Will they get enough GOP votes?

Will Gaetz and Lee be forced to leave the party?

And Gaetz?

“Reclaiming Congressional power is the Constitutional conservative position!” Devin Murphy, Gaetz’s legislative director, wrote to all Republican offices around 11 a.m. Thursday, underlining the text, according to the email obtained by The Washington Post.

The message, arguing for Republicans to buck the president, ended: “We WILL be voting in favor of H. Con. Res. 83, and hope you will do the same!”

[...]

Trump fiercely complained about Gaetz after aides informed Trump that his office had sent the email backing the resolution.

[...]

“The Trump administration was disappointed in the congressman’s vote and is hopeful that as the president’s foreign policy continues to unfold, he will reconsider his points of view,” Eric Ueland, the head of legislative affairs for the White House, said in an interview.

  WaPo

Does all that ass-kissing he did during the House impeachment hearings count for nothing?

Gaetz has been called “the Trumpiest Congressman in Trump’s Washington,” a judgment that he features prominently on his campaign homepage, along with quotes depicting him as “Trump’s Best Buddy,” “Trump’s Ultimate Defender” and “Rising star of the Trumpian right.”

All it takes is one slip.

Describing the resolution, Gaetz’s office used Trumpian punctuation: “It simply seeks to reclaim some of the Article 1 authority that we’ve ceded to the Executive over the past 20 years. (Sad!) It states that only Congress has the authority to declare war, and that Congress has not authorized military force against Iran.”

[...]

A staffer for Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) called Gaetz’s email “a dig at the administration’s lawful use of authority to kill the biggest single terrorist of the post-Cold War era.”

[...]

An aide to Rep. Jackie Walorski (R-Ind.) simply sent all Republican offices Trump’s tweet urging Republicans to vote against the resolution.

A senior White House official said it was “super uncool” and “quite unwise” for Gaetz to push for limits on the president’s authority. This person added that White House officials would not be returning Gaetz’s phone calls, text messages, “smoke signals or his kneelings in the snow.”

Super uncool. Harsh.

But can he still kiss the ring?  The next few days are going to be touch and go.

[Gaetz] spent much of the day Friday defending his vote and praising Trump.

  WaPo

Of course he did.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 1/13:  Mike Lee working to stay in the party.

Time to expand the articles of impeachment

The White House sent Congress on Saturday a formal notification under the War Powers Act of the drone strike ordered by President Trump this week that killed Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, two congressional officials said.

The notification, required by law within 48 hours of introducing American forces into armed conflict or a situation that could lead to war, has to be signed and then sent to Congress, according to the officials with knowledge of the plan.

Lawmakers expected the document to publicly lay out the White House’s legal justification for the strike on General Suleimani, Iran’s top security commander, who officials have said has been behind hundreds of American deaths over the years. But the notification first sent to Congress late Saturday afternoon only contained classified information, according to a senior congressional aide, likely detailing the intelligence that led to the action.

  NYT

ANUARY 4, 2020 PRESS RELEASE

San Francisco – Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued this statement after the White House notified the Congress of the initiation of hostilities against Iran, pursuant to the War Powers Act of 1973, after conducting airstrikes against Iranian high-level military officials near Baghdad International Airport:

“This classified War Powers Act notification delivered to Congress raises more questions than it answers. This document prompts serious and urgent questions about the timing, manner and justification of the Administration’s decision to engage in hostilities against Iran. The highly unusual decision to classify this document in its entirety compounds our many concerns, and suggests that the Congress and the American people are being left in the dark about our national security.

“The Trump Administration’s provocative, escalatory and disproportionate military engagement continues to put servicemembers, diplomats and citizens of America and our allies in danger. This initiation of hostilities was taken without an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against Iran, without the consultation of the Congress and without the articulation of a clear and legitimate strategy to either the Congress or the public.

“As Speaker of the House, I reiterate my call on the Administration for an immediate, comprehensive briefing of the full Congress on military engagement related to Iran and next steps under consideration. The Administration must work with the Congress to advance a bonafide de-escalatory strategy that prevents further violence.”

  Nancy Pelosi

That horse may have left the barn.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Wait till it goes to the Senate

Is Congress capable of rising from the dead?

Fascism is bipartisan in America

The fiscal year 2012 NDAA included provisions that appeared to both codify and expand a power the executive branch had previously claimed to possess — namely, the power to hold individuals, including U.S. citizens, in military detention indefinitely — based on the Authorization to Use Military Force passed by Congress three days after 9/11.

The New York Times warned that the bill could “give future presidents the authority to throw American citizens into prison for life without charges or a trial.” Not surprisingly, Obama’s decision generated enormous outcry across the political spectrum, from Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, on the right to Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., on the left.

[...]

In theory, the NDAA’s provisions only apply to someone involved with the 9/11 attacks or who “substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces.”

But now, incredibly enough, a bipartisan group of six lawmakers, led by Sens. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., and Tim Kaine, D-Va., is proposing a new AUMF that would greatly expand who the president can place in indefinite military detention, all in the name of restricting presidential power. If the Corker-Kaine bill becomes law as currently written, any president, including Donald Trump, could plausibly claim extraordinarily broad power to order the military to imprison any U.S. citizen, captured in America or not, and hold them without charges essentially forever.

[...]

[T]hanks to a combination of sloppy drafting and clear reluctance to take the executive branch head-on, Corker and Kaine’s proposed AUMF could [hand] genuinely tyrannical powers over to the president. Christopher Anders of the ACLU characterizes the bill as “a legislative dumpster fire.”

[...]

It was bad enough with the 2001 AUMF, when U.S. citizens could be imprisoned forever if they had some connection to 9/11. The NDAA made it worse by expanding this to any connection to Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and “associated forces.” But the Corker-Kaine AUMF would give the president the power to seize anyone on earth, including Americans, just by sending a piece of paper to Congress asserting that a person or organization is associated with an already-named terrorist group. And like the 2001 AUMF and the NDAA before it, the Corker-Kaine AUMF does not prohibit the executive branch from using the military to apprehend and detain Americans in the U.S. itself.

[...]

Kaine’s office protests that the new AUMF would encourage congressional debate about the president’s detention authorities. But it’s difficult to imagine this happening in any significant way, given the fact that it’s taken Congress 17 years to get around even to considering the problems with the 2001 AUMF.

[...]

Understanding the terrible potential consequences of this bill requires a close look at the relevant history and law.

  Jon Schwarz @ The Intercept

Continue reading.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

A glimpse into the future

Bingo

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

It Was Bound to Happen

Not sure what the people deserve any more, but yeah, this is underhanded.  Welcome to Congress.

Now That They Know Who's in the White House

In a stunning move, the House Appropriations Committee today approved an amendment to the massive military spending bill offered by Rep. Barbara Lee (D – CA). The amendment, passed in a voice vote, and would repeal the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF).

[...]

[The House Republican leadership is] going for a do-over on the amendment, insisting the vote was “out of order” and therefore didn’t really count.

This argument is based on the House Foreign Affairs Committee arguing that they have “sole jurisdiction” over all AUMFs, and that it was therefore impossible for the Appropriations Committee to repeal it, like the vote did.

[...]

The 2001 AUMF authorizes the president to wage war on those directly involved in 9/11, the interpretation of which at this point is that the president can declare wars pretty much at will and this amounts to Congressional authorization for all of them. This AUMF was used to justify the Afghan War, the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the re-invasion of Iraq after that first war ended, and the invasion of Syria both to fight against ISIS, and potentially to pick a fight with the Syrian government. It was also presented as justification for the 2016 US intervention in Libya, though ironically not the US-led regime change war in Libya, which was itself “justified” by a vaguely worded UN resolution.

  AntiWar

The fate of the provision is uncertain, and there’s more than one way that GOP leadership could strike it. Whatever happens, it represents a new frontier in Congress’ debates about presidential authority to wage war, and Minnesota members of Congress on both sides of the aisle are broadly supportive of the measure.

The language in the amendment, introduced by California Democratic Rep. Barbara Lee, is straightforward. It repeals the current AUMF, and the authorization would be void 240 days after the amendment is enacted into law.

[...]

There are important holdouts who could exercise their power to kill the amendment. Rep. Kay Granger, a Texas Republican, chairs the Defense Appropriations subcommittee, and she opposes it on the grounds that it would cripple U.S. efforts to combat terrorism.

The House Rules Committee could strike the amendment before the defense spending bill gets to the floor for a vote by deeming it “out of order,” if the GOP majority, which wields the rules panel’s power, decides to.

[...]

If the language does make it to the House floor, a lawmaker could file an amendment to strike Lee’s amendment, and members could vote in favor of that, or against the entire spending bill if there was enough support to maintain the current AUMF without any debate.

If the bill does pass with the AUMF language, the Senate would need to agree to it, too — another potential way it could fail, though bipartisan support exists in the upper chamber for a new AUMF. President Donald Trump could also veto the bill on those grounds, though the stakes would be high, since the amendment is attached to legislation that funds the entire U.S. military and Department of Defense.

[...]

Historically, the enthusiasm for a new AUMF or a declaration of war has been with anti-war progressives and constitutional conservatives, both wary of executive overreach. But recently, as U.S. targets have shifted to include ISIS and now the Syrian military, more voices on both sides have expressed a desire for at least a debate on a new set of parameters for U.S. military action.

[...]

Rep. Betty McCollum, who sits on this committee, said in a statement that she supported it “because it is long past time for Congress to have a debate on this critical issue. After 16 years, we owe it to the men and women serving in the military, and to all Americans, to have a full and complete discussion and a floor vote on a new authorization.”

[...]

Rep. Keith Ellison was more cynical. In a statement, he ventured that Republicans might be allowing the debate now because “they’re finally coming to terms with the fact that their president is an immature, disinterested, petulant child… even the most ideological among the GOP realize that giving a man like that the authority to make war when and where he pleases without congressional oversight is a bad idea.”

  MinnPost

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Wondering Where This Will Go

House Elites: But, But, What About Us?

US President Donald Trump has sent a letter to the US Congress, informing them about the US missile strike against the Syrian Air Force base, and stating that the US will take additional action to further the country’s national interests, the White House said Saturday.

In a letter to the US Congress on Saturday, President Donald Trump explained his decision to launch an attack on the Shayrat Airbase in Syria, claiming he was acting to avert a “humanitarian catastrophe.”

  RT

Syria has been a humanitarian catastrophe for several years. A better response might have been to accept refugees.

"I directed this action in order to degrade the Syrian military's ability to conduct further chemical weapons attacks and to dissuade the Syrian regime from using or proliferating chemical weapons, thereby promoting the stability of the region and averting a worsening of the region's current humanitarian catastrophe."

Right. It worked so well that the Syrian army immediately deployed two bombers from the airport that Trump attacked.

The US strike came before the UN or the OPCW, the chemical weapons watchdog, could investigate the incident.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has called for a House debate on President Donald Trump’s missile strike against Syria, saying Congress has a constitutional responsibility to discuss the authorization of military force against a sovereign nation.

[...]

“The President’s action and any response demands that we immediately do our duty,” Pelosi wrote. “Congress must live up to its Constitutional responsibility to debate an Authorization of the Use of Military Force against a sovereign nation.”

  RT

Congress has a constitutional duty that entails more than discussing it. They're supposed to be the ones ordering it, not the president. They've been allowing the presidents since 9/11 to simply run endless war on the basis of an authorization in 2001 to go to war with whoever was responsible for or involved in the 9/11 attacks.

Pelosi voiced her support for Trump’s strike against the Syrian government on Thursday, calling it a “proportional response to the regime’s use of chemical weapons.”

And that's all Trump heard. The "but" after that means nothing.

The House is meant to be starting a two-week recess, but Pelosi wrote to House Speaker Paul Ryan to request a debate.

It's a hell of a time to go on vacation.

Paul Ryan has released a statement in which he called the airstrikes “appropriate and just,” but encouraged Trump to seek permission from Congress for further attacks.

“I look forward to the administration further engaging Congress in this effort,” he said.

Yeah, Ryan, Trump doesn't even like you. He's not likely to give a shit.

 ...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

War in More Countries Than You Even Thought

President Obama has sent 39 letters to Congress “consistent with” the War Powers Resolution requirements. The letters are a fascinating read and provide a 30,000-foot view of the Administration’s use of military force abroad.

[...]

In 2009, the consolidated reports explicitly reference operations and deployments in only four countries (Afghanistan, Iraq, Cuba, and Kosovo) and in the “Horn of Africa region.” However, the President also reported – as he has in every biannual report since – that the United States “has deployed various combat-equipped forces to a number of locations in the Central, Pacific, European, Southern, and Africa Command areas of operation in support of [Afghanistan] operations and other overseas operations.”

[...]

The most recent report, from December 2015, explicitly refers to ongoing operations of variable intensity in 14 countries: Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Somalia, Yemen, Djibouti, Libya, Cuba, Niger, Cameroon, Egypt, Jordan, and Kosovo. The report also references activities in “various countries in the central African region” related to efforts to defeat the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA). Earlier reports on the LRA indicated deployments to Uganda, South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the Central African Republic, but, the letter says these details are now relegated to a classified annex.

It is impossible to say with certainty how broad the battlefield is, because (1) the nature and scope of deployments “in support of” operations in Afghanistan and “other overseas operations” remain obscure, and (2) we do not have access to the contents of the classified annexes that begin in 2010.

  Lawfare Blog

We. Rule. The WORLD!

Furthermore, the language of the reports has changed over time from operations "consistent with the law of war," to operations "consistent with principles of the law of war,” to the 2013 verbiage “as informed by the law of war.”

We rule the world according to our own definitions.

Oh, and one more thing...

The letters since 2010 reference classified annexes and entire classified reports. Detailing what? Details of operations, or perhaps even more countries on the list?

The individual reports are linked in this article, should you care to read them.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

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.