• All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out.

  • I.F. Stone

donderdag 14 juli 2016

Obama's Wars Are Illegal


Historic Law Suit Against Barack Obama: White House Argues that Funding The War against Syria and Iraq Makes War Legal

"How could I honor my oath when I am fighting a war, even a good war, that the Constitution does not allow, or Congress has not approved?" 

 253 
  4  0 
 
  261
President_Obama_delivers_the_State_of_the_Union_address_Jan._20,_2015
Global Research Editor’s Note
Read this important article by Nika Knight, Common Dreams. 
Let us take this case to the Supreme Court. War is an illegal and criminal undertaking. Obama is a war criminal. Obama’s counterterrorism operation directed against Syria is in violation of international law. 
The evidence amply confirms that Washington is supporting the terrorists.  The US Congress has endorsed a criminal undertaking.
Let us support Captain Nathan Michael Smith in his endeavor. (M.Ch. GR Editor)
*      *      *
A lawsuit filed earlier this year charging President Barack Obama with waging an illegal war against the Islamic State (or ISIS) was met on Tuesday with a motion from the Obama administration asking the court to dismiss it.
In its motion to dismiss (pdf), the administration argues that Congressional funding for the war amounts to Congressional approval for it.
The lawsuit (pdf) was filed in U.S. district court by Capt. Nathan Michael Smith, an intelligence official stationed in Kuwait, in May. Smith has been assigned to work for “Operation Inherent Resolve,” the administration’s name for the nebulous conflict against the terrorist group ISIS.

“How could I honor my oath when I am fighting a war, even a good war, that the Constitution does not allow, or Congress has not approved?” Smith wrote.
“To honor my oath, I am asking the court to tell the president that he must get proper authority from Congress, under the War Powers Resolution, to wage the war against ISIS in Iraq and Syria.”
Excerpt of Captain Smith’s lawsuit
According to the 1973 War Powers Resolution, “when the President introduces United States armed forces into hostilities, or into situations where hostilities are imminent,” Smith’s lawsuit reads, “he must either get approval from Congress within sixty days to continue the operation, in the form of a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, or he must terminate the operation within the thirty days after the sixty-day period has expired.”
The Obama administration has justified the legality of the war on ISIS by relying on the Authorization for the Use Military Force (AUMF) resolution, passed by Congress in the immediate aftermath of September 11, 2001.
The single sentence, consisting of only 60 words, has now been relied upon by first President George W. Bush and now Obama to justify the unending wars waged by the U.S. in the 21st century.
The AUMF reads in full:
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.
Those 60 words gave Bush far-reaching powers to combat forces associated with Al-Qaeda, once his administration determined the terrorist organization was responsible for the September 11 attacks.
But ISIS is an enemy group of Al-Qaeda, and it remains therefore unclear to many legal observers whether the AUMF technically applies to the U.S. combat operations against that group. That has not prevented the Obama administration from pursuing and ramping upU.S. involvement in the conflict, however.
As Buzzfeed‘s Gregory Johnson reported back in 2014, “Several of the lawyers I talked to, officials from both the Bush and Obama administrations, spoke eloquently and at great length about the limits of the AUMF and being constrained by the law[...] But none of them were able to point to a case in which the U.S. knew of a terrorist but couldn’t target him because it lacked the legal authority. Each time the president wanted to kill someone, his lawyers found the authority embedded somewhere in those 60 words.”
It is this authority that Smith’s lawsuit is challenging.
And in fact, Obama appears to have recognized—at least somewhat—the lack of clear legal authorization for the conflict, as he has requested several times that Congress issue an official declaration of war against ISIS and issue a new AUMF.
“There appears to be no real opposition to the war effort on Capitol Hill,” The Atlantic‘s Garret Epps notes, “But Congress has not held hearings or a vote of any kind.”
Yet the White House has also argued that Congressional approval for the war is unnecessary, because the 2001 AUMF provides legal cover for it. Attempts to repeal the AUMF have failed.
On Tuesday, the administration argued that the case should be dismissed because,
The President has determined that he has the authority to take military action against ISIL, and Congress has ratified that determination by appropriating billions of dollars in support of the military operation. Congress has made these funds available over the course of two budget cycles, in connection with close oversight of the operation’s progress, and with knowledge of the authority under which the operation is being conducted. The political branches have exercised their respective constitutional roles, and their joint effort in support of Operation Inherent Resolve is precisely the kind of mutual participation that courts have looked to in dismissing war powers challenges under the political question doctrine.
The New York Times observed that this justification for the war on ISIS amounts to the “most extensive public explanation yet of [the Obama administration's] war powers theory.”
Yet as Epps wrote last month, “The relief Smith and other soldiers are actually seeking—and one they richly deserve—would be a decision by their political leaders to treat the Constitution, the nation’s commitment to military force, and the lives of American personnel as a serious matters, worthy of sustained attention.”
And as Earth Institute director Jeffrey D. Sachs argued in his remembrance of peace activist Father Daniel Berrigan, “America is quick to ask other countries to repent their sins and to remember their evil deeds. It is quick to haul other leaders to the International Criminal Court. But it is chronically incapable of looking inward.”

http://www.globalresearch.ca/historic-law-suit-against-barack-obama-white-house-argues-funding-the-war-against-syria-and-iraq-makes-war-legal/5535860

5 opmerkingen:

  1. Mag ik hier van de gelegenheid gebruik maken om Richard D. Wolff weer even te pushen?

    Gisteravond in Manhattan, vers van de pers, kijken nu meer dan ooit!:
    Global Capitalism Monthly Economic Update: July 2016.

    BeantwoordenVerwijderen
    Reacties
    1. Een voormalig ANC leider onlangs FIFA bons geworden doet alsof hem de betekenis van BDS ontgaat.

      FIFA: Give Israeli Settlements the Red Card. Israel is trying to persuade him to do nothing. But if enough of us raise our voices and make this a massive call to Sexwale, who has lofty political ambitions, we could push FIFA to hold the Israeli Football Association accountable. But he submits his recommendation this week -- we have to make this big, fast -- sign the petition.


      'As concerned citizens from across the Middle East, North Africa, South Africa, and the world, we ask you to uphold FIFA’s own rules and provide fair recommendations demanding the Israeli Football Association either removes the settlement football clubs from its membership or relocates them outside the illegal settlements. If the Israeli Football Association doesn't comply it must lose its membership with FIFA, as has been the case with other federations that have refused to accept FIFA's fair play rules. There should be zero tolerance for the six teams that flagrantly ignore international law and operate in occupied territory. Settlement football teams legitimise the illegal occupation and condone the suffering the Palestinians face as a result. '

      Verwijderen
    2. Als verontrust vegetarist... Vandaag op het museumplein: 'De langste vegetarische tafel' georganiseerd door de vegetariërsbond met als hoofdsponsor Tivall een Israelische firma onderdeel van Osem en Nestle ('1995 – Osem acquires 50% of Tivall. In this year, the food giant, Osem, expressed its confidence in Tivall by acquiring 50% of the company and establishing the Tivall Group within Osem. Over the years, Osem-Nestle increased its holdings in Tivall and currently holds 58% in Tivall, while Kibbutz Lohamei HaGeta’ot holds the remaining 42%.- Osem.co.il') Lees meer op de site van Documentatie en Onderzoekcentrum Palestina DocP en boycot Tivall 'In een telefoongesprek deelde de Vegetarische Bond mede dat deze problematiek weliswaar relevant is, “maar buiten ons blikveld valt”. Het belangrijkste voor de Bond is dat zij een “positief evenement” willen neerzetten. Daarbij knijpen ze een oogje toe als het gaat om de reputatie van een samenwerkingspartner, bijvoorbeeld Unilever dat immers zaden patenteert.' Opdat hypocrisie en zeker ook mensenrechten schendingen niet onopgemerkt mogen blijven ...

      *BoycotIsraelProducts

      Verwijderen
    3. "deze problematiek". Prachtig eufemistische toedekking van moord en mensenrechtenschendingen.

      Bij de Vegetarische Bond zijn de koeien en kippen veilig, Palestijnen daarentegen mogen
      gehokt en afgemaakt worden als de laagste diersoort.

      Verwijderen
    4. Nestle, Tel Aviv, Tivall, Toeval...
      Na 4x crashen (?) nog eens de link naar Nestle's entertainment propaganda kanaal waar zij het volgende beweren over 'land grabs' en 'community land rights':

      'In our Nestlé Commitment on Land & Land Rights in Agricultural Supply Chains, we adopt the FAO VGGTs, and commit both to zero tolerance for land grabs, and to holding suppliers accountable for community land rights. In short, we commit to source our raw materials from land that has not been illegally or unfairly taken.'


      U leest het goed... Ongeveer net zo goed als u de CEO van Nestle ooit hoorde beweren dat 'water is not a human right' zou ik er fijntjes aan toe willen voegen.
      Overigens hebben ze - Bloomberg- in April van dit jaar hun aquisities in Osem uitgebreid:

      Osem shares rise 22% in record one-day gain in Tel Aviv

      Nestle SA agreed to buy out minority shareholders of Osem Investments Ltd., Israel’s largest publicly-traded foodmaker, for about 3.3 billion shekels ($844 million), returning to acquisitions in the industry after a series of divestments.

      Nestle, Tel Aviv, Tivall, Toeval? Toon je solidariteit, koop andere vleesvervangers! (sojabrokken uit de toko zijn ook nog goedkoper;)

      Verwijderen