I have never understood the continued involvement in the middle east by the USA. President Obama has stated he was just carrying out Bush's exit strategy. Really. Bush was in Iraq illegally.
"You bought it, you broke it;" is not a strategy. It is an excuse to continue presence in Iraq to be positioned against Iran.
The same obsession by the USA Hawks in supplying arms to the Syrian rebels is illegal. There is no legitimate reason for the USA in Syria. There is no AUMF. President Assad is the legitimate leader of Syria and he is not al Qaeda.
The Syria rebels have no consistent leadership that begins a sovereign authority to the peace table. The civil war in Syria is actually an ethnic war. It HAS BEEN a war between Sunnis and Shia. The USA has no place in that except to end the violence by putting economic pressure on Assad.
The involvement of the USA in Iraq and Syria is nothing of McCain's CIA mischief. It is illegal.
...Enter the Supreme Court. (click here) Since the justices would deny standing to the bipartisan group of legislators on Capitol Hill who have failed to convince their colleagues to take their constitutional responsibilities seriously, everybody has assumed that the Court will remain on the sidelines as Obama’s war continues. This is a mistake.
Existing case-law establishes that individual soldiers can go to court if they are ordered into a combat zone to fight a war that they believe is unconstitutional. During the closing years of the Vietnam War, two federal courts of appeal carefully considered, and unanimously affirmed, the standing of soldiers to bring such complaints. Neither court backed those challenges on the merits, but the facts surrounding Richard Nixon’s escalation in Vietnam raised very different issues from those raised by the ISIS campaign.
The Supreme Court never resolved the standing question in 1970s. But, the case law allows a single brave soldier to bring the issue before today's justices. How should they answer it?...
"You bought it, you broke it;" is not a strategy. It is an excuse to continue presence in Iraq to be positioned against Iran.
The same obsession by the USA Hawks in supplying arms to the Syrian rebels is illegal. There is no legitimate reason for the USA in Syria. There is no AUMF. President Assad is the legitimate leader of Syria and he is not al Qaeda.
The Syria rebels have no consistent leadership that begins a sovereign authority to the peace table. The civil war in Syria is actually an ethnic war. It HAS BEEN a war between Sunnis and Shia. The USA has no place in that except to end the violence by putting economic pressure on Assad.
The involvement of the USA in Iraq and Syria is nothing of McCain's CIA mischief. It is illegal.
...Enter the Supreme Court. (click here) Since the justices would deny standing to the bipartisan group of legislators on Capitol Hill who have failed to convince their colleagues to take their constitutional responsibilities seriously, everybody has assumed that the Court will remain on the sidelines as Obama’s war continues. This is a mistake.
Existing case-law establishes that individual soldiers can go to court if they are ordered into a combat zone to fight a war that they believe is unconstitutional. During the closing years of the Vietnam War, two federal courts of appeal carefully considered, and unanimously affirmed, the standing of soldiers to bring such complaints. Neither court backed those challenges on the merits, but the facts surrounding Richard Nixon’s escalation in Vietnam raised very different issues from those raised by the ISIS campaign.
The Supreme Court never resolved the standing question in 1970s. But, the case law allows a single brave soldier to bring the issue before today's justices. How should they answer it?...
