Deputy HHS Secretary to Minnesota: 'We Have Turned Off the Money Spigot'
Israel's Foreign Ministry Had the Perfect Tweet for This Story Involving Greta Thunberg
CBS News Investigated Somali Daycare Centers After a YouTuber's Video Went Viral. Here's...
FBI Says It Thwarted a Planned ISIS-Style Terror Plot Ahead of New Year's...
A Judge, a Technicality, and the Fight Over What We Feed Our Kids
Judicial Lessons From the Hannah Dugan Verdict
Wisconsin Gov. Evers Laments Healthcare Costs While Suing to Protect ‘Gender-Affirming’ Ca...
The Heckler Awards, Part 4 – The Continued Celebration of the Bottom of...
The Economists Got 2025 All Wrong
Peace Through Strength: US Military Surpasses Recruitment Goals Under Trump-Era Policies
Scott Jennings Blasts California’s Wealth Tax As Cover-Up for the States $70B Fraud...
Mamdani to Be Inaugurated in Subway Station Built by Entrepreneurs and the Free...
Jessica Tarlov Shocked a 'Kid' Was Able to Expose $100 Million in Fraud...
Tim Walz Says He Takes Fraud Seriously After Keith Ellison Vowed to Fight...
Another Leftist Judge Is Blocking Trump's Deportations
Tipsheet

Illegal? Obama Wants to Use Bush's 2001 War Authorization to Justify Attacks on ISIS

In his address to the nation Wednesday night about how the United States is going to handle the growing ISIS threat, President Obama announced new airstrikes in Syria and called on Congress to give "input," but didn't ask for their authorization. Why? Apparently President Obama thinks he can use the authorization given to President George W. Bush in 2001 to go after al Qaeda. Legally, that move isn't panning out. As Eli Lake over at the Daily Beast writes, Obama's latest war is probably illegal: 

Advertisement
Obama’s using the law that authorized attacks against al Qaeda to justify his new fight in Syria and Iraq. One small problem: ISIS and al Qaeda are at each others’ throats. Legal experts were shocked to learn Wednesday that the Obama administration wants to rely on that 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force against al Qaeda for the new ISIS war.

“On its face this is an implausible argument because the 2001 AUMF requires a nexus to al Qaeda or associated forces of al Qaeda fighting the United States,” said Robert Chesney, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law. “Since ISIS broke up with al Qaeda it’s hard to make that argument.”

Ideally, when beginning a new war like Obama is doing now, the president would ask Congress to declare it.

As a reminder, President Obama campaigned on asking Congress for war authorization back in 2008. My how things have changed.

Yesterday Secretary of State John Kerry said the United States isn't "at war" with ISIS but instead has launched a "counterterrorism" operation against the army. The White House echoed that statement. The administration won't admit Obama is starting a war for two reasons. The first is political in that it upset Obama's far left base. The second is that declaring war would require Obama to ask Congress for authorization, which in return would require the President to come up with a coherent strategy and be accountable to lawmakers for implementing that strategy as planned and promised. Obama doesn't want to answer to anyone, but especially Congress. 

Advertisement

Related:

AL QAEDA ISIS SYRIA

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement