New Anti-ISIS Proposal Could ‘Redefine’ War Once Again

by Shawn Helton, 21st Century Wire.com:

As the stage is being set for another major conflict in the Middle East, there are some legal issues to consider in lieu of the Congressional gridlock that will inevitably ensue over Obama’s new war proposal. The apparent proposal said to be for ISIS, will be used to polarize the public – while loosening the definitions of war once again…

War resolution & military force

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 has been a source of debate with US leadership since it was passed. The ‘constitutionality’ of the joint Congressional law has been questioned by every US President since its establishment. The main impetus of the ’1973 WPR’ was introduced as a way to check the authority of a president when declaring war, stipulating that Congress give the official declaration for any armed forces combat mission on behalf of the United States. The resolution was meant to strengthen Congress’s ability to participate in the event of a declared war, granting that a US President can only place troops into a hostile situation or situations, “where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances.”

The 1973 WPR was passed as a reaction to the lack of Congressional oversight after Presidents John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, had kept US armed forces in Southeast Asia for almost a decade. The Resolution required that President communicate to Congress within 48 hours the placement of US armed forces around the globe. Congress would also have to grant an extension of war after 60 days. The joint resolution passed despite Nixon’s Presidential veto at the time.

Presidents have over and over used armed combat without a formal declaration from Congress as with Bill Clinton‘s bombing campaigns in Bosnia and Kosovo and troops to Haiti, Barack Obama‘s NATO backed intervention in Libya, George W. Bush‘s Iraq and Afghanistan campaign, Ronald Reagan invaded Grenada, George H.W. Bush invaded Panama.

In fact, the have only been five official declarations of war for both World War I and II, the Spanish-American War, the Mexican-American war and the war of 1812. Scholars have suggested that US Presidents have used military force outside the US between 100-200 times without declaration.

The constitutionality of the two most modern war authorizations have been debated over the past 14 years since 9/11. Both the 2001 and 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) have been cited during the 2003 invasion of Iraq and used for justification in the 13 year campaign in Afghanistan. While US reports could attach language from the 2001 AUMF to Afghanistan via the al -Qaeda networks said to be in the area, it was a deliberate distortion as to how the mujahedeen fighters became al-Qaeda in the first place, as we have long known foreign policy makers in Washington engaged in arming and training rebel forces in Afghanistan in the late 80′s.

The 2002 AUMF which was passed by the 107th Congress, was based on misleading and doctored intelligence reports which led to what many believe was a completely unjustified invasion of Iraq in 2003.

The deceptive intelligence fraudulently outlined that Iraq had been harboring Weapons of Mass Destruction, this of course turned out to not be true as the CIA and others were caught fabricating the story. The very nature of the 2002 AUMF, prompted many to question its validity, since its specific language to allow military force was proven to be false.

In February of 2003, US diplomat John Brady Kiesling, resigned, due to the “distortion of intelligence” and “systematic manipulation of American opinion.” This prompted a wave of criticism over the invasion and the so-called intelligence reports used to justify the AUMF and the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Here is an excerpt from the 2002 AUMF that clearly discussed pursuing ‘nations’ and ‘organizations’ linked to the planning of the 9/11 attacks:

Read More @ 21st Century Wire.com