Ted Cruz: Obama needs new authorization from Congress for these operations against ISIS

TedCruz:ObamaneedsnewauthorizationfromCongress

Obama’sexquisitepoliticalpredicamentinIraq posted

Obama’s exquisite political predicament in Iraq

posted at 1:21 pm on August 8, 2014 by Noah Rothman

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

The times, they are a’changing. With American air assets executing strikes on ISIS targets in Iraq, it seems like only yesterday that the administration was taking credit for ending the Iraq War and trying to erase any memory of that painful period. That is probably because it essentially was only yesterday.

For example, the administration has regularly insisted that it supports the repeal of the 2002 congressional resolution which authorized the use of force in Iraq. As recently as July 25, the White House insisted that Congress should repeal that resolution which provided the president with the legal authority to execute military strikes inside Iraq.

“We believe a more appropriate and timely action for Congress to take is the repeal of the outdated 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq,” read a July 25 letter sent to House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) from White House National Security Advisor Susan Rice.

The pursuit of the repeal of the AUMF in Iraq was an exercise in service to a political goal, of course, and not a strategic one. That AUMF, which remains in place is now, is providing this administration with the legal authority to not only execute strikes inside Iraq in defense of American assets and personnel, but to possibly carry out strikes on ISIS targets which do not immediately threaten American interests.

Of course, the Obama administration cannot say that. On Thursday night, immediately following President Obama’s address in which he revealed he was authorizing airstrikes in Iraq, reporters probed an administration SAO about what legal authority the White House believes justifies these operations. The responses were somewhat contradictory.

The official told reporters that the President of the United States enjoys the authority under the Constitution to execute strikes in Iraq. At another point, when asked if counterinsurgency operations inside Syria were on the table, the official said that American military authorization was restricted only to Iraq.

Of course, there is irony here for Congress as well. Those primarily Republican members of the House who supported contingency operations inside and over Syria in 2013 backed unilateral action by the president. They and the president knew that, if authorizing force in Syria came to a vote in either chamber of Congress, it would likely fail.

In spite of the fact that the administration lobbied heavily in favor of a resolution to use force, which did pass a Senate committee, the resolution was shelved when it appeared unlikely to pass in the Senate. Obama, for his part, had already essentially consented to allowing a Russian-brokered deal suffice as a resolution to the crisis in Syria.

Would a new authorization to use force in Iraq against ISIS militants meet the same fate? It’s possible, but Congress is certainly thrilled that they do not have to cast a contentious vote to reauthorize military action in Iraq. Obama, too, is surely grateful that he has the 2002 AUMF should he be required to justify future strikes against ISIS targets. It is, however, the height of absurdity that this resolution – opposition to which almost singlehandedly elevated Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primaries – is now making life easier for a lot of elected officials.

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Tags: aumf, Barack Obama, Iraq, ISIS, Syria

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

ObamatellsCongressionalleadersheneedsnoauthorization

Obama tells Congressional leaders he needs no authorization to act in Iraq

posted at 8:41 am on June 19, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

We may finally have a rare point of consensus between Barack Obama and Congressional leadership — and it’s an odd but fitting point. The President gathered the leadership of both chambers and both parties to the Oval Office to brief them on his thinking about US options in Iraq, but not to seek their approval for any action. Obama told them that he’s authorized to take action based on previous Congressional authorizations as well as the inherent powers of the executive branch under Article II, and at least for now it appears that Obama was convincing:

Militants from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) reportedly seized control Wednesday of Iraq’s largest domestic oil refinery, prompting a bloody showdown with Iraqi security forces that underscored the instability. The refinery represents more than a quarter of Iraq’s domestic refining capability, and could prompt fuel and power shortages across the country.

With that violence as the backdrop, Democratic leaders offered support for Obama to use a 2002 law authorizing President George W. Bush to take action in Iraq as the legal authority for new strikes.

“I do not believe the President needs any further legislative authority to pursue the particular options for increased security assistance discussed today,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in a statement released after the meeting. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has previously backed that position.

Republican leaders in the House and Senate notably did not object to that interpretation, and Sen. John Thune (S.D.), the third-ranking GOP leader, offered public support. …

[A] source familiar with the discussion said some of the leaders present “suggested the president already has existing authorities to take additional action without congress[ional] authorization.”

That’s quite a turnaround, and not just for Pelosi and Reid. Democrats have wanted to kill the 2002 AUMF related to Iraq, and perhaps even amend the 2001 AUMF for al-Qaeda passed after 9/11 in order to limit the reach of the executive branch. Obama declared the war in Iraq over, which had some questioning whether any more action would have any legal basis. Suddenly, that AUMF is looking pretty good now that it’s become obvious to all that the war in Iraq wasn’t over at all.

Still, it’s the right decision by both Republicans and Democrats. The War Powers Act grants the President a lot of leeway even without the AUMF for at least a short period of time, and in this case we’d be deploying force (of some kind) on behalf of an ally that’s clearly ready to fall without some assistance. Fighting that would have a weak legal basis and politically hypocritical after the avalanche of GOP criticism on how Obama handled the withdrawal in 2011. Since Congress has not repealed the Iraq AUMF in the last three years, and since ISIS arguably falls under the 2001 AUMF against al-Qaeda and its affiliates, suddenly demanding a reauthorization looks bad in both ways, and for no good purpose other than knee-jerk opposition.

This is still a bit dangerous for Obama. He went alone on Libya and it turned into a disaster that ended up entirely on his shoulders. He almost did the same thing in Syria, and that combined with the earlier snub of Congress on Libya doomed his request to intervene against Bashar al-Assad. Asking for a vote might produce the same resistance, but this is a very different situation. The proposed 2013 Syria intervention was an attack on a government we’d long recognized, and as late as 2011 described as reformist. This would be an attack on a blatantly murderous terrorist network related to the same one that conducted 9/11 on behalf of a friendly government. There may still be grumblings about a “lack of strategy,” but Congress would almost certainly salute the Commander in Chief on this request. And that would protect Obama later in case the decision ended up going badly.

Or, it would provide some political cover. As Instapundit reminded us last night, some Democrats have very short memories when it comes to Iraq:

I wonder if Biden has amnesia about this, too?

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Tags: aumf, Barack Obama, Congress, Iraq, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Nancy Pelosi, War Powers Act

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair