• Telodzrum@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    10 months ago

    This. A thousand times this.

    Both Obama and Biden have been more than willing to sign a repeal or massive overhaul of the AUMF, but both chambers of Congress and members of both parties therein are cowards who would rather cheer or criticize in front of a camera and microphone than perform their Constitutional duties of checking the power of the Commander in Chief.

    • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      10 months ago

      If they were willing to sign a repeal of it, nothing stopped them from simply not using it. The AUMF didn’t make them start wars.

      • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago
        1. Not a war.
        2. They have a responsibility to carry out such actions in the presence of Congressional inaction and cowardice.
        3. As long as the AUMF exists and is in effect, it is both legally and effectively the role of the President to act under its grant of authority in accordance with its purpose.
        • novibe@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          10 months ago

          “The law says we have to kill whoever we want! You wouldn’t us to break the law would you??”

          • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            17
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            10 months ago

            Cool comment my dude. But, I bet you could be even more reductive and purposefully obtuse if you tried. Give it a go; I’m eager to see you progress.

            • Promethiel@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              Shame on me for not adding to the discussion but the caffeine still ain’t hit. I just want to say for some reason that seeing a willingly obtuse clown be challenged to be even more so genuinely made me giggle for some reason. Thank you.

            • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              10 months ago

              As long as the AUMF exists and is in effect, it is both legally and effectively the role of the President to act under its grant of authority in accordance with its purpose.

              Nah, this bullet is an off the wall insane interpretation of the AUMF. They were 100% right to mock you for it. Not to mention that the AUMF is actually about September 11, and specifically textually so, not just in motivation. Did the Houthis plan, execute, or shelter those responsible? It’s been a huge stretch to even use it how it’s been used. It’s not in any way, shape, or form a requirement to go fight other random Islamic groups, whether or not they deserve it.

            • novibe@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              10 months ago

              I’m sorry but saying the president can, so they have to, is the most reductive thing I’ve ever seen. It’s the epitome of absolute ideology. Thinking a piece of paper absolves the genocidal actions of anyone……

              • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                Targeted killings of senior leaders in the Islamic extremist movement is hardly genocide. We have an actual fucking genocide in progress to reference and you want to sell us on the idea of drone strikes as genocide?

                • novibe@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  The attack was to support Israel in their genocide. It wasn’t an act of genocide, but you can’t deny it was an act in the aid of genocide.

                  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    No. How the fuck does a ship taking oil from an Egyptian port to Vietnam, just with an American financial stake have fuck all to do with genocide?

                    Just because someone claims they’re fighting something does not mean they actually are. Nothing about what the Houthis are doing is actually about Israel except their words.

      • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        Given that actual US Navy ships have been getting attacked and this is largely in retaliation of that, I think it stretches the imagination a bit to say that the US started this.

        • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          10 months ago

          From where did you get this opinion? None of the articles I’ve read about the US attack have mentioned an attack on the US Navy. The closest I could find in a search was missiles that landed 10 nautical miles away from a Navy ship in November. Which, at the scale of the ocean is sorta close, but it’s a stretch to call it an attack in need of immediate retribution. All the direct justifications presented by the US are that this is in response to and designed to deter their attacks on commercial shipping.

            • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              10 months ago

              This doesn’t seem to be in response to the thread. The Axios link doesn’t say anything about an attack on the US Navy. The second link has a mention by Biden of “US ships” (not Navy) as targets, but the linked story only says a British navy ship may have been targeted, but they weren’t sure. I’m well aware they’ve been attacking shipping, that’s not in question and not what I’m responding to.