Congress To Vote On Declaration Of World War 3 - An Endless War With No Borders,
No Clear Enemies
(May 18, 2011)
The legislation authorizes the President of the United States
to take unilateral military action against all nations, organizations, and
persons, both domestically and abroad, who are alleged to be currently or who
have in the past supported or engaged in hostilities or who have provided aid in
support of hostilities against the United States or any of its coalition allies.
The legislation removes the requirement of congressional
approval for the use of military force and instead gives the President
totalitarian dictatorial authority to engage in any and all military actions for
an indefinite period of time.
It even gives the President the authority to launch attacks
against American Citizens inside the United States with no congressional
Just to recap, because that was a mouthful:
Endless War �
The war will continue until all hostilities are terminated, which will never
No Borders �
The president will have the full authority to launch military strikes
against any country, organization or person, including against U.S citizens
on U.S soil.
Action � Full authority to invade any nation at any time with no
congressional approval required.
No Clearly Defined
Enemy � The US can declare or allege anyone a terrorist or allege
they are or have been supporting �hostilities� against the US and attack at
Authorization To Invade
Several Countries � The president would have full authority to
invade Iran, Syria, North Korea, along with several other nations in Africa
and the Middle East and even Russia and China under the legislation all of
which are �know� to have supported and aided hostilities against the United
House Dems protest GOP�s plans for permanent war against terror
Nearly three dozen House Democrats are calling on
Republicans to withdraw a section of the 2012 defense authorization bill
that they say would effectively declare a state of permanent war against
unnamed Taliban and al Qaeda operatives.
A Tuesday letter from House Judiciary Committee Chairman
John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and 32 other Democrats argues that affirming
continued war against terrorist forces goes too far, giving too much
authority to the president without debate in Congress.
Their letter cites language in the authorization bill
that incorporates the Detainee Security Act, which affirms continued armed
conflict against terrorists overseas.
�By declaring a global war against nameless individuals,
organizations and nations �associated� with the Taliban and al Qaeda, as
well as those playing a supporting role in their efforts, the Detainee
Security Act would appear to grant the president near unfettered authority
to initiate military action around the world without further congressional
approval,� Democrats wrote. �Such authority must not be ceded to the
president without careful deliberation from Congress.�
The specific language in the bill is found in section
1034 of H.R. 1540, which affirms that the U.S. is �engaged in an armed
conflict with al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces.� It also affirms
that the president has the authority to detain �certain belligerents� until
the armed conflict is over.
�Al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces still pose a
grave threat to U.S. national security,� the bill says. �The Authorization
for Use of Military Force necessarily includes the authority to address the
continuing and evolving threat posed by these groups.�
America Civil Liberties Union
New Authorization of Worldwide War Without End?
Congress may soon vote on a new declaration of worldwide
war without end, and without clear enemies. A �sleeper provision� deep
inside defense bills pending before Congress could become the single biggest
hand-over of unchecked war authority from Congress to the executive branch
in modern American history.
President Obama has not sought new war authority. In
fact, his administration has made clear that it believes it already has all
of the authority that it needs to fight terrorism.
But Congress is considering monumental new legislation
that would grant the president � and all presidents after him � sweeping new
power to make war almost anywhere and everywhere. Unlike previous grants of
authority for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, the proposed legislation would
allow a president to use military force wherever terrorism suspects are
present in the world, regardless of whether there has been any harm to U.S.
citizens, or any attack on the United States, or any imminent threat of an
attack. The legislation is broad enough to permit a president to use
military force within the United States and against American citizens. The
legislation contains no expiration date, and no criteria to determine when a
president�s authority to use military force would end.
Of all of the powers that the Constitution assigns to
Congress, no power is more fundamental or important than the power �to
declare War.� That is why, in 2002, when Congress was considering whether to
authorize war in Iraq, it held fifteen hearings, and passed legislation that
cited specific harms, set limits, and defined a clear objective. Now,
Congress is poised to give unchecked authority to the executive branch to
use military force worldwide, with profoundly negative consequences for our
fundamental democratic system of checks and balances. Once Congress expands
the president�s war power, it will be nearly impossible to rein it back in.
The ACLU strongly opposes a wholesale turnover of war power from Congress to
the president � and all of his successors.
Coalition Memo to the House Committee on Armed Services Regarding a Proposed
New Declaration of War
Comparison of 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force and Proposed
offending text (Here In The Full Text Of H.R.
1540 � section 1034) uses doublespeak to declare World War 3.
Specifically, the text uses the phrase �affirms� �armed conflict� which is the
terminology used by congress declare war in every war since World War 2.
Congress affirms that �
(1) the United States is engaged in an armed conflict
with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces and that those entities
continue to pose a threat to the United States and its citizens,
both domestically and abroad;
(2) the President has
the authority to use all necessary and appropriate force during the current
armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces
pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107�40;
50 U.S.C. 1541 note);
(3) the current armed
conflict includes nations, organization, and personswho�
(A) are part of, or are substantially supporting, al‐Qaeda, the Taliban, or
associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or
its coalition partners; or
(B) have engaged in hostilities or have directly supported hostilities in aid of
a nation, organization, or person described in subparagraph (A); and
(4) the President�s authority pursuant to
the Authorization for Use of Military
Force (Public Law 107�40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note)
includes the authority to detain belligerents, including persons described
in paragraph (3), until the termination of hostilities.
A joint letter regarding the proposed legislation has been
sent to congress condemning the proposed legislation.
All Members of the House Committee on Armed Services
American Civil Liberties Union
Appeal for Justice
Brave New Foundation
Center for Constitutional Rights
Defending Dissent Foundation
High Road for Human Rights
Human Rights First
International Justice Network
Just Foreign Policy
Leadership Conference of Women Religious
Muslim Public Affairs Council
New Security Action
Pax Christi USA
Physicians for Human Rights
Psychologists for Social Responsibility
Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations
United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society
Win Without War
May 9th, 2010
Oppose Section 1034 and Any Similar New Declaration of War or New
Authorization for Use of Military Force in the National Defense
The undersigned organizations strongly oppose the new
Declaration of War, which is in Section 1034 of the Chairman�s mark for the
National Defense Authorization Act (�NDAA�). We urge you to oppose the
provision and any other similar new Declaration of War or new Authorization
for Use of Military Force (�AUMF�) in the NDAA.
While we have written separately, and met with many of
you and your military legislative assistants, on our concerns with other
provisions of the Chairman�s mark, we are writing on this new Declaration of
War specifically because it is a provision that has received almost no
review, despite its likely tremendous effect on almost every facet of United
States national security policy. At minimum, Congress should hold hearings
andfollow regular order before even considering such sweeping legislation.
This monumental legislation�with a large-scale and
practically irrevocable delegation of war power from Congress to the
President�could commit the United States to a worldwide war without clear
enemies, without any geographical boundaries (the use of military force
within the United States could be permitted), and without any boundary
relating to time or specific objective to be achieved. Unlike the AUMF that
authorized the Afghanistan War and the pursuit of Osama bin Laden, the
proposed new Declaration of War does not cite any specific harm, such as the
9/11 attacks, or specific threat of harm to the United States. It appears to
be stating that the United States is at war wherever terrorism suspects
reside, regardless of whether there is any danger to the United States.
Under the guise of a �reaffirmation� of authority,
Section 1034 of the Chairman�s mark for the NDAA would give the President
unchecked authority�and if the section constitutes a declared �war,�1
possibly the unchecked duty2�to
use military force worldwide against or within any country in which
terrorism suspects reside. The proposed new Declaration of War would be
without precedent in the scope of war authority or duties transferred by
Congress to the President:
The President would be able to use this authority�or
might be required to use this authority�regardless of whether there has
been any harm to United States citizens, or any attack on the United
States or any imminent threat of any attack. There is not even any
requirement of any threat whatsoever to the national security of the
There is no geographical limitation�the new
Declaration of War has no specification of countries against which
military force could be used, and no specification of countries where
U.S. armed forces could be deployed with or without the permission of
the host country. Military force could even be used within the United
States and against American citizens.
There is no specific objective for the new
Declaration of War, which means that there is no clear criteria after
which the President�s authority to use military force would expire.
Although the proposed new Declaration of War lists �al-Qaeda, the
Taliban, and associated forces� as the �threat,� there is no definition
for any of these entities, which historically have been amorphous, with
shifting names, memberships, and organizational relationships.
If Congress broadly turns over to the President the
power that Article I of the Constitution provides to Congress to declare
war, it very likely will never get the power back. The broad terms of
the proposed new Declaration of War could last for decades.
Whether Congress realizes it or not, the proposed new
Declaration of War would authorize the President to use the United
States military against countries such as Somalia, Iran, or Yemen, or
send the American military into any of the scores of countries where
suspected terrorists reside, which include not only nearly all Middle
East, African, and Asian countries, but also European countries and
Canada�and of course, the United States itself. Under the expansive
terms used for organizations in the proposed new Declaration of War,
targets could include suspects having no connection to the 9/11 attacks
or to any other specific harm or threat to the United States. The
President would have the power to go to war almost anywhere, at any
time, and based on the presence of suspects who do not have to pose any
threat to the national security of the United States.
If Section 1034 of the Chairman�s mark for the NDAA
constitutes a declaration of war�which Congress has not declared since
1942�the declaration would trigger various exemptions from federal
statutes and even broader authority for the President to control more
aspects of both government and private businesses. The March 17, 2011
report from the Congressional Research Service, �Declarations of War and
Authorizations for the Use of Military Force: Historical Background and
Legal Implications,� lists all of the statutory provisions, ranging from
exemptions from budgetary limitations to new government claims over oil
and mineral resources, that are triggered by a declaration of war.
Of course, if Congress believes that there is a
significant new threat to the national security of the United States
that requires significant military force as a response, it can declare
war or enact a new AUMF, but Congress should, at minimum, follow what it
did in 2002 with the AUMF for the Iraq War, where it held fifteen
hearings on the proposed war and passed an AUMF that cited specific
harms, set limits, and defined a clear objective that, if met, would
effectively terminate the AUMF. A specific declaration of war or a
specific AUMF would better preserve the system of checks and balances
and make an endless, worldwide war less likely.
To be clear, President Obama has not sought enactment of
the proposed new Declaration of War. To the contrary, his Administration has
made clear its position that it believes it already has all of the authority
that it needs to fight terrorism. But if the proposed new Declaration of War
becomes law, President Obama and all of his successors, until and unless a
future Congress and future President repeal it, will have the sweeping new
power to make war almost anywhere and everywhere.
Of all of the powers that Article I of the Constitution
assigns to Congress, no power is more fundamental or important than the
power �to declare War.� We urge you to use this power carefully, and to
oppose this wholesale turnover of war power, without any checks�and without
even holding a single hearing. Thank you for your attention to this issue,
and we would be pleased to meet with you or your staff to discuss our
1 The most critical
sentence of section 1034 of the Chairman�s mark for the NDAA is �Congress
affirms that the United States is engaged in an armed conflict with
al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces and that those entities
continue to pose a threat to the United States and its citizens, both
domestically and abroad.� If �affirms� is replaced with the synonym
�declares� and �armed conflict� is replaced with the synonym �war,� the
result is �Congress declares that the United States is in a war with
al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces . . . �, which is very similar
to the declaration of war clauses of the eleven declarations of war made by
Congress, from the War of 1812 through World War II. Since 1942, Congress
has passed several authorizations for use of military force, but has not
made any declarations of war.
2 Although the question of
whether a declaration of war imposes a duty on the President to carry out
the war has only rarely come up in court decisions, at least one federal
court, in comparing the legal consequences of a declaration of war with an
authorization for use of military force, stated, �If war existed why empower
the President to apprehend foreign enemies? War itself placed that duty upon
him as a necessary and inherent incident of military command.� Gray v.
United States, 21 Ct. Cl. 340, 373 (1886) (emphasis added).
The bill has many other shocking elements as well, such as
the requirement that all arrests related to terrorism be treated as military
arrests (section 4), thus circumventing the constitution. Furthermore,
legislation introduce under the
McCain bill would make it illegal
for military prisoners in US overseas torture prisons to be returned to US
Indeed, the moment we all feared has come before us as the
Congress meddles giving the President absolute power over the military,
including the authority to launch military strikes within the United States
against U.S. Citizens. With the assassination of Osama Bin Laden on Pakistan
soil many of were na�ve in believing that the War on Terror would come to an
Instead, the reported success of the raid is being used as a
crutch to push through new legislation in the defense bills up for vote before
congress which literally authorize World War 3, which will be declared as an
endless war with no defined enemies and no borders. Short of committing genocide
the termination of the hostilities will never come and as such the war will
never come to end.
We have already learned that
officials falsified reports that Saddam
Hussein had weapons of mass destruction to justify the invasion of Iraq for the
�prize� of oil. If a whole government of top officials can not be
trusted then surely a single president cannot be trusted either.
We have seen
the U.S Government turn Nazi and buy and burn
every copy of a book that had evidence of a 9/11 coverup. The
Department of Justice has already published a
memo calling constitutionalists and survivalist as potential terrorists.
Is it not bad enough that
the U.S courts have already legalized the
abduction of U.S Citizens along with their indefinite detention and torture in
overseas prison camps? Or that
the U.S Government openly admits to gunning
down, kidnapping and torturing American college students?
Under the definition of the legislation, the President could
authorize the military to attack the ACLU building because they have supported
the �terrorists� by arguing for their civil rights.
It will not be long before they are assassinating activists.
The have already
labeled conspiracy theories as �dangerous thoughts that could lead to violence�
and have even
specifically called The Intel Hub, which
routinely publishes my articles, as an echo chamber pushing out
these �dangerous thoughts that could lead to violence�.
Uncle Sam openly admits to
turning its multi-billion dollar espionage
network against U.S Citizenswhich has produced such great fruits as
innocent activists exercising their first
amendment rights being placed on the terrorist watch list by the FBI and DHS.
Seriously, this is so out of control and it is only a time
that the World War 3 is being fought against you and me. Just remember as long
as we are in a state of war your civil liberties and constitutional rights are
pretty much null and void, only enforceable if the Government allows you to have
them. Even then, they can declare you as a terrorist, enemy combatant or a
threat to national security to revoke your constitutional rights anyway. Then
they can play the national security card when they are asked to explain their
All around this is rotten and the first step to getting our
rights back is to end the perpetual wars.
Contact your congressman and tell them No Way To this
Update � Here is some
corporate media coverage of this story, since some people like to see it in the
mainstream media to believe it.
Critics: GOP bill a declaration of constant war
House Republicans want to reaffirm war against al-Qaida, the Taliban � and
anyone else � with controversial bill
Republican chair of the Armed Services Committee, Howard
McKeon, R-Calif., revealed The National Defense Authorization Act on Monday,
which includes a bill renewing an act passed just days after 9/11, the
Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF). AUMF gave then-President
George W. Bush carte blanche to hunt down the 9/11 perpetrators and their
allies. The renewed bill, however, makes no reference to the 9/11 attackers
and some critics have called it �the first full-scale declaration of war by
the U.S. since World War II,� since it makes no reference to the capturing
of parties guilty of a specific act. Indeed, the section of The National
Defense Authorization Act under question here is called the Declaration of
The new language drops any reference to 9/11 and �affirms� a state of
�armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces.� The
measure also explicitly gives the president the right to take prisoners
�until the termination of hostilities� � something the courts have found
to be implicit in the current version of the AUMF, though the new
proposal could be seen to extend that power.
The argument from proponents of the Republican-backed
bill is that, in the decade since AUMF was enacted, terror groups with no
connection to 9/11 have come into the picture. Critics say such terror
suspects should be dealt with using law enforcement and that we should not
be affirming a commitment to war without specific aims or boundaries. The
bill would also give the president the ability to attack an individual,
group, or nation without Congressional approval.
The Daily Paul:
ALERT: Congress is About to Vote on Worldwide War Authority
The time is now to restore respect for the Constitution.
Tell Congress that a blank check on war isn�t just unnecessary � it�s truly
They have to be kidding. Congress is about to vote on
worldwide war authority. This was long on the Bush administration�s wish
list. Now, a few top congressional insiders see an opportunity to sneak it
in to a �must pass� piece of legislation: the Defense Authorization bill.
This expanded war authority would give the president �
any president � the power to use military force, whenever and however he or
she sees fit. It would essentially declare a worldwide war without end.
It is shocking that Congress is entertaining such
legislation at a time when many are looking to see an end to escalating
conflict and abuses of power in the name of fighting terrorism.
Oppose New Worldwide War Authority
A few top congressional insiders are aiming to sneak new
worldwide war authority in to a �must pass� piece of legislation: the
Defense Authorization bill.
This new war authority would give the president � any
president � the power to unilaterally take our country to war wherever,
whenever and however he or she sees fit. It would essentially declare a
worldwide war without end.
It is shocking that Congress is entertaining such
legislation at a time when many are looking to see an end to escalating
conflict and abuses of power in the name of fighting terrorism.
Take action! Tell your representative to oppose new
worldwide war authority.
GOP seeks to redefine war on terror
A little over a week after the United States finally
succeeded in its long-sought goal of killing Osama bin Laden, Congress is
set to engage in a debate over whether to extend the war on terror
indefinitely or leave in place legislation that could eventually wind it
Enacted over a lone dissenting vote just three days after
the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, the �Authorization
for the Use of Military Force,� or AUMF, authorized President George W. Bush
to use �all necessary and appropriate force� against those involved in the
9/11 attacks as well as anyone who harbored the perpetrators.
The new language drops any reference to 9/11 and
�affirms� a state of �armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban and
associated forces.� The measure also explicitly gives the president the
right to take prisoners �until the termination of hostilities� � something
the courts have found to be implicit in the current version of the AUMF,
though the new proposal could be seen to extend that power.
But critics say the Republican-sponsored measure amounts
to the first full-scale declaration of war by the U.S. since World War II �
at a moment when counter-terrorism efforts are succeeding, the U.S. is
withdrawing from Iraq, and about to begin a withdrawal from Afghanistan.
And, they say, it gives Obama and any successor carte blanche to attack any
individual or any nation without further approval from Congress.
Wall Street Journal.
Defense Bill Would �Affirm� War With al Qaeda
Even though Osama bin Laden is dead, Rep. Howard �Buck�
McKeon (R., Calif.) wants to remind Washington: The war on terror ain�t
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Howard
McKeon (R., Calif.) (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
And with that in mind, Rep. McKeon, who chairs the House
Armed Services Committee, is pushing for Congress to renew the 2001
authorization to use military force against terrorists.
The chairman on Monday revealed his version of the
National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 2012, and his mark of the bill
includes a provision that �would affirm that the United States is engaged in
an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces.�
Critics say provisions in the bill are tantamount to a
congressional declaration of war that could give the president broad new
powers over private business and government spending.
One provision seeks to bolster the Authorization for
Military Force, passed by Congress in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001,
terror attacks, which the Bush and Obama administration have used as legal
authority to conduct military and intelligence operations in Afghanistan and
other countries where al Qaeda affiliates have sprung up.
The American Civil Liberties Union and more than a dozen
mostly left leaning groups wrote a letter to members of the House Armed
Services Committee to oppose the �reaffirmation� saying that it essentially
declares war and gives broad powers to the president that normally belong to
America ~ Apostasy ~ Archaeology ~ Astronomy ~
Dividing Israel ~
Earth Changes ~
Economic Crisis ~ Edification ~
Europe ~ Gog/Magog ~ Health ~ Iran ~ Isaiah 17 ~
Islam ~ Israel ~ Kings of the East ~
New Age ~ New World Order ~ Obama ~ Psalm 83 ~ RCC ~ Religion ~ Science ~
Signs of the Times ~ Solana ~ Technology ~ Temple Mount ~ UFO