You have to admire the USA in finding a way to turn a democracy into a dictatorship.
I do not believe the AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force), is even constitutional. But, no one is challenging it in it's complete context.
The US Supreme Court rarely comments on war. They did in the case of the Iraq invasion because several powers were considered legal within the AUMF. Cheney considered torture to be legal under the AUMF.
The Drone War. The use of the drones are stated to be garnered from the AUMF.
The AUMF is completely dependent on the people in the Executive Branch to the deployment of forces. As soon as the next president is inaugurated in 2017, we could be at war that very day. That is some kind of agenda.
ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8
The Congress shall have Power:
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress....
ARTICLE 1, SECTION 9
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
ARTICLE II, SECTION 2
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States....
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur....
I do not believe the AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force), is even constitutional. But, no one is challenging it in it's complete context.
The US Supreme Court rarely comments on war. They did in the case of the Iraq invasion because several powers were considered legal within the AUMF. Cheney considered torture to be legal under the AUMF.
The Drone War. The use of the drones are stated to be garnered from the AUMF.
The AUMF is completely dependent on the people in the Executive Branch to the deployment of forces. As soon as the next president is inaugurated in 2017, we could be at war that very day. That is some kind of agenda.
ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8
The Congress shall have Power:
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress....
ARTICLE 1, SECTION 9
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
ARTICLE II, SECTION 2
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States....
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur....
