[Peace-discuss] No U.S. Drone Strikes in Mali Without Congressional Approval
"E. Wayne Johnson 朱稳森"
ewj at pigsqq.org
Thu Jan 17 03:36:32 UTC 2013
Bob,
When you get yer million trillion brazilian dollar coin, you can cut me
out $250 for that lost bet on Nader and the FED that you owe me for. :-D
That would give me similar personal enjoyment to that of winning the bet.
Actually I think that the $250 might please me more.
Congress will NEVER impeach the Obot, because it WANTS the
Executive Office to have king-like power. Voting to remove Obama or Bush
or Wilson for abuse of power is like a bunch of kids wanting to stop
birthday cakes.
They know that when their turn rolls around they will get a cake
just like their baby sister did.
Far more likely they would impeach Obama if he Failed to usurp authority.
On 01/17/13 10:47, Robert Naiman wrote:
> Oh, but the Constitution *does* provide for me to receive a million
> dollars. Congress can vote to give me a million dollars anytime it
> wants, just as it can vote to impeach the President anytime it wants.
> The two things are about equally likely to happen, so if I'm going to
> advocate for things that have no chance of happening, I might as well
> advocate for the one that would give me greater personal enjoyment.
>
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Carl G. Estabrook
> <galliher at illinois.edu <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu>> wrote:
>
> The Constitution doesn't provide for your receiving a million
> dollars.
>
> It does provide for the impeachment and removal from office of
> chief executives guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, as Obama
> obviously is.
>
> It's wrong to surrender to those congressional representatives who
> refuse to follow the law, instead of opposing them.
>
>
> On Jan 16, 2013, at 6:56 PM, Robert Naiman
> <naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
> <mailto:naiman at justforeignpolicy.org>> wrote:
>
>> Why not demand that Congress give me a trillion dollars? I mean,
>> as long as we're stipulating that objective reality is
>> unimportant as a guide to action.
>>
>> Not extending the drone war to Mali is a plausible ask. It's a
>> crime that hasn't been committed yet. Preventing it is a winnable
>> fight.
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 6:48 PM, Carl G. Estabrook
>> <galliher at illinois.edu <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu>> wrote:
>>
>> Why not demand Congress impeach Obama for violating the
>> Constitution & international law, & murder?
>>
>> That would do a s much good, and perhaps more.
>>
>> On Jan 16, 2013, at 6:28 PM, Robert Naiman
>> <naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
>> <mailto:naiman at justforeignpolicy.org>> wrote:
>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: *Just Foreign Policy* <info at justforeignpolicy.org
>>> <mailto:info at justforeignpolicy.org>>
>>> Date: Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 6:09 PM
>>> Subject: No U.S. Drone Strikes in Mali Without Congressional
>>> Approval
>>> To: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
>>> <mailto:naiman at justforeignpolicy.org>
>>>
>>>
>>> Just Foreign Policy
>>> <http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=L1xLKMLaHhV3ZLIuqi0s2TJhRzAi1y7H>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Robert,
>>>
>>> *Tell Congress to insist the Administration obtain explicit
>>> Congressional authorization before conducting drone strikes
>>> in Mali.
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>> Take Action
>>> <http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=P77yi6TJfW6O4Q46QjfOCtzaJIMQCl9N>
>>>
>>>
>>> France has undertaken a major military campaign in Mali.
>>> *U.S. officials are talking about the possibility of
>>> supporting the French military campaign with U.S. drone
>>> strikes.*
>>>
>>> Congress hasn't authorized US military intervention in Mali.
>>> In particular, *Congress hasn't authorized U.S. drone
>>> strikes in Mali.*
>>>
>>> *Urge your Representative and Senators to publicly insist
>>> that the Administration obtain explicit Congressional
>>> authorization before conducting drone strikes in Mali.*
>>>
>>> *http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/mali-drones
>>> <http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=eUlT3lInUmnnmhE8x1tSatzaJIMQCl9N>*
>>>
>>> The /Washington Post/ reports: [1]
>>>
>>> *[A senior U.S.] official said contingency plans for the
>>> use of armed drones were already in place and are being
>>> reevaluated.*
>>>
>>> Without explicit Congressional authorization, the only U.S.
>>> legal authority the Administration could claim for
>>> conducting drone strikes in Mali is the 2001 Authorization
>>> for the Use of Military Force passed after the September 11
>>> attacks. This is the legal authority the Administration has
>>> invoked for conducting drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and
>>> Somalia. The invocation of the 2001 AUMF to justify drone
>>> strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia is already very
>>> controversial. The invocation of the 2001 AUMF to justify
>>> drone strikes in Mali should be even more controversial.
>>>
>>> Indeed, on November 1, the /Washington Post/ editorial
>>> board, which supports the drone strike policy overall, and
>>> believes that US drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen are
>>> legal overall, wrote: [2]
>>>
>>> The /Post/’s reporting suggests that the administration
>>> is … contemplating the use of drones in more countries
>>> where jihadist forces are active, including Libya and
>>> Mali. This raises new legal and political quandaries.
>>> *The further — in geography, time and organizational
>>> connection — that the drone war advances from the
>>> original al-Qaeda target in Afghanistan, the less
>>> validity it has under the 2001 congressional
>>> authorization … most of the world is unlikely to accept
>>> an argument that the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks justify
>>> drone strikes more than a decade later in Northern Africa.*
>>>
>>> The /Washington Post/ now notes that U.S. support for
>>> France's military campaign could "*test U.S. legal
>>> boundaries*"; that direct U.S. military aid to Mali is
>>> "*forbidden under U.S. law because the weak rump government
>>> there seized power in a coup*"; and that some fighters who
>>> may be targeted by France are "*longtime foes of the Malian
>>> government and pose no direct threat to U.S. interests*" [3]
>>> - thus, they have nothing to do with the September 11 attack
>>> and therefore the 2001 AUMF can't be invoked to justify
>>> attacking them.
>>>
>>> If the Administration conducts drone strikes in Mali without
>>> new Congressional authorization, it would be a major setback
>>> both for efforts to bring accountability and transparency to
>>> the drone strike program and to efforts to protect
>>> Congressional authority to decide when the United States
>>> goes to war. We have a responsibility to try to draw a line
>>> in the sand in front of expansion of the drone war to Mali.
>>>
>>> *Urge your Representative and Senators to speak up.*
>>>
>>> *http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/mali-drones
>>> <http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=3FUFdlSISAzPzlByY9Mxk9zaJIMQCl9N>*
>>>
>>> Thank you for all you do to help bring about a more just
>>> foreign policy,
>>>
>>> Robert Naiman, Chelsea Mozen, Sarah Burns and Megan Iorio
>>> Just Foreign Policy
>>>
>>> *Please support our work. Donate for a Just Foreign Policy.*
>>> http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/donate
>>> <http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=SwZpe5QJZe61uFyQIo%2FePNzaJIMQCl9N>
>>>
>>> References:
>>>
>>> 1. "U.S. weighs military support for France’s campaign
>>> against Mali militants," Anne Gearan, Karen DeYoung and
>>> Craig Whitlock, Washington Post, January 15, 2013
>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-weighs-military-support-for-frances-campaign-against-mali-militants/2013/01/15/a071db40-5f4d-11e2-b05a-605528f6b712_story.html
>>> <http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=xq6v%2FTBuoGpYXBI8S85%2F7tzaJIMQCl9N>
>>> 2. "Pulling the U.S. drone war out of the shadows,"
>>> Editorial, Washington Post, November 1, 2012,
>>> http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-11-01/opinions/35503416_1_drone-attacks-drone-strikes-qaeda
>>> <http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=GHnTdIEtmFf2xzui1SY%2FmDJhRzAi1y7H>
>>> 3. "U.S. weighs military support for France’s campaign
>>> against Mali militants," Anne Gearan, Karen DeYoung and
>>> Craig Whitlock, Washington Post, January 15, 2013
>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-weighs-military-support-for-frances-campaign-against-mali-militants/2013/01/15/a071db40-5f4d-11e2-b05a-605528f6b712_story.html
>>> <http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=aSQHJvMm%2F78pndv9j9ngmtzaJIMQCl9N>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> © 2013 Just Foreign Policy
>>>
>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>> <http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=bDRtcPDYPXEHV57q9lD8MTJhRzAi1y7H>
>>>
>>> empowered by Salsa <http://www.salsalabs.com/?email>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Robert Naiman
>>> Policy Director
>>> Just Foreign Policy
>>> www.justforeignpolicy.org <http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/>
>>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
>>> <mailto:naiman at justforeignpolicy.org>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>> <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Robert Naiman
>> Policy Director
>> Just Foreign Policy
>> www.justforeignpolicy.org <http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/>
>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org <mailto:naiman at justforeignpolicy.org>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Robert Naiman
> Policy Director
> Just Foreign Policy
> www.justforeignpolicy.org <http://www.justforeignpolicy.org>
> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org <mailto:naiman at justforeignpolicy.org>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20130117/d82a3772/attachment.html>
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list