Home | About | Donate

Thanks to Congress, Trump Will Have Nearly Unlimited Power to Wage War


#1

Thanks to Congress, Trump Will Have Nearly Unlimited Power to Wage War

Deirdre Fulton, staff writer


#2

Trump will have to start early if he wants to beat Obama's war record. Oh, and presidents do not relinquish power, EVER.


#3

Congress has abdicated it's war responsibilities ever since the second world war, so now America is a military dictatorship. Yes, the demagogue in chief will have unlimited power to wage war, but that is nothing new! All previous presidents have had unlimited powers to wage wars.

From my perspective, the only thing that sets D.T. apart from previous presidents, is Trump will have unlimited power to start a nuclear war. Lets all hope he does not go there!


#4

The CIA says it will not use waterboarding even if ordered to do so. The agency received a lot of criticism for basically carrying out torture under George W. Bush. The main obstacle to Trump carrying out horrible things is people refusing to follow orders because they believe the orders are illegal or unconstitutional. The military is not supposed to follow any unconstitutional orders. Refusal to follow orders is the only real check against presidential power in this situation. Ultimately it is up to military and non-military government employees to stop Trump if he is going to act as a madman as it would appear he will do based on his statements. Just following orders is no excuse. Government employees have to take the best interest of the US and what is right and wrong into account now that the voters have put the country in jeopardy.


#5

Thanks to Congress? Well yes, but this is just another symptom of a system in radical and rapid decline. It was only a matter of time before a Trump like character would assume the Presidency and, furthermore, as awful as Trump is he is just simply a couple of clicks on the dial to the right of what a Clinton Presidency would be like. We have surrendered war making powers to the concept of a strong Presidency in small steps until 9/11 when that became a ever quickening slide to where we are now. The real problem is out of control military and all the support system designed to keep that constantly expanding at the ultimate cost of every other government service or function. War is profitable on a level unimaginable to any lay person not intimately involved in the process or at the receiving end of that river of tax dollars.


#6

For many like myself, Obama was a disappointment - failing to change the imperialist culture in Washington and starting out with a Democratic congress who failed to hold him accountable, democrats failed to promote a culture of resistance to war - to torture - to massive transfers of wealth to the military industrial complex. There is no doubt that Obama was good at what he was doing - but it was not a progressive agenda. Even the compromised health care reform seemed designed to fail because it was not strong enough. Yes, it has made a positive impact even if on life support at present. Clinton as president also set into motion many policies - trade/crime/etc. This is the prime reason that progressive democrats held their nose and voted for Hillary - and looked on Bernie Sanders as representing their interests. Hopefully from this period of being outside the power base - a new generation of progressive voices will help shape the political climate.


#7

I think escalating military tension with China and piling onto nuke "modernization" with his nuclear arms race tweets constitutes a pretty fast start.


#8

Thanks to Congress Obama, Trump Will Have Nearly Unlimited Power to Wage War
.. fixed the headline for you ..

Since your own article says:

President Barack Obama has relied on the existing Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), passed in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, as justification for military action in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen.

That was Obama's doing. He could have refused to use the AUMF. Grown a spine. Said "no" to the military industrial congressional complex. He could have stanched the flow of blood.

And then there's this:

Rep. Adam Schiff of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, told Politico: "You could easily see [Trump] wanting to ramp up the war on terror and take it to new parts of the globe. There are few limits on what he can do."

True .. he could invade and trash Libya .. oops! that was Obama ..
Or twist the intent by supporting alQaeda in Syria .. dam! that was Obama ..
Or support the Saudi genocide in Yemen .. dammit! Obama again ..
Or use drones for extrajudicial assassinations in Pakistan, Somalia etc ..
Dammit! that was Obama too ..

And then there's the provision in the NDAA Obama signed into law allowing the US military to detain indefinitely anyone, anywhere, under orders of the presidentm thus suspending habeas and legitimatizing the kinds of disappearances carried out in Latin America under the CIA's Operation Condor.


#9

The recent use of four SWAT team members armed with assault rifles to defend Ivanka Trump from an insulting passenger on Jet Blue may be a sign of how loosely terrorism will be defined in coming days. Take a look at the vague language of the AUMF with which Ivanka's Dad will be armed as of January 20:

 "That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

Trump (or any president) could use this blather as legal authority for directing military force against any American citizen within the United States, such as the loudmouthed guy on the plane, if he happens to feel that they might be connected to some unspecified "future acts of international terrorism." There is nothing in the AUMF which restricts it from being used within the US and there is no oversight from congress.


#10

We're already bombing what is it? Seven or eight countries at present? --sorry, I keep losing count.

Ohhhh, but it's different when it's a Republican that does it. The Dems will decide to be pals with Cindy Sheehan again once Obamas's out of office. Democrat or Republican, it's just the SOS -- Americans bombs will keep falling, whoever is in the Oval Office.

Why does it always take a Republican to be president before people get upset about our warmongering ways? Sorry, my sense of morality doesn't conveniently switch off or on depending on the political affiliation of a White House administration. Damn them all.


#11

The Democrats and Republicans were both fine with ceding dictatorial powers to the president so long as he used them outside the national borders. The ancient Roman Senate had the same idea about allowing commanders like Scipio, Caesar, Pompey etc. to rule without restraint as long as they disbanded their armies before crossing the border into the homeland of Rome at a little stream called the Rubicon. They all followed this rule until Caesar decided to break it.

The enormous difference between Trump and the rulers like Obama and Bush who preceded him is that he will assume dictatorial (i.e. murderous) powers within the homeland on January 20. Anyone who can look at Trump and think that he is capable of any restraint whatsoever is being willfully blind.


#12

Well then, we will have a taste of our own medicine that we've been dishing out to others with our bombs, our invasions, our state-sponsored terrorism, our support of dictators abroad, and our proxy wars. Karma sure sucks for warmongering nations and people who approve of it.

Mercifully, no great political dynasty lasts forever -- the US is no exception- just one on a long line of empires. History (or rather the more myopic side of human nature) will do its work. Good riddance to it.


#13

Sen Kaine hammers Obama for stretching the AUMF and Congress for its inaction:

Kaine: Inaction on ISIS AUMF 'Cowardly and Shameful'

Published on May 7, 2015
Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., hammered Congress and the Obama administration Thursday for failing to move an Authorization for the Use of Military Force against the Islamic State, an item stalled since last fall, calling the delay “cowardly and shameful.”


#14

Congresswoman Gabbard calls out Obama's arming of terrorists, asks Congress to act

Tulsi Gabbard talks about her new bill, Stop Arming Terrorists Act, on CNN

Published on Dec 21, 2016
I sat down with CNN’s Jake Tapper to discuss the bill I introduced: the Stop Arming Terrorists Act, and how we must end the counterproductive regime change war in Syria.


#15

Obama also pushed for nuclear modernization and escalated tensions with Russia. Now he is imposing sanctions on Russia for hacking, something we have done to friends and enemies alike.


#16

I have no idea why you are commenting to me as if I am defending Obama here, or that I need be informed of the "modernization" of US nuclear arsenal (That I mentioned in my post) or the fact of US cyber meddling against other Nation States.

Furthermore, I need not be addressed as if I have uttered a word in defense of Obama on imposing sanctions against Russia.

So in response to...

Trump will have to start early if he wants to beat Obama's war record.

I will say it again...

I think escalating military tension with China and piling onto nuke "modernization" with his nuclear arms race tweets constitutes a pretty fast start.

Surely you aren't defending what will be a war mongering Trump Administration are you?


#17

There is a rubicon yet to be crossed.


#18

Edward Snowden acted in the best interests of U.S. citizens, and he was the one placed in jeopardy.


#19

There's this:


#20

This couldn't be the same Tim Kaine Hillary Clinton tapped for her VP, could it?