XPost: ba.politics, dc.media, soc.penpals   
   XPost: alt.burningman   
   From: gitmo@not.closed.com   
      
   Shades of Bill Clinton.  Never tell the truth, always lie.   
   That's the first rule of a Democrat.   
      
   In his speech on September 10, President Obama laid out a new   
   strategy for dealing with the terrorist group ISIS (also known   
   as ISIL) in Iraq and Syria. The most notable element of the   
   newly announced plan is expanded military action: The US will   
   conduct a "systematic campaign" of airstrikes against ISIS in   
   both countries.   
      
   One problem: The president doesn't have unlimited power to wage   
   war as he pleases. He needs to have authority from the   
   Constitution, Congress, or both in order for military action to   
   be legal. The Obama administration claims that its actions   
   against ISIS are within the bounds of the law — but the   
   rationale is shaky at best.   
      
   On a press call prior to Obama's speech, a senior administration   
   official said that the president has "constitutional and   
   statutory authority to deal with the threat posed by ISIL" and   
   that the administration believes that the 2001 Authorization for   
   the Use of Military Force, or AUMF, gives the president the   
   authority to conduct military operations against ISIS without   
   further congressional approval.   
      
   In an email to the Guardian's Spencer Ackerman, a different   
   official expanded on the administration's reasoning:   
      
   "Based on ISIL’s longstanding relationship with al-Qa’ida (AQ)   
   and Usama bin Laden; its long history of conducting, and   
   continued desire to conduct, attacks against U.S. persons and   
   interests, the extensive history of U.S. combat operations   
   against Isil dating back to the time the group first affiliated   
   with AQ in 2004; and Isil’s position - supported by some   
   individual members and factions of AQ-aligned groups - that it   
   is the true inheritor of Usama bin Laden’s legacy, the President   
   may rely on the 2001 AUMF as statutory authority for the use of   
   force against Isil, notwithstanding the recent public split   
   between AQ’s senior leadership and Isil.   
      
   In the 2001 AUMF, Congress authorized then-President George W.   
   Bush 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." The law made no mention of ISIS.   
      
   At the time of the 9/11 attacks, ISIS, (which was then called   
   Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad), had no affiliation with al-Qaeda.   
   In 2004 the group swore allegiance to al-Qaeda and became known   
   as al-Qaeda in Iraq. However, they have since split again. In   
   February 2014, al-Qaeda announced that it had severed ties with   
   ISIS.   
      
   Even if the AUMF's exclusively past-tense language ("planned,"   
   "authorized," "committed," "aided," "harbored") can be   
   interpreted to include al-Qaeda's future collaborators as well   
   as its past ones, the administration is going even further here   
   and interpreting the AUMF as a granting the president unlimited   
   authority to use force against a group that is no longer   
   assisting al-Qaeda and is now its rival.   
      
   Essentially, the administration is arguing that the 2001 AUMF   
   authorizes the president to go to war against any organization   
   that ever temporarily worked with al-Qaeda, even if the group in   
   question didn't actually exist in 2001, and even if any   
   subsequent collaboration has turned to enmity by the time the US   
   takes military action.   
      
   Legal scholars have been quick to condemn the administration's   
   reasoning. Writing in Opinio Juris, Cornell University Law   
   School professor Jens David Ohlin concluded flatly that "the   
   9/11 AUMF does not cover ISIS," noting that, although ISIS is   
   arguably the "gravest Jihadist threat to the peaceful world — a   
   position once held by Osama Bin Laden," that does not mean that   
   ISIS fits into one of the AUMF's categories for allowable   
   targets.   
      
   Cardozo School of Law's Deborah Pearlstein, also writing in   
   Opinio Juris, agreed that the AUMF "does not plausibly extend to   
   ISIL." Harvard University's Jack Goldsmith, a former Bush   
   administration lawyer, wrote in Time that the argument's   
   "premise is unconvincing."   
      
   The Obama administration has long argued that the AUMF extends   
   beyond al-Qaeda and the Taliban to also cover "associated   
   groups," but including ISIS within that category seems to be a   
   dramatic expansion of even the administration's own definition.   
      
   Former State Department Legal Advisor Harold Koh explained the   
   administration's theory of "associated groups" in a May 2013   
   speech at Oxford University. He said an "associated force" is an   
   "organized, armed group" that has "actually entered the fight   
   alongside al-Qaeda" against the US and is therefore "a co-   
   belligerent with al-Qaeda in its hostilities against America."   
      
   Pearlstein pointed out that ISIS doesn't seem to meet those   
   criteria. "Is ISIL organized? Surely," she wrote. "Has it   
   'entered the fight alongside al-Qaeda'? Absolutely not. Al-Qaeda   
   and ISIL are fighting each other." American University's   
   Jennifer Daskal, writing in Just Security, likewise took issue   
   with the inclusion of ISIS within the "associated forces"   
   category, declaring it "to say it mildly, a stretch."   
      
   The authority that the Obama administration is claiming here is   
   incredibly expansive. As Goldsmith wrote, the administration is   
   basically arguing that "Congress has authorized the president to   
   use force endlessly against practically any ambitious jihadist   
   terrorist group that fights against the United States."   
      
   Al-Qaeda works with groups all over the world — the UN's   
   sanctions authority lists 67 organizations as current al-Qaeda   
   affiliates. So if the 2001 AUMF authorized war against ISIS   
   because of its temporary collaboration with al-Qaeda, even   
   though the groups are no longer affiliated, then it would also   
   authorize the president to go to war against, for instance, Boko   
   Haram in Nigeria or Jamaah Islamiya in Indonesia, at any time in   
   the future. It wouldn't matter if they are collaborating with al-   
   Qaeda at the time of a military strike, because those groups   
   were al-Qaeda affiliates at some point. It's extremely difficult   
   to accept that Congress intended to authorize wars of unlimited   
   duration in West Africa or Southeast Asia when it passed the   
   2001 AUMF.   
      
   For his part, Obama seems to have long embraced an expansive   
   view of the AUMF — the difference is that he used to be a lot   
   more troubled by it. In May 2013 he advocated its repeal,   
   warning that "unless we discipline our thinking, our   
   definitions, our actions, we may be drawn into more wars we   
   don't need to fight.   
      
   The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) used to have a   
   different name: al Qaeda in Iraq.   
      
   US troops and allied Sunni militias defeated al Qaeda in Iraq   
   during the post-2006 "surge" — but it didn't destroy them. The   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)