of the endless Wars waged since WW II illegal and unConstitutional.
The US Congress must vote for a Declaration of War according to the Constitution and then
the President decides how to wage it with funding again approved or not by Congress.
Yet the last Declared War of the USA was WW II
None of these Wars are legal and no wimpy law by Congress supersedes the Constitution.
Only a Constitutional Amendment legally does that.
Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, the endless CIA coups, Chile, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Iraq 1, Iraq 2, Libya, Syria NONE of them are legal!


Your sentence would be better respected if it didn't limit itself to Obama since he was by no means the AUTHOR of the doctrine that allotted to the President cum Unitary Executive the same power as a king. The Founders put the decision for war in the hands of the Congress/Senate to ensure that no narcissistic tyrant would be able to "make war at his pleasure."

Many here still subscribe to the official narrative that unleashed these wars of aggression along with muscular Homeland Security and its myriad arms of surveillance.

Regardless of whether or not readers are savvy enough to connect the dots, the bottom line is that it's dangerous for ONE flawed human being to have the power to declare wars.

And Bush got away with it... largely due to the False Flag event and the way it traumatized the nation... from there, the Press was fully muzzled and no media dare deviate from the pro-war narrative.

Obama is a fraud; but laying the blame exclusively at his feet seems to protect the real authors of the doctrine of this new breed of tyranny: The Bush Junta and its Deep State directors.


Often it's the hacker contracted to find flaws in a computer system, or a reformed bank robber hired to do likewise with bank security.

Who better than a criminal would understand the most efficient means to affecting criminal acts?

Remember--why rob a bank when you can become one (and that way, just print money)!

Its leadership parallel is--IF you can achieve a pinnacle of authority, you can use your knowledge of the law for your own ambitions and devices while laying a web of protection over your friends' actions.

It wasn't just in Hollywood where Organized Crime families sent their brighter sons off to law school.


The word would be "indifferent" population, but your entire sentence is mangled.

I suppose in your brilliant (your spelling gives you away) mind, all of the following suggest indifference:

  1. Kayaktivists blocking a harbor outside of Seattle
  2. Black Lives Matter protests
  3. Latino Dreamers' protests
  4. Bill McKibben's half a million showing in protest of existing Environmental and Energy policies
  5. Minimum Wage (increase) Protests
  6. The thousands in so many cities who showed up for Sanders and worked to see his campaign elicit major changes (many, co-opted by the DLC)
  7. The women fighting to maintain access to birth control clinics
  8. The millions fighting to keep public schools open, oppose fracking, oppose Big Oil, oppose nuclear plants

There are SO many people trying to make a difference and working to change the system of Corporate Capture that is ruining this nation.

But of course, C.D. wouldn't BE C.D. without its requisite--blame citizens/voters squad. And indeed it is a squad or this Talking Point would not show up with such regularity.


I suspect the Nobel Committee has kicked themselves in the ass many times but are too embarrassed by their stupidity to demand the return of the Peace Prize given to the war-security/police-state president - you know, the "change we can believe-in" candidate..........


Having destroyed language through socialization and traditions, words can be made to say anything as they no longer have accurate verifiable meaning. This is the modern way where communications are for control and domination only.
Consequently, funding war makes war legal and killing innocents is legal because we fund it.
War is good even when it is very, very bad.
Apparently, killing innocents is bad unless politics decides it is good. Then killing innocents is good again. Bad and good are interchangeable at all times. It is very difficult to know what is bad and good when they become exactly the same. Politics decides the meanings of all words.
That's how it works. No need for real meaning - just conformity to this tradition of madness and brutality. The sounds of meaning have been replaced by unintelligible noise.
This culture of rot will surely incinerate itself.
We must salvage language to survive. Killing innocents is always bad. Understanding the word sounds is actually life and death. Insist on truth at all times- be a rebel.


That is truly rich (sic). The amoral pressed into the phase
of the immoral and because it can, claim that the origin was already simply
amoral and hence the immoral acceptable as precedence. It is the narcissistic premise, already inherently dysfunctional, writ large and in keeping with predatory economic theory, the freeze-frame version of life as domination. But, not unlike its corollary the distortion of evolution as capacity to dominate rather than adapt to actual conditions, is doomed to mortal failure, or more aptly, to generate chaos from which advantage is seen to be gained (another (sic) or maybe just plain sick).

When the very basis of life is subjected to a failed theory incapable of stepping back from uncontrolled momentum, then aesthetics is no longer a marginalizable consideration. The reason for this being, as I see it, that aesthetics are an inherent aspect of human cognitive function regardless of the extent to which domination patterns extract from and prey on this function in order to control dominant advantage over time, our capacity to engage work, love, and above all, learning.

It's a perspective that is already cross-eyed but in such a way that that
you have to adopt a cross-eyed stance in order to see it. Like a cross-eyed stereograph requiring viewer to wear 3d glasses to pull the cross-eyed bird into 3D

An aesthetic gesture in an art project utilized by art professor Ted Hiebert to illustrate the claiming of the distorted plane in order to reclaim the integrity of direct personal experience.

For those who might want to explore artists and perspectives that have been marginalized for decades: a truly delightful and insightful 2013 introductory talk by Ted Hiebert on exploring the transparency of aesthetics


Can conflict be eliminated? Should it be?


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


Congress has passed some really extremist legislation in the aftermath of major negative events. This authorization after 9/11. The Patriot Act. The bank bailout after the 2008 crash. Shock doctrine in action.

Obama is the warmonger, but Congress can absolve itself of any responsibility just by pointing to the authorization to use force.


"The relief Smith and other soldiers are actually seeking—and one they richly deserve—would be a decision by their political leaders to treat the Constitution, the nation’s commitment to military force, and the lives of American personnel as a serious matters, worthy of sustained attention."
This is not going to happen, as Congress is largely owned by banks and defense contractors. Congress for a long time has had only one lob to do -keep the contractors' cash flowing.


Obullshi is a political and moral fraud. A hypocrite writ large. He should be on trial at the Hague with Bush,Cheney, and Blair. Iraq should be suing the U.S in international court.


white house argues its terrorist acts against humanity are legal, totally sick!!!


I posted this on another article, then I read this one and it surely fits here perfectly.

This is a quote from a song by Jackson Browne that clearly relates to today even though it's older. It's worth finding: "Lives in the Balance"
"A government lies to it's people and the country is drifting to war" "They sell us our presidents the same way, they sell us our clothes and our cars. They sell us everything from youth to religion and sometimes they sell us our wars". "I wanna know who the men in the shadows are, I want to hear somebody asking them why
they can be counted on to tell us who our enemies are but they're never the one's to fight and to die". It gives me chills it is so spot on.


You will have to run that by me again, after I have regained my composure.
Does that mean, if I commit break and entry, it will not count as a crime, because my (burglary-) tools got me in?
Hey, I am not knocking this, I can see great opportunities on the horizon, providing, I can get that scheme past my conscience.
I wish I knew Obama well enough to ask him how HE did it.


I gave up on taking the Nobel Prize for Peace serious when the committee awarded the prize to Henry Kissinger.


Thank you for the link. This is the talk he should have given nationwide. I love this guy and have said through these days since he endorsed the demon woman, that he has done everything he said he would do and what he has done should never be underestimated or his genuine devotion to the revolution. I'm still completely willing to keep fighting with him. I've always felt one of the best things he's done is show others they can win as progressive. If I see a progressive candidate I will work for them. He also mentioned other parties and he agrees we should have them.
I will still not vote for HRC and I wouldn't have before Bernie because of who she is.
We have to do what we think is right and what resonates in our spirit that's all I can say. Bernie is a politician he believes in the system so he'll do what he does and when we can help, we should.