Do you support giving the Office of the President the right to use military

[sad sally]

force anywhere against suspected terrorists, including domestically?

HR 1540 passed the House and is waiting for the Senate's companion bill S. 981 to pass so the President can sign into law. If enemies can be defined as "Al Qaeda, The Taliban and Associated Forces," there will never need to be another debate about the legality of President Obama's or any future President's wars. As drone wars are expanding into new countries, it's highly conceivable there will always be new terrorists against America - accidentally assassinate the fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, children and grandchildren with Predator drones and all of them may not forgive being mistaken for enemy targets.

If you are concerned about handing unfettered war power to our President and all unknown future Presidents, let your Senators know you object.

A May 25 ACLU alert highlighted Section 1034 in HR 1540: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.

Titled: "AFFIRMATION OF ARMED CONFLICT WITH AL QAEDA, THE TALIBAN, AND ASSOCIATED FORCES," it authorizes military force anywhere against suspected terrorists, including domestically.

As a result, the ACLU warned:

"Congress may soon vote on a new declaration of worldwide war without end, and without clear enemies." If enacted by both Houses and signed by Obama, it'll be "the single biggest handover of unchecked war authority from Congress to the executive branch in modern American history."

On May 26, HR 1540 passed 322 - 96. On May 12, a companion Senate bill, S. 981, was introduced and referred to committee for consideration. So far, no further action was taken, nor is it clear whether Section 1034's language will be included unchanged or at all.

The situation bears watching at a time America heads closer to tyranny and out-of-control militarism, menacing peace and democratic values everywhere. Isn't that incentive enough for mass outrage to stop it!

http://warisacrime.org/content/americas-addiction-wagin ...

[DJ13]

1. NO

The term "terrorist" is one thats too open to interpretation.

That kind of power is corrosive to a free society.

[Marblehead]

2. Obama may as well trade

the seal of the president for a crown, I didn't vote for a king.

[midnight]

3. No... No.... No......

[Scottybeamer70]

4. The last one wanted to be the emperor........

looks like this one may accomplish that position.

[Petrushka]

5. "The situation bears watching at a time America heads closer to tyranny...."?? Wh-what?! And miss

America's Got Talent??

:sarcasm:

[bemildred]

6. That is essentially how the Roman imperium got started, so no, not ever. nt

[Proud Liberal Dem]

7. Didn't I hear that he said he would veto this?

:shrug:

[sad sally]

8. Yes, but the President's concern was over the ability to transfer terrorists to ther US, not the

authority to engage in military conflict with terrorists.

http://compliancecampaign.wordpress.com/2011/05/28/congress-authorizes-perpetual-lawlessness-in-the-%E2%80%98war-on-terror%E2%80%99/?du

President Obama had threatened to veto the legislation, citing concerns over the worldwide war provision and restrictions on the executive branch’s authority to transfer terrorism suspects to the United States for prosecution or for release to other countries.

But this is unlikely, as any such veto would be highly problematic, considering the political and economic significance of the legislation. Any veto of a defense spending authorization bill would be portrayed as withdrawing support for American troops abroad, and would be unpopular among defense contractors and the employees who work for them.

From an international law perspective, however, the legislation raises all sorts of other issues, especially regarding the sovereignty and territorial integrity of countries around the world who may be accused of “substantially supporting, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces.”

As Defense Secretary Robert Gates has stated, the movement known as “al-Qaeda” has “metastasized.”

In a November 2010 interview, Gates said, “As we’ve brought pressure on al Qaeda in North Waziristan , the terrorist movement has metastasized in many ways. So now we see them in Somalia, in Yemen, in North Africa.”

So, as explained by the Secretary of Defense, as the U.S. puts pressure on al-Qaeda in one place, the movement just pops up somewhere else, sort of like a never-ending whack-a-mole game, with Predator Drones. Now, this never-ending game has been authorized by Congress, which even threw the language of “associated forces” into the legislation in case the ill-defined war against the al-Qaeda/Taliban enemy was not vague enough.

As the ACLU describes it,

The House just passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), including a provision to authorize worldwide war, which has no expiration date and will allow this president — and any future president — to go to war anywhere in the world, at any time, without further congressional authorization. The new authorization wouldn’t even require the president to show any threat to the national security of the United States. The American military could become the world’s cop, and could be sent into harm’s way almost anywhere and everywhere around the globe.

[TheKentuckian]

9. Unacceptable power. Even if you trust this President doesn't mean this is tolerable

since eventually a Bush, Reagan, a Nixon type or apparently much worse will come along and abuse it.

No, it has to be vetoed regardless of the politics or it is a direct and willful betrayal of self determination and limited government.

[sad sally]

10. I absolutely agree. Even if Democrats support President Obama's

decisions 100% today (which I don't), how can they be duped into thinking future presidents won't target the wrong people as terrorits?

This bill is over the top in giving a sitting President authority to start wars without any need to consult with and get agreement or approval from congress.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

11. The link you cited

appears to contradict your response:

"President Obama had threatened to veto the legislation, citing concerns over the *WORLDWIDE WAR PROVISION* and restrictions on the executive branch’s authority to transfer terrorism suspects to the United States for prosecution or for release to other countries."
:shrug:

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.