OFFLINE

Yesterday the House passed the act, “including a provision to authorize worldwide war, which has no expiration date and will allow this president — and any future president — to go to war anywhere in the world, at any time, without further congressional authorization. The new authorization wouldn’t even require the president to show any threat to the national security of the United States. The American military could become the world’s cop, and could be sent into harm’s way almost anywhere and everywhere around the globe.”

Earlier this week, the White House indicated that it would veto the worldwide war provision, not because it is a flagrant violation of the War Powers Resolution and the basic tenet of not investing dictator powers in a president, but because it could cause “confusion”.

“The Administration strongly objects to section 1034 [the worldwide war provision] which, in purporting to affirm the conflict, would effectively recharacterize its scope and would risk creating confusion regarding applicable standards. At a minimum, this is an issue that merits more extensive consideration before possible inclusion…” the White House wrote to Congress.

The administration’s problem with the provision has nothing to do with the fact that it would make Obama above the law and completely unconstrained by Congress, their only concern is that it would hinder alleged terrorists from being tried in federal courts.

“Section 1039 is a dangerous and unprecedented challenge to critical Executive branch authority to determine when and where to prosecute detainees,” wrote the White House, indicating that a compromise could be made that would ensure the bill’s passage.

According to the ACLU, “President Obama and his administration have to be commended for taking such a tough stance on issues of fundamental importance to the rule of law and our democracy.”

Well, there’s a first time for everything, but the ACLU has completely dropped the ball on this one. The Obama administration is opposed to the worldwide war provision not because it is an egregious expansion of the executive branch, but because it doesn’t give them enough power.

even if this does get vetoed (let's hope) it amazes me how eager legislators can be to sign away their influence in favor of executive powers. now, imo, we've already let the executive exercise WAY too much power over the course of the history of this nation. and honestly, something like this reminds of how the roman senators all signed away their powers to the ceasars.

OFFLINE

beuler?