Unauthorized

Dan Froomkin posts observations and quotations from various sources on the question of presidential authority to strike Syria.

1) Obama's plan to "defeat" IS is "falling apart".
2) GW obtained "explicit congressional consent" for invading Afghanistan and Iraq; Obama hasn't even published a legal opinion justifying his authority.  [ed:  He's using Bush's.]
3) In 2001 Congress explicitly refused to authorize pre-emptive war for future threats.
4) Congress is avoiding responsibility by not bringing authority to act to a vote due to midterms coming up, first waiting to see if airstrikes on Syria go well or badly.
5) The 2001 authorization (AUMF) applies to IS because it is "the true inheritor" of bin Laden's drive.
6) The 2001 AUMF does NOT apply to IS because it is actual a rival of al Qaeda.
7) In a speech last May, Obama said he would not expand the 2001 AUMF, but would end the war.

And then, there's this note from Anti-War News:  Our reliance on "moderate" rebel groups (not forgetting that they purportedly sold James Foley to his executioners), are signing non-agression pacts with ISIS.