| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| Home Front: WoT | ||
| Ken Roth says the war against al Qaeda is over | ||
| 2013-08-05 | ||
Short version: Since Obama is switching from a military response to a lawfare response, why not declare the war against Al Qaeda over.
Roth also said in conclusion: Those are the standards for policing, not war. So why not take the next logical step and declare the war against al-Qaeda over? Yes, there may be a price to pay. Obama's political opponents will holler and score points after the next, inevitable terrorist attack. But the cost of using war rhetoric to shunt aside appropriate limits on lethal force is even higher. Plenty of governments are eager for excuses to summarily kill their enemies, however tenuously defined -- even those living in the United States. The U.S. government has also committed abuses in the name of fighting terrorism. The Obama administration should rethink its overly elastic definition of war on al-Qaeda and call an end to it. Yeah, I remember scoring points that day four of our people were brutally murdered in Benghazi in a f*ck up that Obama still won't own up to nine months on. I think it was a three pointer, but it may have been a safety, for two points. Only the left scores political points on dead bodies. Whether they make them dead or not. Ken Roth has been the exec director of Human Rights Watch since 1993 and before that was the deputy exec director of HRW
| ||
| Posted by:lord garth |
| #7 Here you go RJ, something the MSM has spent a decade trying to shove down the Memory Hole(c) - S.J.RES.23 -- Authorization for Use of Military Force (Enrolled Bill [Final as Passed Both House and Senate] - ENR) --S.J.Res.23-- S.J.Res.23 One Hundred Seventh Congress of the United States of America AT THE FIRST SESSION Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, the third day of January, two thousand and one Joint Resolution To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States. Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'. SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (a) IN GENERAL- 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. (b) War Powers Resolution Requirements- (1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. (2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution. Speaker of the House of Representatives. Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate. Congress can repeal this to end the process. Did that when the Senate rejected the Versailles Treaty to end the state of war (WWI) with Germany et al. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2013-08-05 16:10 |
| #6 Did Congress to pass a formal declaration of war? Or did they just okay action against the Taliban? |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2013-08-05 14:56 |
| #5 "I won." |
| Posted by: Perfesser 2013-08-05 14:21 |
| #4 It sure was a funny kind of a war. |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2013-08-05 11:25 |
| #3 Of course the war is over when you start arming AQ via Benghazi. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2013-08-05 08:45 |
| #2 Well, think of it this way - if you do not have a military, how can there be a war? |
| Posted by: Bobby 2013-08-05 06:17 |
| #1 Yeah its over... over there, and over there too, and even over there (pointing to multiple embassies, insurgencies, and other AlQ/Muslim hot spots on the map). |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2013-08-05 01:39 |