Correction:It has been pointed out that my premise was incorrect. There was a separate AUMF for Iraq.
While our current AUMF authorizes the drone war, a separate AUMF would have to be sought by the president for any large scale action.
I want to thank those who pointed this out.
The question still stands on whether we can use this as an opportunity to talk about the state of permanent warfare in which we find ourselves.
There's a target I've had in my sites since I was 16:
The AUMF.
The Authorization of the Use of Military Force.
The AUMF which means that Barack Obama already has congressional authorization to do whatever the hell he wants in response to Syria.
He doesn't need to ask Congress for permission.
He inherited permission.
Granted, the law states specifically:
IN GENERAL- 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.I will point out four things.
1. The law states that this AUMF only works if the target in question had something to do with 9/11.
2. We invaded Iraq, which had fuck all to do with 9/11, and there were no consequences whatsoever.
3. While from a De Jure standpoint, the AUMF is limited, we have created a precedent where De Facto, any president can invade Denmark if he damn well pleases, because as long as the AUMF exists, no one's going to stop him.
4. If the president argues that an invasion of or strike against Syria is necessary to prevent terrorism, then the AUMF authorizes it De Facto.
So here's my questions, as a 28 year old, to a community full of people who have vastly more political experience than I do:
1) Can we use this situation as an opportunity to educate conservatives and independents about the dangers of the USA PATRIOT Act, and the AUMF, thereby building broad support for a repeal of those laws?
2) How?
3) What are the potential consequences of such a strategy?
4) Would this backfire spectacularly?
I'm asking because personally, I have no idea if this would be an effective strategy, or if it would blow up in our faces.
I'm looking forward to reading your thoughts, Kossacks.