General Discussion

Jesus Malverde

(10,274 posts) Wed Jun 18, 2014, 08:13 PM Jun 2014

Obama to Congress: I don't need new permission on Iraq

I'll let you know what's going on, but I don't need new congressional authority to act, President Barack Obama told congressional leaders Wednesday about his upcoming decision on possible military intervention in Iraq.

The White House meeting sounded more like a listening session for the top Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate about options for helping Iraq's embattled Shiite government halt the lightning advance of Sunni Islamist fighters toward Baghdad that Obama is considering.

According to a White House statement, Obama went over U.S. efforts to "strengthen the capacity of Iraq's security forces to confront the threat" from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) fighters, "including options for increased security assistance."

Earlier, spokesman Jay Carney spelled out one limit to any U.S. help, saying: "The President hasn't ruled out anything except sending U.S. combat troops into Iraq."

Read More: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/18/politics/us-iraq/

4 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Obama to Congress: I don't need new permission on Iraq (Original Post) Jesus Malverde Jun 2014 OP

So, notice and authorization required to rescue a POW, but not required to bomb another country? Fred Sanders Jun 2014 #1

Is the 2002 AUMF still in effect? bananas Jun 2014 #2

If so, it's a strange construction. Igel Jun 2014 #3

I don't think any Congress is automatically tied to the legislation... kentuck Jun 2014 #4

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)

1. So, notice and authorization required to rescue a POW, but not required to bomb another country?

Reply to Jesus Malverde (Original post)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 08:16 PM

Jun 2014

bananas

(27,509 posts)

2. Is the 2002 AUMF still in effect?

Reply to Jesus Malverde (Original post)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 08:45 PM

Jun 2014

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Iraq_Resolution_of_2002

Igel

(35,296 posts)

3. If so, it's a strange construction.

Reply to bananas (Reply #2)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 10:23 PM

Jun 2014

The first part says it's okay to attack Iraq because it posed a continuing threat. Unless we're going to attack al-Maliki's government, it's not Iraq that poses the threat nor Iraq that's subject to attack. It's a terrorist or insurgent group.

The second part says it's okay to attack,

acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist
organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Note that Russia's involvement in E. Ukraine and ISIL's actions are probably equivalent under this text. And would also sanction invading Syria. Or Libya. Or pretty much any place else. (Except that all the fighting stopped and peace was declared, at least in Iraq. However, this and the 2001 AUMF covers all the drone attacks. Obama didn't like it when this granted * powers. He likes it when he has the same powers. Thus is Obama justifying *.)

kentuck

(111,076 posts)

4. I don't think any Congress is automatically tied to the legislation...

Reply to bananas (Reply #2)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 10:25 PM

Jun 2014

passed by the previous Congress?

Reply to this discussion